It is not an experiment, it's a life choice and a life ambition, a way of living. Not just for these kids then and there, but also for their parents.

See...I don't see this program as an "experiment" per say. I see it as a vast cultural difference between how Americans approach early childhood education versus how Sweden does. No Child Left Behind is a social construct - manufactured by a legislation driven by capitalistic neoliberals. (holy crap!)

And here is where my socialist undies get in a bunch. Sweden isn't out to propagate any sort of agenda. Rather, they are investing in their future by restructuring the social order of things. I think this is a marvelous step towards neutralizing the dominant gender binary that has suffocated America for eons.

...were we separated at birth?? :rrose:

"Always question the assumptions."
 

I have not seen one pre-school--now, granted I've only spent time in maybe 8-10 (and only on the coasts so yes, more progressive)--that delineates the sexes, the play, the toys in classroom set-up or on-going direction.

Of course, there are promoting or limiting gender-directed behaviors that the caregivers have and that could be modified through outside observation and feedback. Overall, it has seemed to me that there is a natural division in interest that the kids display, along gender lines.

But... what exactly IS the problem when little girls choose the dolls and such and little boys choose the trains and such?

I live in a very progressive city (Portland, ME), and I think it's fairly well entrenched here that if "Biff" wants to wear a tutu to the museum play, he gets to. (real-life example) If "Nell" is into her trucks, no one worries a thing about it.

What is happening in progressive classrooms like that that is undesirable or unnatural that could be done better? What change being engineered is desired, exactly?

I don't seem much value in this experiment, either.

I suspect it would only take one catastrophe (natural or man-made) to cause liberal societies to revert back to caveman dynamics in a wink.


"War-like games" aren't the problem - except when they are. The problem is gendering those games. Some of the fiercest warriors in history have been female. We tend to burn such women at the stake, stone them to death, or impose regulations like the US Ground Combat Exclusion Policy on them.

To quote myself "or maybe just write about it..." or "imagine" -to quote you.

So something you can't even articulate you want implimented in a pre-schools curriculum? Yes, imagine...

That, of course, is another topic altogether that causes me to get incredibly worked up, and would be a fantastic discussion for another thread, if you feel so inclined. I think you have a lot of good thoughts about these things and that would be a good conversation.

I also have a copy of a U.S. government report from the 1930s that says gay men make better soldiers. Clearly, that one wasn't widely circulated.

LOL, yeah, that's it.

I'll have to reread. I did not get that this was a long-established model, extending out to more levels of society. I thought it was a new program that was nowhere as developed as you describe it.

I'm not sure how that relates to what you were quoting so I don't know how to respond. Can you connect it for me?




I don't think war-like games are the problem either. But to acknowledge the historical infelicities and get back into now, we can start making female toy soldiers.

There. Nice, practical, sensible move that can be implemented now. Not what we imagine... or what we want but can't articulate... or what we implement in children's education without clearly defined and concrete details, and without defining our assumptions.

The class rooms in public schools are fairly PC these days. It's what goes on in the school yard....

Yes.... There is a division of interest along sex lines - not gender lines. (I'm a gender deconstructionist.)

You and I may be lucky that our kids fit sex-based, gender expectations. Not all parents and kids are so lucky....

The problem is that the options are artificially limited whether a child opts to exercise them or not.

You're regionally blessed.

As ScandalAndy suggested, that's a whole other thread.

It's not the toys or the pronouns, it's the value placed upon them... It's not whether a little girl/boy plays with dolls/trucks, it's whether playing with a doll is as valuable and meaningful as playing with a truck, it's whether wearing glitter is as important as wearing a sherrif's badge. It's not war-games OR playing house, it's both (and neither for those who want to draw). It's not male or female essentialism or constructionism, it's whether feminine/masculine and every permutation/blend of these energies/performances are equally valued and necessary to society.

And I don't really have an opinion about the school in Sweden, as long as the kids are safe, happy, have healthy snacks and take naps.

Heart

ETA: When a little boy plays with dolls and wears a tutu it causes more angst then when a little girl plays with trucks or wears a tie, because "girl things" are less valued, have less status and currency, than "boy things." That's why sissies are more closely policed than tomboys. So I guess my question is: does the Swedish school experiment have an impact on the valuing of gender tropes?

