Gender Neutral Kindergarten in Sweden

[ScandalAndy]

I came across this article and thought it was fantastic that Sweden is liberal enough to allow this school to exist, and that the children are free to exist in a non-gendered environment. Just curious what you all think about this.

At the "Egalia" preschool, staff avoid using words like "him" or "her" and address the 33 kids as "friends" rather than girls and boys.

From the color and placement of toys to the choice of books, every detail has been carefully planned to make sure the children don't fall into gender stereotypes.

"Society expects girls to be girlie, nice and pretty and boys to be manly, rough and outgoing," says Jenny Johnsson, a 31-year-old teacher. "Egalia gives them a fantastic opportunity to be whoever they want to be."

The taxpayer-funded preschool which opened last year in the liberal Sodermalm district of Stockholm for kids aged 1 to 6 is among the most radical examples of Sweden's efforts to engineer equality between the sexes from childhood onward.

Breaking down gender roles is a core mission in the national curriculum for preschools, underpinned by the theory that even in highly egalitarian-minded Sweden, society gives boys an unfair edge.

To even things out, many preschools have hired "gender pedagogues" to help staff identify language and behavior that risk reinforcing stereotypes.

Some parents worry things have gone too far. An obsession with obliterating gender roles, they say, could make the children confused and ill-prepared to face the world outside kindergarten.

Full article text here:

http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle...rls_equal.html

[Novelafemme]

I have to agree (somewhat) with the last sentence. While the concept itself is quite lovely, in order for a gender neutral theme to remain consistent it needs to be actively engaged in a child's life for longer than 9 months to a year of kindergarten. If gender classifications were nullified for say grades K-3 the impact could have a much grander and long-lasting effect. I love it, none the less!

[amnesia.bfp]

Where do I live?

I can't remember.

Who am I?

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by amnesia.bfp

Where do I live?

I can't remember.

Who am I?

Thanks, that's ten seconds of my life I will never get back.

[cane]

Originally Posted by Novelafemme

I have to agree (somewhat) with the last sentence. While the concept itself is quite lovely, in order for a gender neutral theme to remain consistent it needs to be actively engaged in a child's life for longer than 9 months to a year of kindergarten. If gender classifications were nullified for say grades K-3 the impact could have a much grander and long-lasting effect. I love it, none the less!

Some confusion here I think...

You attend Kindergarten, or Pre-school, as it's called in Sweden, from the age of 1 year to the age of 6, not 9 months.

[Linus]

Originally Posted by Novelafemme

I have to agree (somewhat) with the last sentence. While the concept itself is quite lovely, in order for a gender neutral theme to remain consistent it needs to be actively engaged in a child's life for longer than 9 months to a year of kindergarten. If gender classifications were nullified for say grades K-3 the impact could have a much grander and long-lasting effect. I love it, none the less!

Originally Posted by cane

Some confusion here I think...

You attend Kindergarten, or Pre-school, as it's called in Sweden, from the age of 1 year to the age of 6, not 9 months.

I think Novelafemme said that it's the time in school, not when it's started.

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

I came across this article and thought it was fantastic that Sweden is liberal enough to allow this school to exist, and that the children are free to exist in a non-gendered environment. Just curious what you all think about this.

This is goofy.

The Swedes are confusing sex with gender. (A common mistake these days.)

This is erasure, not correction. There is nothing wrong with the terms "her" or "him". The problem resides in gender constructs.

Words can be manufactured, manipulated, misapplied and misappropriated, but bias resides in the heart not on the tongue.

[Novelafemme]

Nixing traditional gender roles, as applicable to small children, is what they are getting at. At least that is how I read it. The language is being adapted to read as "friends" rather than "him/her, etc" so as to accommodate the small people. The theoretical concept of creating a gender neutral space for children to experience life is fascinating to me. The logistics would be a bit tricky, but it looks like they are doing a great job!

[Novelafemme]

"Words can be manufactured, manipulated, misapplied and misappropriated, but bias resides in the heart not on the tongue."

Beautiful statement, truly...but try to keep in mind that at this age children are not biased. Biases come a bit later in life after (as you stated) language has been misappropriated and gendered.

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by Novelafemme

"Words can be manufactured, manipulated, misapplied and misappropriated, but bias resides in the heart not on the tongue."

Beautiful statement, truly...but try to keep in mind that at this age children are not biased. Biases come a bit later in life after (as you stated) language has been misappropriated and gendered.

Sure kids are "biased" at a young age - as young as 3-5 years old.

My EX's 4 year old called me, "Mr. Chazz", from day one.

Although the following excerpt is about race, not gender constructs, it makes the case for how children are, in fact, biased at a very young age.



Children Are Not Colorblind: How Young Children Learn Race

"Toddlers as young as two years use racial categories to reason about people’s behaviors (Hirschfeld, 2008), and numerous studies show that three-to five-year-olds not only categorize people by race, but express bias based on race (Aboud, 2008; Hirschfeld, 2008; Katz, 2003; Patterson & Bigler, 2006). In a yearlong study, Van Ausdale & Feagin (2001) found that three- to five-year-olds in a racially and ethnically diverse day care center used racial categories to identify themselves and others, to include or exclude children from activities, and to negotiate power in their own social/play networks."(Erin N. Winkler, Ph.D. - University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee)


http://www4.uwm.edu/letsci/africolog...colorblind.pdf

[Novelafemme]

Originally Posted by Chazz

Sure kids are "biased" at a young age - as young as 3-5 years old.

My EX's 4 year old called me, "Mr. Chazz", from day one.

Although the following excerpt is about race, not gender constructs, it makes the case for how children are, in fact, biased at a very young age.



