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

Harry Guerrilla · Jun 26, 2011

Arcana XV said:
Like I said, it's not any better nor worse than what has already been tried before at other progressive preschools. They obviously think it's worth a shot. Parents have the option to send their kid to another public preschool or pay for one that is better suited to their own views.

I'm very much against top down enforced "social norms" that have little impact for good and much impact for harm on the individual level.
Not a fan of "educators" with an agenda.

Arcana XV · Jun 26, 2011

Harry Guerrilla said:
I'm very much against top down enforced "social norms" that have little impact for good and much impact for harm on the individual level.
Not a fan of "educators" with an agenda.

Me neither. I think this gender neutral stuff is a total waste of time. I really don't see any point or any value in what this school is trying to do.

Harry Guerrilla · Jun 26, 2011

MistressNomad said:
Some roles are evolutionary, but even they are taught. This doesn't mean they're necessarily illogical or should be done away with - all roles appeal to some aspect of innate psychology - but they are still taught. So much of social behavior is taught. Why do you think we and most other social mammals have such long childhoods?

The long childhoods are evolutionary but because it has been with us for so long.
I do not think it is wise to try to change this, on a mass scale, when there is no proof that it fixes anything.

We have long childhoods because we invest more in each child than the typical animal does, for survival reasons.
Teaching is a part of that, but gender roles are not harmful, as long as flexibility exists.

MistressNomad said:
But a lot of gender roles ARE illogical and should be done away with. A lot of them are oppressive, to both men and women. A lot of them are pointless. A lot of them are just blue team vs. pink team.

Some aren't even gender roles, but old top down beliefs on what should be gender roles.
That's why they are being contested.

Language derived gender differences (him/her, she/he) wasn't created by fiat, it was done so organically.

MistressNomad said:
Studies on the raising of androgynous children haven't shown any impairment. If anything, such kids tend to be more confident. Their expression takes the form they want it to take, and only goes as far as they want it to go. As opposed to our habit of putting a football in a boy's hands when he's still an infant, or a barbie in a girl's hands at the same age. There are some profoundly negative things those streotypes can encourage if they are harshly enforced, which they often are.

There haven't been much of any done and the long term results haven't been tracked.

MistressNomad said:
Identity develops regardless. People born into extremely conservative homes still turn out gay or trans. People who grew up with gay parents still turn out straight and gender normative.

If that's the case, why try to change it at all.
Boys with GID, don't dress like women because it's awesome, they do so because they're internally women, it has a natural appeal to them.

MistressNomad said:
While I think this program may be a bit overkill, I don't know of anything suggesting it will cause harm. The extremes of the gender scale are unnatural to most people, and we try to force those extremes on most people. That is definitely negative.

Not all stereotypes should be eliminated, they can be useful.
But then again not all women should have officially classified gender roles because some do stray from the norm.
I'm fine with that.

What I'm not ok with is socializing kids to believe that all people are exactly the same.
It kills the greatness of the variety of people and their differing genders.

Temporal · Jun 26, 2011

It's pre-school, I doubt it will seriously impact the children. Also, the parents must clearly know about it if the children are still enrolled.

I also agree that the education system is one big experiment, filled with indoctrination. That we are used to the typical forms of indoctrination just shows how deeply ingrained it is in our society.

BayToBay · Jun 26, 2011

Harry Guerrilla said:
I'm very much against top down enforced "social norms" that have little impact for good and much impact for harm on the individual level.
Not a fan of "educators" with an agenda.

What harm will this do?

Harry Guerrilla · Jun 26, 2011

RStringfield said:
What harm will this do?

Kids with GID could have the biggest potential for harm in my opinion.
They're already confused with the outward/inward mismatch, not having a firm gender role model could make it worse.

Emphasis on could.

SmokeAndMirrors · Jun 26, 2011

Harry Guerrilla said:
The long childhoods are evolutionary but because it has been with us for so long.
I do not think it is wise to try to change this, on a mass scale, when there is no proof that it fixes anything.

We have long childhoods because we invest more in each child than the typical animal does, for survival reasons.
Teaching is a part of that, but gender roles are not harmful, as long as flexibility exists.

