• 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

how will teachers correct students aged 1-6 who "improperly" refer to someone as "him" or "her"? how confusing must it be for them to be in an enviroment where for half the day they are not allowed to speak the way their family, friends and neighbors do until they get home.

don't children need consistency? doesn't consistency in young children promote a sense of security? :shrug:
 
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.

I think gender roles interfere in our ability to relate. Women and men see and relate to the world a bit differently and I do believe that is influenced by gender roles and culture.
 
Gender roles discourage women from valuing the skills that would make them adept at those tasks.

Most likely not.
It's not as if there are droves of females lining up as there has been less and less gender discrimination.

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

Self selection based on evolutionary factors, not based on unnatural and abusive conditioning.

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.

Then why aren't women serving in equal numbers?

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.

Men have an important role.
Fatherless households tend to fail the children.

You're getting too tied up in the thought that all gender roles are bad.
Some are, largely those imposed by top down authority but not all are.

Women and men are different, that's good.
Variety is the spice of life.
 
Most likely not.
It's not as if there are droves of females lining up as there has been less and less gender discrimination.

I am sorry but that does nothing for you argument. Gender roles can influence without gender discrimination.

Self selection based on evolutionary factors, not based on unnatural and abusive conditioning.

Unnatural and abusive conditioning? What are you talking about? Gender roles are not necessarily passed on through Nazi training camps.

The self selection is not entirely based on evolutionary facotrs. Social norms concerning gender roles condition behavior. Again this is what this is all about.

Then why aren't women serving in equal numbers?

You guys act as if we have had complete equality for thousands of years. Women are still prohibited from engaging in combat roles. That's going to change. Culture will still influence even after barriers built upon overt discrimination are gone, though.

Men have an important role.
Fatherless households tend to fail the children.

Two parents are better than one. I doubt gender matters much.

Divorce has diminished our role as parent. Men basically get to be parents at the discretion of the mother who has the real parental rights. That's not going to change.


You're getting too tied up in the thought that all gender roles are bad.
Some are, largely those imposed by top down authority but not all are.

Women and men are different, that's good.
Variety is the spice of life.

I don't think all gender roles are bad and of course women and men are different. Gender does create significant difference and because of that some form of gender role is likely to persist, but what should it be? I don't think there is much doubt that modern gender roles have become somewhat anachronistic and are going to change significantly in the near future.

The school is interesting to me not because I think it will erase gender roles. I am interested to see what "natural" gender roles develop if we don't emphasize old roles that are of dubious value.
 
Teacher: Excuse me class but we have separate the Homosapiens use of the restrooms by some method that is gender neutral, and because other might be a cross dresser in the school we can no longer use the the current logos. This unisex symbol is also out.

unisex.jpg


We aso have stop using the Wheelchair symbol as it might upset someone who actually needs one, by calling attention to their situation and depressing them.

What we need from you is a way to separate by gender without actually admitting there is a difference, and we already heard the one that show genitals but that would be the same as saying either Boy or Girl. This is a real conundrum.

No Sven I didn't say condom and you can stop giggling. Although that does give me an idea.


Maybe we could get away with a picture of a Condom and and IUD.



I have to say this is going way the hell over the top with trying to be way damn too PC.

I pray the ACLU doesn't see this story and get any ideas from it.
 
Last edited:
I am sorry but that does nothing for you argument. Gender roles can influence without gender discrimination.

I know they can, but why are these still existing sans the discrimination?

Unnatural and abusive conditioning? What are you talking about? Gender roles are not necessarily passed on through Nazi training camps.

The self selection is not entirely based on evolutionary facotrs. Social norms concerning gender roles condition behavior. Again this is what this is all about.

Social norms are based largely on evolutionary need.
They are developed organically.

You guys act as if we have had complete equality for thousands of years. Women are still prohibited from engaging in combat roles. That's going to change. Culture will still influence even after barriers built upon overt discrimination are gone, though.

Culture has little to do with it.
Innate gender preferences will still drive women towards other non combat roles.


Two parents are better than one. I doubt gender matters much.

Divorce has diminished our role as parent. Men basically get to be parents at the discretion of the mother who has the real parental rights. That's not going to change.

While I agree, in many 2 parent household I'm willing to bet that there is a "male" like parent and a "female" like parent.



I don't think all gender roles are bad and of course women and men are different. Gender does create significant difference and because of that some form of gender role is likely to persist, but what should it be? I don't think there is much doubt that modern gender roles have become somewhat anachronistic and are going to change significantly in the near future.

The school is interesting to me not because I think it will erase gender roles. I am interested to see what "natural" gender roles develop if we don't emphasize old roles that are of dubious value.

The gender roles already existing are largely natural.
You're already violating this by assigning negative value to some gender roles you find dubious.

You're playing the role of arbitrator of right and wrong gender roles, when you have no evidence to speak from.
 
I know they can, but why are these still existing sans the discrimination?

Due to the influence of gender roles. Social pressures encourage people to conform to existing gender roles.

Social norms are based largely on evolutionary need.
They are developed organically.

Again, with this organic nonsense. A distinction without a difference.

Culture has little to do with it.

Culture is what we are talking about. Culture determines social norms and influences gender roles.

Innate gender preferences will still drive women towards other non combat roles.

We don't know what determines those preferences though. You just assume they are chosen based on gender. That is not likely the full story. Culture, social norms and gender roles often pressure us to prefer certain things.

While I agree, in many 2 parent household I'm willing to bet that there is a "male" like parent and a "female" like parent.

So then it is not necessary for a "father" to be male. You are arguing that "fatherhood" should not be a gender role and should be seen as sexually ambiguous.