Children Are Not Colorblind: How Young Children Learn Race

"Toddlers as young as two years use racial categories to reason about people’s behaviors (Hirschfeld, 2008), and numerous studies show that three-to five-year-olds not only categorize people by race, but express bias based on race (Aboud, 2008; Hirschfeld, 2008; Katz, 2003; Patterson & Bigler, 2006). In a yearlong study, Van Ausdale & Feagin (2001) found that three- to five-year-olds in a racially and ethnically diverse day care center used racial categories to identify themselves and others, to include or exclude children from activities, and to negotiate power in their own social/play networks."(Erin N. Winkler, Ph.D. - University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee)


http://www4.uwm.edu/letsci/africolog...colorblind.pdf

Correct you are. I was getting pre-school and kindergarten confused in my wee brain.

[Chazz]

Well, there are differing schools of thought as to "gender roles, as applicable to small children" and adults.

Some argue that gender roles are innate regardless of sex; others that they are largely conditioned. This is largely a political debate as science has not, yet, spoken definitively on the matter. (The Swedes seem to be leaning towards the "conditioned" side of the debate.)

In any event, I'm discussing grammar, not politics.

I'll stick with non-erasure and changing gender constructs over wordplay, albeit, even on a part time basis.

Sex = male and female
Gender = masculine and feminine
Male = he, him
Female = she, her
(RE: The World Health Organization)

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by Chazz

Well, there are differing schools of thought as to "gender roles, as applicable to small children" and adults.

Some argue that gender roles are innate regardless of sex; others that they are largely conditioned. This is largely a political debate as science has not, yet, spoken definitively on the matter. (The Swedes seem to be leaning towards the "conditioned" side of the debate.)

In any event, I'm discussing grammar, not politics.

I'll stick with non-erasure and changing gender constructs over wordplay, albeit, even on a part time basis.

Sex = male and female
Gender = masculine and feminine
Male = he, him
Female = she, her
(RE: The World Health Organization)

Okay, so wouldn't toy placement and encouragement of alternative family structures be considered changing gender constructs? If we're looking at masculine and feminine in terms of behaviors, that is.

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

Okay, so wouldn't toy placement and encouragement of alternative family structures be considered changing gender constructs? If we're looking at masculine and feminine in terms of behaviors, that is.

Nope.

Moving toys around a room from one set of hands to another isn't change - it's a reconfiguration of the same constructs. The constructs have to change.

If by "alternative family structures" you mean, LGBTQs "making" a nuclear family, no to that, too.

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by Chazz

This is goofy.

The Swedes are confusing sex with gender. (A common mistake these days.)

This is erasure, not correction. There is nothing wrong with the terms "her" or "him". The problem resides in gender constructs.

Words can be manufactured, manipulated, misapplied and misappropriated, but bias resides in the heart not on the tongue.

I'm not sure I completely understand what you're saying, so before I disagree with you I wonder if you would be so kind as to clarify that for me a bit? My interpretation was that they were eschewing traditional gender roles by placing toys associated with those roles with each other (among other things, such as gender neutral pronouns and suggesting non-traditional family structures during playtime) so as not to reinforce the separation of behaviors.

[cane]

Originally Posted by Chazz

This is goofy.

The Swedes are confusing sex with gender. (A common mistake these days.)

This is erasure, not correction. There is nothing wrong with the terms "her" or "him". The problem resides in gender constructs.

Words can be manufactured, manipulated, misapplied and misappropriated, but bias resides in the heart not on the tongue.

They acctually never say that there is something wrong with the terms "her or "him", they mean that it's not ok to presume that, for example the plumber, is a man, and therefore they use the term "hen".

Furthermore we call the kids friend or other terms like it because it's not up to us/me to decide what the kids feel like.

I had a kid some time ago asking me if I was a boy or a girl and I asked in return "Does it really matter?" The kid answered "No, you Can be what ever you want."

/Cane, gender pedagogue in Sweden

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by cane

They acctually never say that there is something wrong with the terms "her or "him", they mean that it's not ok to presume that, for example the plumber, is a man, and therefore they use the term "hen".

No one said they did.

Originally Posted by cane

Furthermore we call the kids friend or other terms like it because it's not up to us/me to decide what the kids feel like.

Adults rear kids, children don't rear themselves.

Originally Posted by cane

I had a kid some time ago asking me if I was a boy or a girl and I asked in return "Does it really matter?" The kid answered "No, you Can be what ever you want."

Would that it was that simple.

[tapu]

I've never gotten the worry that some parents express over their girls playing with "girls' toys," or their boys with "boys' toys." (The former being more usual, presumably because women's roles are seen as less valuable."

In my view, toy choice stems naturally from evolutionary development. The primary goal of the organism is to survive and reproduce. Since girls are going to be birthing the babies, they play with... baby dolls!

Meanwhile, guys do that other stuff like protecting the group's survival, supplying food and shelter. Takes a village, and specifically it takes a village of males and females at its barest.

Now that men and women's societal roles are melding more, there may be more of a natural physical departure from those child-gender-purpose-toy associations. Long long time in the future, maybe our bodies even change to accommodate the new physical order. Maybe we're not male/female, but, you know, butch/femme, regardless of gender.


I don't know-- I just tried to say all that while my little boy is trying to interest me in some warlike game here. Which I kind of like, myself, of course. >;-)

[tapu]

I forgot to get to the point. I don't predict much efficacy or value in trying to engineer or accelerate such change, as in the Swedish experiment.

[JAGG]

I think by the time they start school they are between ages 4-6. What they have experienced at home is already ingrained. Not to mention the fact they return home daily. I like the idea of not pressuring a child into a gender role so to speak. It gives them more freedom to choose what they truely prefer. But I don't think it will have too much of an impact. I'd be interested to see the outcome. Just my humble opinion.