Close. It's because we tend to be highly intelligent. There's too much for us to innately know, so we need time to learn it.

That's the point. The majority of gender roles have nothing to do with anything practical or logical. They are simply enforced delineation.

Some aren't even gender roles, but old top down beliefs on what should be gender roles.
That's why they are being contested.

Language derived gender differences (him/her, she/he) wasn't created by fiat, it was done so organically.

The organic process may appear to be fiat to some, but it isn't. There has been a slow movement towards "xir/xe" as a gender-neutral English pronoun for those who wish to use it for years. I am now seeing it become natural and common within some circles.

There haven't been much of any done and the long term results haven't been tracked.

Like this? No. On a parenting level? Yes. Enough that I learned about it in Psych 101.

If that's the case, why try to change it at all.
Boys with GID, don't dress like women because it's awesome, they do so because they're internally women, it has a natural appeal to them.

Because the extremes can be harmful when people are forced into them, which most are. If someone belongs in that extreme, they will go there whether they're taught or not. Teaching it does nothing but harm the ones who don't belong there, which is almost everyone.

Not all stereotypes should be eliminated, they can be useful.
But then again not all women should have officially classified gender roles because some do stray from the norm.
I'm fine with that.

What I'm not ok with is socializing kids to believe that all people are exactly the same.
It kills the greatness of the variety of people and their differing genders.

It is unclear to me whether that is what this school is doing, or whether it is trying to simply let the expression be what it may be without interferrance. If it is the former, than I agree that is way overkill. But I see no definitive evidence that it is.

Harry Guerrilla · Jun 26, 2011

MistressNomad said:
Close. It's because we tend to be highly intelligent. There's too much for us to innately know, so we need time to learn it.

That's the point. The majority of gender roles have nothing to do with anything practical or logical. They are simply enforced delineation.

Depends on what you consider gender roles to be.
I'm not talking about 1950's women need to cook crap.

MistressNomad said:
The organic process may appear to be fiat to some, but it isn't. There has been a slow movement towards "xir/xe" as a gender-neutral English pronoun for those who wish to use it for years. I am now seeing it become natural and common within some circles.

Never heard of that til now.
Language is complex because it communicates many things, including gender.

MistressNomad said:
Like this? No. On a parenting level? Yes. Enough that I learned about it in Psych 101.

It's not good to institutionalize this stuff.
It must be heavily researched before that happens.

MistressNomad said:
Because the extremes can be harmful when people are forced into them, which most are. If someone belongs in that extreme, they will go there whether they're taught or not. Teaching it does nothing but harm the ones who don't belong there, which is almost everyone.

I agree that extremes can be harmful.

MistressNomad said:
It is unclear to me whether that is what this school is doing, or whether it is trying to simply let the expression be what it may be without interferrance. If it is the former, than I agree that is way overkill. But I see no definitive evidence that it is.

It's nearly impossible to let expression be, without interference, because they are interfering.

BayToBay · Jun 26, 2011

Harry Guerrilla said:
Kids with GID could have the biggest potential for harm in my opinion.
They're already confused with the outward/inward mismatch, not having a firm gender role model could make it worse.

Emphasis on could.

Your argument is circular. You are basically arguing that we should pressure them to follow cutlural norms or they may not accept cultural norms. Any dissonance caused by gender identity is due to pressure to conform some arbitrary norm.

You don't need a role model to teach you how to be male. You got a penis? You are in! You are doing it right! You need a role model to teach you how to be a good person. A gender role model would only be about promoting conformity to some useless stereotype.

other · Jun 26, 2011

Harry Guerrilla said:
[...]

Some aren't even gender roles, but old top down beliefs on what should be gender roles.
That's why they are being contested.

Language derived gender differences (him/her, she/he) wasn't created by fiat, it was done so organically.[...].

That's one thing that really seems off about this sort of meddling... to me anyway. The gender roles particular to a culture are similar to the gender assignments in a language, in that they also developed organically over time and naturally change on their own over time as well. Who can point to a specific individual who actually implemented a specific role to any gender? (that is taken seriously over many generations, I'm not talking about fads, etc.)

