• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No 'him' or 'her'; preschool fights gender bias

liblady said:
i think our society still tends to treat women (girls) as though we are fragile, and as a consequence, some of us become fragile. we also tend to tell boys to suck it up, and kiss the girl's boo-boos. i gave my kids dolls and trucks, my son always played barbie, but his version is what we called "naked barbies". my daughter excelled in sports.

i have no problem with what the school is doing, how will it hurt the children?
Click to expand...

It's very telling but why do you think this is true?
Why do you think the "child bearing" gender is encouraged to be protected by the "suck it up" gender?

We learn gender roles from adults for good reason, they have kept us as the top dogs for a long time.
 
j-mac said:
Studies have shown this gender neutral crap is emasculating to males. Now why do you suppose we want that?


j-mac
Click to expand...

so we will be too weak to fight back when the Morlocks come.
 
liblady said:
i think our society still tends to treat women (girls) as though we are fragile, and as a consequence, some of us become fragile. we also tend to tell boys to suck it up, and kiss the girl's boo-boos. i gave my kids dolls and trucks, my son always played barbie, but his version is what we called "naked barbies". my daughter excelled in sports.

i have no problem with what the school is doing, how will it hurt the children?
Click to expand...

Maybe a story will enlighten....

While some may cheer the ideals of Kathy Witterick and David Stocker, others are skeptical and even fear for the development of the child. Storm, born to the Toronto couple some four months ago, remains
"gender-neutral," with very few people knowing Storm's sex. The couple's other two children, 5-year-old Jazz and 2-year-old Kio, are being raised similarly, with the parents refusing to guide their gender. Both Jazz and Kio are males but, due to their long hair and affinity for the color pink, are often mistaken for girls.

Kathy Witterick and David Stocker have valid points about society's oppressiveness when it comes to gender roles, but I fear that using their own young children as counterpoints to societal gender norms could harm their development and psychological well-being. Jazz and Kio are "unschooled," according to the couple, which is essentially homeschooling without much, if any, formal structure. The kids' curiousity guides the learning.

What happens when Jazz, Kio, and Storm have to eventually leave the family home and venture out into the world? Hopefully, they will be quite well-adjusted. Unfortunately, with the parents' rigid emphasis on gender neutrality, they might not be. Without the gender norm guidance received by 99.999% of the population it is difficult to predict how the three children will interpret their own gender and its societal roles at age 16, 18, or 21. If a child is intentionally sheltered from gendered life and its myriad of complexities and subtleties, how might they handle the sudden changes of puberty?

Perhaps somewhat disturbingly, this quote from the Zachary Roth article on Yahoo!News reveals that the impetus for this grand experiment may not be rooted in anything well-researched:

"Stocker came across a book from 1978, titled X: A Fabulous Child's Story by Lois Gould. X is raised as neither a boy or girl, and grows up to be a happy and well-adjusted child.
'It became so compelling it was almost like, How could we not?' Witterick said."

Hopefully David Stocker and Kathy Witterick had more to guide their idea of gender-neutral child-rearing than one book from 33 years ago that was centered around a single child. I worry that what may seem progressive and egalitarian with children under age 6 could quickly become something that creates deep-seated pyschological issues post-puberty.

Be Wary of Raising Children Gender-neutral - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com
Click to expand...

Point is kids are often confused enough by life, need we throw in gender ambiguity?

j-mac
 
I don't understand what saying "him" or "her' has to do with gender roles at all.

If I refer to a woman as "her" it's not like I'm telling her to cook me an omelette or have a tea party. Just helps to describe who it is I'm talking about.
 
Arcana XV said:
Public and private schools have been experimenting, trying out theories and new educational methods on kids since the dawn of mandatory education. I fail to see how this is any better or worse than what's been done already. :shrug:
Click to expand...