The gender roles already existing are largely natural.
You're already violating this by assigning negative value to some gender roles you find dubious.

They were natural 15000 years ago. They may have made sense more recently than that. We have had some measure of gender equality for a while now, but we still hold on to basically the same antiquated gender roles due to tradition. They have not yet evolved to the new realities. They will.
 
Last edited:
Studies have shown this gender neutral crap is emasculating to males. Now why do you suppose we want that?


j-mac

Feminism. The left is still pushing that old ****. Gender neutrality, abortion...all things so women are in control. Make ******s out of men, and have them like it.
 
Last edited:
Feminicism. The left is still pushing that old ****. Gender neutrality, abortion...all things so women are in control. Make ******s out of men, and have them like it.

:shrug: I have no problem with women being in control. :mrgreen:
 
At the very least, it relieves us of some blame.

Boy, those women in charge of everything and look how screwed up the world is!

I hope, someday.
 
I think gender roles interfere in our ability to relate. Women and men see and relate to the world a bit differently and I do believe that is influenced by gender roles and culture.

Everyone sees the world somewhat differently and that would be true for people educated in all-girls schools, all-boys schools, mixed schools or no schools. You seem to be saying that without gender we would all communicate more easily and that the world would thus be a more pleasant place in which to live.

Trying to remove, or stifle, who we are genuinely are has not met with much success in the past, with few breakthroughs in heightened abilities to relate being reported.

A persons sexuality comes very close in defining who they are as individuals and human beings. Start tampering and experimenting with that, in the hope that we can eventually all "relate" to each other, seems a bit foolhardy, and will probably keep their shrinks busy in another 30 years.
 
STOCKHOLM – 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.
What, exactly, is wrong with gender stereotypes?
Haven't these stereotypes evolved because of, well, the evolutionary nature of Man?
 
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.

i think you're misunderstanding me. to a certain extent, those roles are important. they start to be troublesome when women, or men, are expected to behave or think a certain way simply because of their gender.
 
i remember this on the forum from not too long ago. i think it's quite a bit more drastic than a gender neutral school. kids attending that school have plenty of opportunity to recognize their gender outside of class. that's the important thing, these children have an opportunity to LEARN without preconceived bias.

the kids in your story really don't.
 
i think you're misunderstanding me. to a certain extent, those roles are important. they start to be troublesome when women, or men, are expected to behave or think a certain way simply because of their gender.

Do you have an example or two?
 
Everyone sees the world somewhat differently and that would be true for people educated in all-girls schools, all-boys schools, mixed schools or no schools. You seem to be saying that without gender we would all communicate more easily and that the world would thus be a more pleasant place in which to live.

Trying to remove, or stifle, who we are genuinely are has not met with much success in the past, with few breakthroughs in heightened abilities to relate being reported.

A persons sexuality comes very close in defining who they are as individuals and human beings. Start tampering and experimenting with that, in the hope that we can eventually all "relate" to each other, seems a bit foolhardy, and will probably keep their shrinks busy in another 30 years.

I seem to be saying exactly what I said, gender interfers with our ability to relate to one another across gender, and nothing more. You seem to be trying to change what I said.

We are stifling and tampering with gender identity by enforcing it the through social norms. That has kept our shrinks busy and will continue to do kepp them busy.
 
I seem to be saying exactly what I said, gender interfers with our ability to relate to one another across gender...
The fact that men cannot relate to women and that women cannot relate to men is just a part of nature. Not much can be done about it.
 
I like the idea of making sure toys are designated a girl or boy but not using he or she seems extreme. I bet they are wasting their time. The kids will come in with their own bias anyway.
 
I seem to be saying exactly what I said, gender interfers with our ability to relate to one another across gender, and nothing more. You seem to be trying to change what I said.

The reason I asked for clarification is because you have offered no studies saying that persons of opposing genders have difficulty relating to each other, thus it is just your own opinion, and one without foundation.

We are stifling and tampering with gender identity by enforcing it the through social norms. That has kept our shrinks busy and will continue to do kepp them busy.

Do you have any studies to support this claim or are you just winging it? Or do you feel the education system should change because of relationship experiences you've suffered?
 
This is incredibly stupid and way over the top. There is absolutely nothing wrong with referring to kids by their gender no is it gender bias... How are they going to address things like bathrooms? Put chromosomal genotypes for the sexes up and hope preschoolers understand?
 
The fact that men cannot relate to women and that women cannot relate to men is just a part of nature. Not much can be done about it.

And very often men can't relate to some other men or women to other women. I doubt that eliminating the terms 'him' and 'her' will alter that much but it might make them a little shakey as to where and how they fit into the world.
 
The fact that men cannot relate to women and that women cannot relate to men is just a part of nature. Not much can be done about it.

Says you. You and others continue to ignorantly imply that gender roles are completely determined by gender differences and "evolution." That is absurd and the studies have shown that that does not begin to explain the differences. The "evolution" has clearly been influenced by dispartate legal recognition between men and women which has not completely disappeared and is still very influential in our cutlure. Gender roles influence our preferences and teach children to conform to a concept of gender determined not by nature, but by culture.

Women do not wear makeup and high heels because nature guides them to do so. It's not an evolutionary advantage that makes them more fit for survival (conforming may but the individual act of wearing high heels will not make them more fit for survival). They do so because of pressure to conform to gender roles that have been passed down over centuries of culture. We are promoting gender roles that simply do not fit modern society.
 
How ironic that in order to try to prevent the social engineering of gender roles, this school indulges in such ham handed social engineering of their own.
 
Back
Top Bottom