Didn't say long established, that was your word, and also I didn't describe it.
But yes, definitely extending to more levels, if not of society so of these peoples lives.

And with this being paid for by the government and supported by the national curriculum for schools and pre-school... Our government doesn't pay for experiments.

I think you may be thinking in terms of micro changes while I'm referring to macro change. As in a cultural metanoia (def. A fundamental change in beliefs; a transformative change of heart; a conversion).

Western culture consumes incremental progress and commodifies it, thereby taking the soul out of it, leaving things pretty much as they were before. (This is a whole other thread, too.) Heathcare was a progressive break through until the insurance companies turned it into a profit making enterprise that favored some while excluding far too many. "Progress" is not always progress for all.

EUREKA ! ! ! ....Female toy soldiers, at last, a solution. :praying:

I mean no insult, but it's going to take hella more than female toy soldiers.

Well said.... It's not about having a gender neutral classroom - it's about having a multi-gendered classroom that nurtures all gender expression.

Welcome to the site, InsatiableHeart!

Thank you and that is exactly my point.

:eyebat: Thank you! I am finding it to be quite interesting so far.

I do not understand why you believe that a gender neutral classroom does not validate multiple gendered experiences...

Now I want to have another baby just to raise it in a gender neutral environment. I would name it "Elephant". Too bad I don't have a uterus anymore. :seeingstars:

As a teacher I am not in the classroom to validate or invalidate anyone or any gender. I am there to teach children how to count, spell and read ect. I think we are placing too much emphasis on peoples genders. I am sure this will be taken wrong and I apologize if it is but, what does it matter what someone's gender is especially in 2nd grade? We need to teach children and adults alike to respect people not their gender. Once again this is my opinion.

I would suggest that this model never did exist in post war America except on TV (think Father Knows Best and Leave It To Beaver). ALL the women (old enough) I knew as a kid worked during WWII. Where do you think Rosie the Riveter came from? During the war women did every job that men did before the war. It was the patriotic thing to do. The war effort was vital. Women earned a paycheck and took care of the house and kids. After the war many were not going to back to the housewife only. This time frame was the beginning of the civil rights movement for both women and blacks. 'Women's lib' started in this time. The GI Bill happened and men coming home from the war went to college, not work, paid for by the government. That is how my Dad got his education. My parents bought their first house by way of the GI Bill. My mother worked on occasion and her mother always worked.

Any way.......this so called 'american dream' with a stay at home Mom, a working Dad and 2.5 children during the 50's was not the reality in most of the country. TV is where that dream came from.

A is for Apple, B is for Boy... a gendered term is right in the beginning of the ABCs, but that is not the point I'm trying to prove, it just happened to pop into my head.



When you address your class, do you say "alright boys and girls, it's time for snack"? Are boy's cubbies and coathooks delineated by nametags with trucks and frogs on them, while the girls' tags have butterflies and flowers? Do any of your students have "boyfriends" or "girlfriends"? I think gender and its associated roles are present in your classroom whether you know it or not. You are a teacher, and what you teach is very important to youngsters (i commend you for being a teacher, it is a difficult and absolutely necessary job). I remember my 2nd grade teacher, Mrs. Love, she taught our class about diabetes because we were curious about why she needed to use that plastic box on her finger every day. Treating it as something normal that she did was enough to de-mystify it for us, help us accept it, and educate us about something that we could have viewed as scary (blood = scary for some people). Along those lines, I absolutely think teachers should validate all genders while teaching genderless concepts such as mathematics and language.

As a side note, all language (with the exception of english) is gendered. Crazy!

You are right, it doesn't matter what gender anyone is, but that's a concept that needs to be taught.

As being someone that has seen more than a few of these types of "gender neutral" experimentations over a span of 40 years, I can't agree more with you. It is not about gender, it is about what is valued and de-valued within a society.

Thankfully, I was gieven Tonka Trucks and baby dolls as a kid not based on anything other than the fact that I liked both. My choices were accepted and validated based upon what I enjoyed, not my gender or any fear of my not "playing right" according to my being female. Now, this all changed outside of my home as I grew up.

