Gender Neutral Kindergarten in Sweden

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Yes. This. Precisely. The problem is not gender, the problem is injustice. There is nothing wrong with the category female or male. There is nothing wrong with the category boy or girl, man or woman, butch or femme, what-have-you. The problem is when we determine that we are going to ascribe 'good' or 'superior' to one and ascribe 'bad' or 'inferior' to another.

Cheers
Aj

This is not my most thought out response, so apologies if it's a bit convoluted, but I'm not saying that the problem is gender, i'm saying the problem is the arbitrary definitions assigned therein and the injustice that results.

Also, i'm seeing a lot of binary terminology here, and that really gets my goat. Again with the division into A or B, opposites, whatever. It's not true in nature or life in general so I dislike that it's being touted in a thread where my entire point is that it's ludicrous to think we can divide things into neat little oppositional categories and find a way for everyone to explore these categories without bias or judgment.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

This is not my most thought out response, so apologies if it's a bit convoluted, but I'm not saying that the problem is gender, i'm saying the problem is the arbitrary definitions assigned therein and the injustice that results.

Also, i'm seeing a lot of binary terminology here, and that really gets my goat. Again with the division into A or B, opposites, whatever. It's not true in nature or life in general so I dislike that it's being touted in a thread where my entire point is that it's ludicrous to think we can divide things into neat little oppositional categories and find a way for everyone to explore these categories without bias or judgment.

For the sake of brevity, I'm using binaries because--quite honestly--I don't want to type out every *possible* combination of gender expressions that human beings might be capable of. That strikes me as convoluted. So let's start here, what would a less arbitrary definition be?

Humans categorize. To use language is to categorize. The moment I call something a bird, I am tacitly making the statement that the animal I'm speaking of is not a mammal. When I speak about a land-mammal, I am tacitly making the statement that I'm not talking about water-fowl or water-dwelling mammals. I can't talk about water-dwelling mammals without making two distinctions, mammals and everything that isn't a mammal and water-dwelling and everything that is not water-dwelling.

Again, my concern is that the new normative will be "thou shalt not have a defined gender expression". Therefore, it will be fine as long as one is not identified with 'he' or 'she' in any kind of consistent fashion. What does it look like when we no longer have these arbitrary categories? What does our language sound like? How do we keep 'gender-neutral' (whatever that might mean) from being the new normative position?

Cheers
Aj

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

For the sake of brevity, I'm using binaries because--quite honestly--I don't want to type out every *possible* combination of gender expressions that human beings might be capable of. That strikes me as convoluted. So let's start here, what would a less arbitrary definition be?

Humans categorize. To use language is to categorize. The moment I call something a bird, I am tacitly making the statement that the animal I'm speaking of is not a mammal. When I speak about a land-mammal, I am tacitly making the statement that I'm not talking about water-fowl or water-dwelling mammals. I can't talk about water-dwelling mammals without making two distinctions, mammals and everything that isn't a mammal and water-dwelling and everything that is not water-dwelling.

Again, my concern is that the new normative will be "thou shalt not have a defined gender expression". Therefore, it will be fine as long as one is not identified with 'he' or 'she' in any kind of consistent fashion. What does it look like when we no longer have these arbitrary categories? What does our language sound like? How do we keep 'gender-neutral' (whatever that might mean) from being the new normative position?

Cheers
Aj

My apologies, i did not mean to imply that you list every possible combination. Believe it or not you and I are saying the same thing. My objection is to your example of female being emotion-oriented and male being action-oriented. I say, rather, that the autonomous individuals self identify however they wish, and the responsibility rests with them for how they choose to define the terminology they use for themselves.

I favor neutrality because it does not assume to know how you view yourself and how you present yourself to the world. Gender neutral language is still in it's infancy, yes, but it is being used. I'm not saying "thou shalt not have a defined gender expression" (although there are some androgynes who embrace that wholeheartedly), I'm saying that my interpretation of the word I choose to label my gender pantomime might not match yours.

So yes, you are correct: humans categorize. I support the gender neutral rearing of children because I would rather these children define gender, categories and their best fit in the world on their own terms rather than the interpretations that have been accepted without question for so long. Sure, it was great for men to be defined partially by their musculature back when we needed to throw spears to hunt, but we are no longer a species whose evolution depends heavily on our physical nature, I believe it is shifting towards intellectual evolution.

I understand your (and Heart's) apprehension that this will turn the judgment against those who prefer a sharply defined sense of their gender and the way they choose to represent it, but I can't see how that would be the case if all expressions were welcomed and encouraged from birth.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

I understand your (and Heart's) apprehension that this will turn the judgment against those who prefer a sharply defined sense of their gender and the way they choose to represent it, but I can't see how that would be the case if all expressions were welcomed and encouraged from birth.

This is why I mentioned my experience with Afrocentrism in the black community. Initially, the whole idea was that this was a way for blacks, if we so chose, to 'decolonize' our minds by focusing our attention on Africa and African culture. It has become a symbol of how 'black' one actually is. The more one assimilates the less 'authentically black' one is. To observe this in action, note how Juan Williams, or John McWhorter, Shelby Steele, Condi Rice or Clarence Thomas get called "oreo" or "coconut" or "Uncle Tom". Now, I am the last black woman on this planet to defend Thomas, but isn't it possible that he and I could have a disagreement, even a spirited disagreement, while both of us maintain our 'black identity'? I would say yes. In the black community the consensus may very well be 'no'. So now, being African-identified, if you will, is now normative and what is aberrant is to be American-identified, or black-identified, or--gasp!--assimilationist.

I am not saying YOU would like to see gender neutral be the new norm to the exclusion of a strong sense of gender. Rather, I'm saying that just like no one in the black community in the 60s or 70s *intended* Afrocentrism to become the de facto badge of 'real, true blackness' so too might it come to pass that being strongly identified as 'he' or 'she' will be considered a sign that one is not 'really' enlightened or not 'really' committed to equality.

I understand that this is a somewhat pessimistic view of human behavior but it seems to me that *everything* implies some form of costs and that unintended consequences do crop up despite all our best intentions.

I agree that now, as we increasingly move away from the basis of economic activity being physically based and toward it being intellectually based, that we have gained some new degrees of freedom to maneuver. But I still think that we will have the evolutionary hangover from the African savannah for millennia to come. I am one who does not think we can build just any old kind of society we might conceive of--not if we have any concern about freedom or equality. That does not mean I think that change is impossible, far from it. Rather, I think that there are changes that are easier and harder depending upon how much inertia must be overcome. Getting people to eat sugary or fatty foods is easy because our bodies LOVE sugary or fatty foods and will make us feel very, very good about eating them. Getting people to have sex is, again, pretty easy to manage. Getting people to *not* eat to satiation or to eschew having sex is a bit more of a challenge since we are now trying to push something uphill.

I think getting people to a gender-neutral society is probably possible in the long-term, having a gender-neutral society where that is not normative is an uphill push.

Cheers
Aj

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

This is why I mentioned my experience with Afrocentrism in the black community. Initially, the whole idea was that this was a way for blacks, if we so chose, to 'decolonize' our minds by focusing our attention on Africa and African culture. It has become a symbol of how 'black' one actually is. The more one assimilates the less 'authentically black' one is. To observe this in action, note how Juan Williams, or John McWhorter, Shelby Steele, Condi Rice or Clarence Thomas get called "oreo" or "coconut" or "Uncle Tom". Now, I am the last black woman on this planet to defend Thomas, but isn't it possible that he and I could have a disagreement, even a spirited disagreement, while both of us maintain our 'black identity'? I would say yes. In the black community the consensus may very well be 'no'. So now, being African-identified, if you will, is now normative and what is aberrant is to be American-identified, or black-identified, or--gasp!--assimilationist.

I am not saying YOU would like to see gender neutral be the new norm to the exclusion of a strong sense of gender. Rather, I'm saying that just like no one in the black community in the 60s or 70s *intended* Afrocentrism to become the de facto badge of 'real, true blackness' so too might it come to pass that being strongly identified as 'he' or 'she' will be considered a sign that one is not 'really' enlightened or not 'really' committed to equality.

I understand that this is a somewhat pessimistic view of human behavior but it seems to me that *everything* implies some form of costs and that unintended consequences do crop up despite all our best intentions.

I agree that now, as we increasingly move away from the basis of economic activity being physically based and toward it being intellectually based, that we have gained some new degrees of freedom to maneuver. But I still think that we will have the evolutionary hangover from the African savannah for millennia to come. I am one who does not think we can build just any old kind of society we might conceive of--not if we have any concern about freedom or equality. That does not mean I think that change is impossible, far from it. Rather, I think that there are changes that are easier and harder depending upon how much inertia must be overcome. Getting people to eat sugary or fatty foods is easy because our bodies LOVE sugary or fatty foods and will make us feel very, very good about eating them. Getting people to have sex is, again, pretty easy to manage. Getting people to *not* eat to satiation or to eschew having sex is a bit more of a challenge since we are now trying to push something uphill.

I think getting people to a gender-neutral society is probably possible in the long-term, having a gender-neutral society where that is not normative is an uphill push.

Cheers
Aj

I agree with everything you said here. Granted, I'm a bit of a youngin and have only been able to view the afrocentric movement of the 60s and 70s through the lens of white privilege and the pages of history books, but I can certainly draw parallels between that struggle for self-definition and the current dialogue about gender.

Thank you very much for recognizing that I am not trying to encourage gender neutrality as an exclusionary tactic. I agree that, as with all passionate movements, it is the responsibility of the revolutionaries to be vigilant and self-monitor to be sure we aren't losing sight of the big picture. I thank you for pointing that out, as it's something I feel I would like to keep in the back of my mind.

Am I correct in stating that we are both commited to the idea of a more inclusionary societal structure with it's accompanying set of terminology, despite our radically different approaches to the subject?

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Am I correct in stating that we are both commited to the idea of a more inclusionary societal structure with it's accompanying set of terminology, despite our radically different approaches to the subject?

Yes. We are certainly both committed to that. I would feel better if we centered our striving for social inclusion to be centered on the individual instead of a collective identity. I think it is sufficient to say, for instance, that regardless of my being black, butch, lesbian, nerdy I should not be denied the right to vote, a fair shake at a job, equal pay for my labor, etc. It should not matter how I identify because my claim upon those rights are not based upon my various identities. Rather, those rights adhere to me for no other reason than that I am a member of Homo sapiens.

My concern here is that we are going down a road the consequences of which we cannot be certain of. I would like a world where if some little girl has as her fondest desires for her tenth birthday, a telescope, a microscope, a chemistry set and a summer at Space Camp or some science camp, she will be encouraged in those ambitions and no one will tell her that she shouldn't have those desires. If her brother should decide that *his* fondest desires for his tenth birthday are a pony, ballet lessons and a flute no one will think him any less a boy. No one will call him a sissy. Rather, it will be that Jane wants, more than anything else, to be an astronaut and Jack wants, more than anything else, to be world renowned ballet dancer. Nothing more and nothing less. No one will think it singular or odd that the aspiring ballet dancer is a boy or the aspiring astronaut is a girl. What's more, when they are grown, if Jack bursts out crying during some touching scene in a movie no one will think Jack an odd duck. If Jane tries to be cool-as-a-cucumber most of the time, no one will think her an odd duck either.

That is the world I would like to see. If the only way to get there is through gender-neutrality then so be it. I remain unconvinced that it is either the only or even the best way.

Cheers
Aj

[BullDog]

I see a lot of talk in bf/queer communities railing against the binary. I don't see the main problem being how many categories there are. It's the differing values attached to them. Yes there are some problems with there being only two boxes- where you can only be one or the other. However what if woman and men were expansive categories, where individuals were free to explore and express what woman or man means to them? I wouldn't find the binary so stifling then. I think it would also provide a more natural way of recognizing more genders than two.

I am a butch woman. For me woman is expansive, almost limitless. I try to contribute to expanding what woman is and can be, not coming up with more categories. For those who have different genders I support you as well. However the problems I encounter as a butch woman is sexism and misogyny as a woman and my butchness either being translated into male terms or me being seen as "butch lite" because I am a woman. These difficulties all have a lot more to do with woman and man being narrowly defined and with man being valued over woman than it does with there being only two choices.

Butch and femme are transgressive, alternative genders but they are still a majority of the time viewed through the old value system and through a binary lens. We have come up with new variations of gender but have we broken down the value system attached to the binary? I don't believe gender neutral or multiplicity of gender in and of itself will break down sexism and misogyny which is what makes the binary so oppressive.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by BullDog

I see a lot of talk in bf/queer communities railing against the binary. I don't see the main problem being how many categories there are. It's the differing values attached to them. Yes there are some problems with there being only two boxes- where you can only be one or the other. However what if woman and men were expansive categories, where individuals were free to explore and express what woman or man means to them? I wouldn't find the binary so stifling then. I think it would also provide a more natural way of recognizing more genders than two.

I am a butch woman. For me woman is expansive, almost limitless. I try to contribute to expanding what woman is and can be, not coming up with more categories. For those who have different genders I support you as well. However the problems I encounter as a butch woman is sexism and misogyny as a woman and my butchness either being translated into male terms or me being seen as "butch lite" because I am a woman. These difficulties all have a lot more to do with woman and man being narrowly defined and with man being valued over woman than it does with there being only two choices.

Butch and femme are transgressive, alternative genders but they are still a majority of the time viewed through the old value system and through a binary lens. We have come up with new variations of gender but have we broken down the value system attached to the binary? I don't believe gender neutral or multiplicity of gender in and of itself will break down sexism and misogyny which is what makes the binary so oppressive.

Yes, that structural and institutional nature of valuation that continues to impact gender, race and ethnicity, and value assigned to physical and emotional "fitness." Those structures that continue to give oppression a host.

As Aj points out, there are significant physiological reasons to consider in how divisions of labor historically evolved along gender lines. Yet, in agricultural based society there was no "value" assigned to either binary distinctions. All members contributed to the continued existence of bands, tribes, families, etc. without designating one as better than the other. Most revered their aging populations and many also had places of honor for those that were "different" (two-spirit beliefs via native Americans and similar designations in early Egyptian society are only 2 examples). Both patriarchal and matriarchal societies have existed without the kinds of gender based hierarchies and value based distinctions post industrial era, evolving mainly via religious doctrine.

As we have moved into the information and technological ages and a serious time for gender to be illuminated beyond a binary, I see great opportunity to diminish, and eventually leavie value-based gender distinctions behind. It is possible. It won't be fully attained in my lifetime, but there is a good start. And this does not mean we have to become genderless or neutralize our gender presentations even those that might have attachment to what we have historically identified as male or female. There does not have to be value assigned to these distinctions at all. Or to variances in either. I think that there could also be breakthroughs linguistically so that we finally have language that supports this evolution so that we will be able to talk about gender without always searching for terms that do describe progression in gender identification.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

Yes, that structural and institutional nature of valuation that continues to impact gender, race and ethnicity, and value assigned to physical and emotional "fitness." Those structures that continue to give oppression a host.

Noam Chomsky (who I generally disagree with) has pointed out that, for instance, we place almost *no* meaning judgment on other arbitrary characteristics like eye-color or height. No one, at least in Western culture, would say "oh, women over 6' tall are smarter than women under 6' tall" or "men who are 5'6" are more prone to be criminals than men who are 5'10". We do not ascribe intelligence to brown eyed people, kindness to blue eyed people and dutifulness to green eyed people. Height and eye color are just two visual descriptors we might use to describe someone physically but we do not interpret that physical description to say something about their character.
I think we should be aspiring to a culture where the characteristics we *currently* use to ascribed character traits to a person are no more meaningful than height or eye color.

Cheers
Aj

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Noam Chomsky (who I generally disagree with) has pointed out that, for instance, we place almost *no* meaning judgment on other arbitrary characteristics like eye-color or height. No one, at least in Western culture, would say "oh, women over 6' tall are smarter than women under 6' tall" or "men who are 5'6" are more prone to be criminals than men who are 5'10". We do not ascribe intelligence to brown eyed people, kindness to blue eyed people and dutifulness to green eyed people. Height and eye color are just two visual descriptors we might use to describe someone physically but we do not interpret that physical description to say something about their character.
I think we should be aspiring to a culture where the characteristics we *currently* use to ascribed character traits to a person are no more meaningful than height or eye color.Cheers
Aj

Yes, this exactly....whether those descriptive terms have to do with gender, race, age, size or whatever else you can imagine.

We get hung up (individually and as a society), I think, when we attach character assumptions and value judgements based on physical characteristics.

[tapu]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Noam Chomsky (who I generally disagree with) has pointed out that, for instance, we place almost *no* meaning judgment on other arbitrary characteristics like eye-color or height. No one, at least in Western culture, would say "oh, women over 6' tall are smarter than women under 6' tall" or "men who are 5'6" are more prone to be criminals than men who are 5'10". We do not ascribe intelligence to brown eyed people, kindness to blue eyed people and dutifulness to green eyed people. Height and eye color are just two visual descriptors we might use to describe someone physically but we do not interpret that physical description to say something about their character.
I think we should be aspiring to a culture where the characteristics we *currently* use to ascribed character traits to a person are no more meaningful than height or eye color.CheersAj

Veering off-topic maybe, so I'll be brief, but: It's fairly well supported that there are judgments attached to each of the trait pairs/triads you mention. Taller women do better in business than short women. Someone's bias is behind that. Green-eyed women are tagged as jealous; redheads as fiery. To some degree you can never eradicate bias in anything. For whatever reason, humans consciously and unconsciously widely pair objectively unrelated traits.


[[I must tease you with this: Though Chomsky is in no way a prescriptive linguist, in the context I think it better to say, "Noam Chomsky (whom I generally disagree with)" >;-)

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by tapu

Veering off-topic maybe, so I'll be brief, but: It's fairly well supported that there are judgments attached to each of the trait pairs/triads you mention. Taller women do better in business than short women. Someone's bias is behind that. Green-eyed women are tagged as jealous; redheads as fiery. To some degree you can never eradicate bias in anything. For whatever reason, humans consciously and unconsciously widely pair objectively unrelated traits.


[[I must tease you with this: Though Chomsky is in no way a prescriptive linguist, in the context I think it better to say, "Noam Chomsky (whom I generally disagree with)" >;-)

Congratulations, you've just moved to the top of my short list as my preferred editrix for my book! (joking) Oh and thank you, the funny thing is that I had originally typed 'whom' and then changed it.

Oh and while linguistics is not my speciality, my guess as to why we categorize is that it is an artifact of language--a spandrel if you will. If it's true, (and I'm almost certainly wrong on the particulars) I wonder if this was a forced move or if it is possible to have language and *not* engage in this kind of obsessive categorization.

Cheers
Aj

[julieisafemme]

If my child attends a gender neutral classroom how do I explain Mama when she comes home? How do I explain TV, magazines and all the other junk that children are exposed to? How do I explain my partner's gender?

There have been studies done on race and how children process it and at what age they have an understanding of it. One of the most important things to come out of that study is that what a child learns at school is almost useless unless the concepts are talked about at home. That is where the most critical and important learning goes on for very young children. So I am wondering how effective can a program like this be? It will be interesting to find out.

This is a link to the discussion of the study.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=us