All human cultures have specific gender roles, and all also have rules and systems in place for those that violate them, including our own. Why do we feel the need to suddenly and forcefully erase such a thing from our society when they are prevalent in every other? Who has the subjective insight into whether or not such cultural systems are "good" or "bad"? Just how arrogant does one have to be to decide that "We need to do away with this or that part of our culture," and try to force the change... keeping in mind that these are the type of norms which were neither implemented by a specific individual in the first place nor are unique to western culture. I say that its better just to let it be, and not try to force such change... it will not go as the planners who impose such rules expect, and either way, it will happen on its own regardless.

BayToBay · Jun 26, 2011

other said:
That's one thing that really seems off about this sort of meddling... to me anyway. The gender roles particular to a culture are similar to the gender assignments in a language, in that they also developed organically over time and naturally change on their own over time as well. Who can point to a specific individual who actually implemented a specific role to any gender? (that is taken seriously over many generations, I'm not talking about fads, etc.)

All human cultures have specific gender roles, and all also have rules and systems in place for those that violate them, including our own. Why do we feel the need to suddenly and forcefully erase such a thing from our society when they are prevalent in every other? Who has the subjective insight into whether or not such cultural systems are "good" or "bad"? Just how arrogant does one have to be to decide that "We need to do away with this or that part of our culture," and try to force the change... keeping in mind that these are the type of norms which were neither implemented by a specific individual in the first place nor are unique to western culture. I say that its better just to let it be, and not try to force such change... it will not go as the planners who impose such rules expect, and either way, it will happen on its own anyway.

Who is forcing the change?

You argue that gender roles have evolved culturally. Why do you then express anger at the idea of any more evolution in those roles? Mankind's means of survival is changing and it makes no sense that our culture would not continue to evolve.

other · Jun 26, 2011

RStringfield said:
Who is forcing the change?

People who try to distort the common use of a language to push an agenda on children, in this case. I think their program will only backfire on them.

You argue that gender roles have evolved culturally. Why do you then express anger at the idea of any more evolution in those roles? Mankind's means of survival is changing and it makes no sense that our culture would not continue to evolve.

I wasn't angry at all, I'm just discussing my point of view. And I never said that our culture wouldn't continue to evolve... I said the opposite.

My overall point was that lasting change concerning something so basic to human culture isn't made on a conscious level by pulling strings here and there, (and thank goodness for that), it happens on its own, regardless of what specific individuals decide is right or wrong about it.

Goshin · Jun 26, 2011

This is a ****ed up program that is likely to produce some ****ed up children.

Bad idea.

/thread.

BayToBay · Jun 26, 2011

other said:
People who try to distort the common use of a language to push an agenda on children, in this case. I think their program will only backfire on them.

So, if the parents fail to teach them gender roles they are "forcing an agenda" on them while indoctrinating them in cultural norms is not? Okay.

I wasn't angry at all, I'm just discussing my point of view. And I never said that our culture wouldn't continue to evolve... I said the opposite.

My overall point was that lasting change concerning something so basic to human culture isn't made on a conscious level by pulling strings here and there, (and thank goodness for that), it happens on its own regardless.

You were decrying them as arrogant and you mentioned force so many times you made it sound like they were running a concentration camp. But they are just trying something different.

Gender roles are changing and they should. Our culture is changing, our way of life is changing. Life is change.

other · Jun 26, 2011

RStringfield said:
So, if the parents fail to teach them gender roles they are "forcing an agenda" on them while indoctrinating them in cultural norms is not? Okay.

What are you talking about? I didn't say anything about parents. Also, parents don't have to "idoctrinate" children into acquiring cultural norms. They are called cultural norms because they are picked up (or in some cases rejected) by general interaction with the culture. Parents don't teach their children everything about their culture, it is picked up from a variety of interactions -- not just the parents, and usually not consciously.

You were decrying them as arrogant and you mentioned force so many times you made it sound like they were running a concentration camp. But they are just trying something different.

Well, you misunderstood me and imposed your own exaggeration onto what I was saying. "Trying something different" is a bit of an understatement.

Gender roles are changing and they should. Our culture is changing, our way of life is changing. Life is change.

And? Do you want to respond to what I actually said?

BayToBay · Jun 26, 2011

other said:
What are you talking about? I didn't say anything about parents. Also, parents don't have to "idoctrinate" children into acquiring cultural norms. They are called cultural norms because they are picked up (or in some cases rejected) by general interaction with the culture. Parents don't teach their children everything about their culture, it is picked up from a variety of interactions -- not just the parents, and usually not consciously.

You are back pedaling and twisting. YOU said that this was "forcing change" and "push[ing] an agenda on children." The parents have chosen this school. Who is guilty of forcing this if not the parents?

Your etymology is pathetic too. They are called cultural norms because they describe behaviors viewed as normal within a culture.

Well, you misunderstood me and imposed your own exaggeration onto what I was saying. "Trying something different" is a bit of an understatement.

BS!

And? Do you want to respond to what I actually said?

Do you want to stand behind what you said or would you like to retract it?

other · Jun 26, 2011

RStringfield said:
You are back pedaling and twisting. YOU said that this was "forcing change" and "push[ing] an agenda on children." The parents have chosen this school. Who is guilty of forcing this if not the parents?

You originally twisted what I was saying; the original issue was not "who is guilty of pushing an agenda," anyway. If you'll go back and look at what I posted, the issue I was going at was that any individual attempt at meddling won't have the intended effect, and it is arrogant to attempt to erase the concept of gender roles in our culture when they are a feature of every human culture.

Your etymology is pathetic too. They are called cultural norms because they describe behaviors viewed as normal within a culture.

Well, why don't you think a little on that and what it means. Then maybe you'll understand my point.

How exactly do you think cultural norms are transmitted/learned?

Do you want to stand behind what you said or would you like to retract it?

Why would I retract? You haven't offered any substantive counter-argument yet. You're just throwing up irrelevancies about who I think is to blame and whining about etymology. Personally, I'd rather just discuss the topic of the thread.

BayToBay · Jun 26, 2011

other said:
You originally twisted what I was saying; the original issue was not "who is guilty of pushing an agenda," anyway. If you'll go back and look at what I posted, the issue I was going at was that any individual attempt at meddling won't have the intended effect, and it is arrogant to attempt to erase the concept of gender roles in our culture when they are a feature of every human culture.

I have not twisted a thing. You are back pedaling.

Who is to say what is meddling? Is it meddling if you protect your children from cultural norms expressed in an explicit song? How about those expressed in a porno? They don't want gender roles pushed on their children.

Why is medddling wrong anyway? We are not obligated to adhere to contemporary cultural pressure. Again, you seem to be back to arguing against change.

Well, why don't you think a little on that and what it means. Then maybe you'll understand my point.

How exactly do you think cultural norms are transmitted/learned?

I know exactly what it means.

Cultural norms are transmitted in different ways. It may be as simple as peer pressure or it could be through violent force. Why do you think that is relevant?

Why would I retract? You haven't offered any substantive counter-argument yet. You're just throwing up irrelevancies about who I think is to blame and whining about etymology. Personally, I'd rather just discuss the topic of the thread.

We are discussing the thread and why you are so opposed to cultural change and alternative values.

BayToBay · Jun 26, 2011

And BTW, you are the one that brought up etymology with your sloppy and incoherent attempt to explain why they are called social norms. Like I don't what it means, but then you butcher it.

other · Jun 26, 2011

RStringfield said:
Who is to say what is meddling? Is it meddling if you protect your children from cultural norms expressed in an explicit song? How about those expressed in a porno? They don't want gender roles pushed on their children.

So, you don't see a difference between opposing a child listening to explicit lyrics and watching pornos, and trying to avoid the use of (gasp!) gendered pronouns around children?

Can we have a serious discussion about this?

Why is medddling wrong anyway? We are not obligated to adhere to contemporary cultural pressure. Again, you seem to be back to arguing against change.

It is my opinion that this kind of meddling, ie. avoiding the use of gendered pronouns to push an agenda, is ridiculous and will not have the desired effect.

None of that has anything to do with obligations to adhere to cultural pressure or cultural change.

I also said it was arrogant because... well, can you give me a good reason why gendered pronouns should not be used to refer to children when everyone else uses them all the time, and all languages include ingrained gender distinctions?

I know exactly what it means.

Cultural norms are transmitted in different ways. It may be as simple as peer pressure or it could be through violent force. Why do you think that is relevant?

Because, as I already mentioned, the child will learn and use the gendered pronouns regardless of the intervention or intentions of those trying to suppress them. That's one reason why the whole idea is ridiculous. And it's not like they are suppressing some obscure aspect of culture; they are suppressing an aspect of culture that is universal to all other cultures on earth.

We are discussing the thread and why you are so opposed to cultural change and alternative values.

Pointing out the idiocy of witholding the use of gendered pronouns from children is not the same as opposing cultural change and alternative values... If you want to keep throwing up strawmen, can you at least have a little variety? I mean, c'mon, I already addressed this. :2wave:

other · Jun 26, 2011

RStringfield said:
And BTW, you are the one that brought up etymology with your sloppy and incoherent attempt to explain why they are called social norms. Like I don't what it means, but then you butcher it.

still complaining about etymology? Look, I was saying that parents don't need to "indoctrinate" their children with norms because they will be picked up on anyway. Cultural norms are learned through any general interaction with a culture... But again, this is all off topic because it was in response to your irrelevant tangent about "who is to blame."

Back on track now?

spud_meister · Jun 26, 2011

: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.

other · Jun 26, 2011

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.

Exactly. If anything, it will have the opposite of the intended effect as the children are exposed to actual society and overcompensate in adjusting. Of course, that's only if the whole scheme has any effect to begin with, which I doubt.

Dix · Jun 26, 2011

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.
"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.

1st - staff referring to all the kids as "friends" is not the relationship they're supposed to have.

2nd - I'm surprised no one is questioning the basis for this. They quote a teacher saying that "society expects girls to be girlie, nice and pretty and boys to be manly, rough and outgoing" but is it really like that in 2011 Sweden?

I have a hard time believing that. I thought Sweden was one of the more progressive countries out there and she's making it sound like Mayberry in the 1950's. So if it's NOT like that, then why the extreme reaction of removing all gender references toward the children? It's just - puzzling.

BayToBay · Jun 26, 2011

other said:
So, you don't see a difference between opposing a child listening to explicit lyrics and watching pornos, and trying to avoid the use of (gasp!) gendered pronouns around children?

They are all examples of a parent filtering cultural influences.

It is my opinion that this kind of meddling, ie. avoiding the use of gendered pronouns to push an agenda, is ridiculous and will not have the desired effect.

None of that has anything to do with obligations to adhere to cultural pressure or cultural change.

I also said it was arrogant because... well, can you give me a good reason why gendered pronouns should not be used to refer to children when everyone else uses them all the time, and all languages include ingrained gender distinctions?

It is arrogant because it is different? Whatever. It's just different.

Because, as I already mentioned, the child will learn and use the gendered pronouns regardless of the intervention or intentions of those trying to suppress them. That's one reason why the whole idea is ridiculous. And it's not like they are suppressing some obscure aspect of culture; they are suppressing an aspect of culture that is universal to all other cultures on earth.

Yeah, and kids will eventually see naked people and hear curse words. That does not mean you can't try to minimize the influence.

Pointing out the idiocy of witholding the use of gendered pronouns from children is not the same as opposing cultural change and alternative values... If you want to keep throwing up strawmen, can you at least have a little variety? I mean, c'mon, I already addressed this. :2wave:

Your entire argument is that it's different therefore it is somehow wrong. But you can't really explain why it is wrong.

What is so important about gender roles? What purpose do they serve modern man?

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

Harry Guerrilla

Arcana XV

Harry Guerrilla

Temporal

BayToBay

Harry Guerrilla

SmokeAndMirrors

Harry Guerrilla

BayToBay

other

BayToBay

other

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod

BayToBay

other

BayToBay

other

BayToBay

BayToBay

other

other

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!

other

Dix

Member

BayToBay