If you fail to see it as better or worse then what is the justification for trying it in the first place? Why do we need to create a neutral environment where kids who are different can hide and kids who want to express themselves are repressed? "Sorry Jimmy, you are not allowed to be a boy. You may offend someone."
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It's very telling but why do you think this is true?
Why do you think the "child bearing" gender is encouraged to be protected by the "suck it up" gender?

We learn gender roles from adults for good reason, they have kept us as the top dogs for a long time.
Click to expand...

What are the good reasons for gender roles?

Studies have shown this gender neutral crap is emasculating to males. Now why do you suppose we want that?
Click to expand...

LOL. Umm, if you don't believe gender is important then why would we care if it makes them feel less manly?

Point is kids are often confused enough by life, need we throw in gender ambiguity?

j-mac
Click to expand...

Another circular argument. Why is it important that they know their gender role?
 
jambalaya said:
If you fail to see it as better or worse then what is the justification for trying it in the first place? Why do we need to create a neutral environment where kids who are different can hide and kids who want to express themselves are repressed? "Sorry Jimmy, you are not allowed to be a boy. You may offend someone."
Click to expand...

You need to ask the people at that preschool that. I've already stated that I don't see any value in what they're doing. They'd be better off embracing gender differences, teaching kids that both genders have something unique and irreplaceable to offer while making it clear that gender roles are not necessarily set in stone. I mean, I'm Swiss, I love neutrality, but this is absolutely ridiculous. :lol:
 
RStringfield said:
What are the good reasons for gender roles?
Click to expand...

Gender roles were an evolutionary development of the division of labor.
The female and male bodies are designed to do things, better in their specific areas.

Males are more muscular because they were the protectors.
Females have more fat tissue because they rear the children.

Of course these are generalities and there are always exceptions to this.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Gender roles were an evolutionary development of the division of labor.
The female and male bodies are designed to do things, better in their specific areas.

Males are more muscular because they were the protectors.
Females have more fat tissue because they rear the children.

Of course these are generalities and there are always exceptions to this.
Click to expand...

I did not ask what were the good reasons for gender roles. I asked what are the good reasons for gender roles. Big difference. Our means of survival is not what it was thousands of years ago and there is no reason for us to maintain roles that no longer serve any purpose.
 
RStringfield said:
Our means of survival is not what it was thousands of years ago and there is no reason for us to maintain roles that no longer serve any purpose.
Click to expand...

Since you support the notion that positive action should be taken to neutralize gender roles, what proof do you have that they serve no purpose? Do you know every detailed nuance of human society and interactions that allows you to make such a determination, without any doubt? Have you ever actually seen a lasting human society without them? Is there even anything to gain by neutralizing gender? What if your basic premise is completely wrong (concerning either our means of survival or the purpose of gender roles)?
 
RStringfield said:
I did not ask what were the good reasons for gender roles. I asked what are the good reasons for gender roles. Big difference. Our means of survival is not what it was thousands of years ago and there is no reason for us to maintain roles that no longer serve any purpose.
Click to expand...

They were and can still be, depends on the scenario and environment.
You can't make blanket statements that they serve no useful purpose.

Any changes to gender roles should be organic and not some egalitarian top down approach.
 
other said:
Since you support the notion that positive action should be taken to neutralize gender roles, what proof do you have that they serve no purpose?
Click to expand...

My first clue came when I asked if ANYBODY could tell me what purpose gender roles serve. No one has done so yet. They have not even tried. The closest anyone has come is explaining what purpose they may have served in the past. So apparently no one believes that they serve any purpose.

Do you know every detailed nuance of human society and interactions that allows you to make such a determination, without any doubt? Have you ever actually seen a lasting human society without them? Is there even anything to gain by neutralizing gender? What if your basic premise is completely wrong (concerning either our means of survival or the purpose of gender roles)?
Click to expand...

Sure, we are all going to die if women don't continue to wear pink.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
They were and can still be, depends on the scenario and environment.
You can't make blanket statements that they serve no useful purpose.
Click to expand...