The valuing of male gender tropes outside of my home began my experience of learning that anything female was not as good as male. The focus on gender neutrality in terms of child's play is not the issue at all. To think that these kids will somehow miss gender discrimination and de-valuation in the future is wrong until or unless male and female (and all variations) become equal as social currency.

That's interesting... what exactly is "gender-neutral," how is it achieved, maintained? Does it validate multiple gender experiences while reducing stereotypes or does it erase/minimize/police gender? Is it liberating or stifling?

I agree with you to some extent, my nana was a riveter working in a factory making planes before she was married. After she was married she was a stay at home mom and my grandfather was the sole breadwinner in the house. My mother went to catholic school and was raised to be a good housewife. Her interest in circuitboards and science was discouraged. I feel that you raise a valid point about the TV dream of the white picket fence, but I also think many people aspired to achieve that. My family also has the intersectionality of being first generation Americans, coupled with rural geographic location and strong religious influence. I'm not sure how much of a role that played in all of this, but I'm sure it shouldn't be discounted outright.

it might be worthwhile to examine the trend of women enrolling in college, which skyrocketed in the 1920s and early 30s, only to plummet during the depression and never really regain momentum. There's a really interesting book that examines women and high education, feel free to check it out: [ame="http://www.amazon.com/College-Girls-Bluestockings-Kittens-Co-eds/dp/0393327159/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1309296302&sr=8-1"]http://www.amazon.com/College-Girls-Bluestockings-Kittens-Co-eds/dp/0393327159/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1309296302&sr=8-1[/ame]

I might go so far as to say this isn't really about insulating children from gender discrimination or devaluation, so much as raising them so that they can objectively recognize and value these things on their own terms.

Remember that we are discussing a kindergarten classroom here...not a college sociology experiment. In my opinion these children's experiences are validated 150% simply by allowing them the freedom to create their own identities and "roles" within the safety of their classroom. By negating gender oriented language/toys/stereotypical representations of boys and girls, the children are afforded the opportunity to create...to actively engage in an etherial realm uninhibited by societal constraints that have been punctuated by the male-female dichotomy. Play, in all its magnificent forms, allows the child to cultivate a healthy curiosity that in turn (over time - via life experiences) metamorphosizes into an ideology.

Really now? I would say that it's the fundamental question to be answered in the context of this thread. It's stepping back and questioning your assumptions.

Either it's new and thus an experiment; or, it's established enough to support your claims about its value to more levels. Sounds like it's still experimental to me (1 year) and so who knows what its relationship will be to anything else.

I'm only insulted if you sincerely thought that I meant female toy soldiers were the full solution. I'll gladly receive your remarks as condescension. >:-)

But, at what point can we march the female toy soldiers in? You speak in ideals. Wonderful. Give me something concrete that backs up your flowery language. What would you DO?

Just to throw a real zinger into it:

I'm one of the people who creates the instructional design for our nation's--our children's--textbooks. Plus then write and edit, too. Suggest design, and approve. Gosh, maybe that's why I'm tied to the concrete. >:-)

Recently, I had a really terrible job as managing editor for a company that publishes high-stakes assessment--precisely the tests that calibrate for NCLB. (Or, No Child Left Unturned, as I affectionately call it. Retch.)

The stories I could tell. Wow.

Anyway, I'm enjoying this very much and am pleased to have those in Sweden here to discuss this, and everyone else, of course.

tap

I would love to hear the stories and perspectives you have been privy to in your profession. Many years ago, I developed curriculum and the politics surrounding me were amazing and more often than not, alarming as applied to what, how and why is adopted by public school boards.

What is was like in those respects many years ago, has continued on in the same direction.

There's a book about the politics of American education, called The Language Police. It's about 10 years old. It's a little repetitive but at the same time, it is a great way to get a kick in the head about what really goes on politically w.r.t. what our children read (in any subject).


I think it probably counts as "a whole 'nother thread." >:-)

Definitely separated at birth! :bunchflowers:

I found it was very helpful to me, working in textbook publishing, to get near an actual child upon occasion.