Gender Neutral Kindergarten in Sweden

[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