I fail to see their purpose and neither you nor anyone else has stated what they might be in modern society.

Any changes to gender roles should be organic and not some egalitarian top down approach.
Click to expand...

Change is change. It does not suddenly become inorganic or top down just because you don't like it. Gender roles are diminishing worldwide and this school is likely just ahead of the game.
 
spud_meister said:
:lol: This is pointless, their parents would obey gender roles, any social interactions outside of this place will have gender roles, and they're bombarded by them in media. I can't see this doing anything, except for becoming redundant the moment kids leave the preschool.
Click to expand...

There is always the possibility that another bureaucrat will decide that this program should continue until graduation from high school.
 
RStringfield said:
I fail to see their purpose and neither you nor anyone else has stated what they might be in modern society.
Click to expand...

Just because you fail to see it, doesn't make it not important.
Probably some sort of self selection bias.

We still have wars, men are still more muscular than females.
Men are better protectors, generally speaking.

Females have all the body parts the enable them to raise children, more effectively.
They typically should be the primary care giver.
That is until men start growing breasts and lactate when their children are born.

RStringfield said:
Change is change. It does not suddenly become inorganic or top down just because you don't like it. Gender roles are diminishing worldwide and this school is likely just ahead of the game.
Click to expand...

Except that isn't true.
Organic change guides itself, it's the "Adam Smith" type of evolution that has made humans so successful, in the first place.

Little "know it alls" that think the world should be how they want it, aren't able to actually make wide spread constructive changes because of information asymmetry.
 
RStringfield said:
Change is change. It does not suddenly become inorganic or top down just because you don't like it. Gender roles are diminishing worldwide and this school is likely just ahead of the game.
Click to expand...

Let's not confuse change with progress.

I like being a man and enjoy women who enjoying being who they are. It's been my experience that many women feel the same way.

Being part of some gender neutral society doesn't really hold much attraction to a lot of guys. I think the real push back will come when they make a law saying that everyone has to sit down to pee.
 
RStringfield said:
My first clue came when I asked if ANYBODY could tell me what purpose gender roles serve. No one has done so yet. They have not even tried. The closest anyone has come is explaining what purpose they may have served in the past. So apparently no one believes that they serve any purpose.
Click to expand...

No one has given you a definite purpose for them, probably because most people don't purport to know all the ins and outs of human behavior... so you conclude: well, they must have no purpose then.

You don't see a problem with your reasoning here?

Sure, we are all going to die if women don't continue to wear pink.
Click to expand...

I thought you believed we were all going to die if we continued using gendered pronouns
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Just because you fail to see it, doesn't make it not important.
Probably some sort of self selection bias.
Click to expand...

What is it something that can't be explained or verbalized? Do you suffer this selection bias too because I have asked you to state their purpose and you only gave me what they were.

We still have wars, men are still more muscular than females.
Men are better protectors, generally speaking.
Click to expand...

So the justification for gender roles is war? You don't think women can be soldiers?

Women living in modern society do not need a man for protection. They can get a gun, dog or call the police.

Females have all the body parts the enable them to raise children, more effectively.
They typically should be the primary care giver.
That is until men start growing breasts and lactate when their children are born.
Click to expand...

I would agree, that one is not going anywhere soon.

Except that isn't true.
Organic change guides itself, it's the "Adam Smith" type of evolution that has made humans so successful, in the first place.
Click to expand...

This is pretty organic in Sweden. They have been headed this way for awhile.
 
we don't need no "education"
we don't need no thought control

hey! teacher! leave them kids alone!
 
RStringfield said:
What is it something that can't be explained or verbalized? Do you suffer this selection bias too because I have asked you to state their purpose and you only gave me what they were.
Click to expand...

And what they are.
I've explained enough, ever wonder why there are more men in manufacturing than women?
Did you even know that was true?

It's not because of gender discrimination, it's because of gender self selection.
Women tend not to choose those career fields because they are not typically, naturally adept to perform those tasks.

There are plenty of areas like this.
Police, fire fighter, nursing, teaching.
All these things are self selected gender slanted fields of employment.

RStringfield said:
So the justification for gender roles is war? You don't think women can be soldiers?

Women living in modern society do not need a man for protection. They can get a gun, dog or call the police.
Click to expand...

Don't put words into my mouth, I didn't say that.
I said men typically tend to be better adapted for things like that.

So you say, but some women prefer to have male protection.
It is because they were unnaturally conditioned or is it because that is their organic gender want?

RStringfield said:
I would agree, that one is not going anywhere soon.
Click to expand...

Yep.

RStringfield said:
This is pretty organic in Sweden. They have been headed this way for awhile.
Click to expand...

Doubtful.
Hell the state has an assigned gender of sorts.

The state has become the male protector.
Even they can not escape their gender roles.
 
other said:
No one has given you a definite purpose for them, probably because most people don't purport to know all the ins and outs of human behavior... so you conclude: well, they must have no purpose then.

You don't see a problem with your reasoning here?
Click to expand...

Not definite. Any. Well, that is no longer true as Harry finally answered.

I thought you believed we were all going to die if we continued using gendered pronouns
Click to expand...

Nope, nobody made that argument. I have only questioned the value of gender roles. I have stated that I believe gender roles damage our ability to relate to one another, but I in no way indicated that was going to lead to the breakdown of sicety. You on the other hand question whether civilization can exist without gender roles remaining unchanged.
 
RStringfield said:
Not definite. Any. Well, that is no longer true as Harry finally answered.
Click to expand...

And I largely agree with what HG has put forth; overall point is, whether they have value or not remains uncertain, so why meddle?

Nope, nobody made that argument.
Click to expand...

And I never argued that "we are all going to die if women don't continue to wear pink."

Ridiculous assertion = ridiculous response

I have only questioned the value of gender roles. I have stated that I believe gender roles damage our ability to relate to one another, but I in no way indicated that was going to lead to the breakdown of sicety.
Click to expand...

Well, I'd hope you wouldn't make that claim, since humans in all societies have always recognized gender roles, as far as we can tell.

And why don't you answer my question: How do you know they damage our ability to relate to each other... Have you ever lived in or studied an entirely gender-neutral society to test your theory?

You on the other hand question whether civilization can exist without gender roles remaining unchanged
Click to expand...

Making up my arguments out of thin air again? This tactic is not working well for you.
 
Last edited:
RStringfield said:
I have stated that I believe gender roles damage our ability to relate to one another.
Click to expand...

Are you speaking from your own personal experience here?

I can relate very well to some men, not to others, very well to some women and not to others. That probably holds true for most people.

The inability to relate to others is not necessarily gender biased.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
And what they are.
I've explained enough, ever wonder why there are more men in manufacturing than women?
Did you even know that was true?

It's not because of gender discrimination, it's because of gender self selection.
Women tend not to choose those career fields because they are not typically, naturally adept to perform those tasks.
Click to expand...

Gender roles discourage women from valuing the skills that would make them adept at those tasks.

There are plenty of areas like this.
Police, fire fighter, nursing, teaching.
All these things are self selected gender slanted fields of employment.
Click to expand...

Self selection is influenced by gender roles. That is what this is all about.

Don't put words into my mouth, I didn't say that.
I said men typically tend to be better adapted for things like that.
Click to expand...

First off, I would not want to justify anything on war which is hard to justify in itself.

Still your argument does not hold anymore. With modern weapons and equipment women are more than capable of serving as soldiers.

So you say, but some women prefer to have male protection.
It is because they were unnaturally conditioned or is it because that is their organic gender want?
Click to expand...

I would not doubt some still feel some preference for it. We have to have more than that or they going to all go lezbo. :)

A woman's role as a mother is always going to be definite, but men are pretty much obsolete.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom