Gender Neutral Kindergarten in Sweden

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by Heart

I am very attached to my gender presentation and gender performance. Even as a child I played with gender, wandered around in it. I would hate to have gender removed from the energy exchange between people - because it's hot! Gender neutrality sounds chilling to me. I see no point in neutralizing gender because it's part of our humanity.

Gender stereotypes, on the other hand, are destructive. So are racial stereotypes. But we aren't go to have "racially-neutral" classrooms. The point is not to neutralize gender, but to reinscribe the value assigned to gender differences and variety. In other words, gender equality, rather than gender neutraility would seem to be the key.

Heart

You're so smart and concise, Heart !

Of course it's about gender equality and NOT gender neutrality.

Can anyone really feature resolving racism by never mentioning race; having all dolls be green instead of Black, Brown, Asian, Indigenous or White; banning terms like African-American, Latino, Pacific Islander, etc.? That would be color blindness taken to the nth degree. Color blindness is not a desirable outcome under any circumstances.

I would be seriously irate if my gender variant child got stuffed into someone else's politically correct, gender neutral closet.

[tapu]

I read an article on eliminating "gender-biased language and behavior" in the classroom. I'm thinking it may fall into a subset of modifications to "old" classroom practices that are possibly summed up in these lines from the OP:

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

So it may be a correlate to whatever the full picture of classroom practices and philosophy is behind this new Swedish pre-school. Regardless, the type of coaching that teachers might receive from these "gender pedagogues"* would be along the lines of addressing both sexes an equal amount and with the same affect and encouragement in all subject areas. For example, the point was made in the gender-biased lang + behavior article that teachers promote participation and elaboration in boys in math, and in girls in ELA, by their language and behavior.)

That's probably enough said about that, but I'll try to clarify if you find it garbled. The theory and practices, only outllined above, are at the level of elaboration that I look for before I can say "Great idea."

*
I called it first! I want that job.

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by Chazz

You're so smart and concise, Heart !

Of course it's about gender equality and NOT gender neutrality.

Can anyone really feature resolving racism by never mentioning race; having all dolls be green instead of Black, Brown, Asian, Indigenous or White; banning terms like African-American, Latino, Pacific Islander, etc.? That would be color blindness taken to the nth degree. Color blindness is not a desirable outcome under any circumstances.

I would be seriously irate if my gender variant child got stuffed into someone else's politically correct, gender neutral closet.

And again I say: screw your categories. I don't want to be put in a box that is equal to all the other boxes. I want there to be no boxes at all.

[tapu]

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

And again I say: screw your categories. I don't want to be put in a box that is equal to all the other boxes. I want there to be no boxes at all.

Yeah but Andy, don't you figure we'll have to build up to that?


Also, I don't know how invested you are in the science of evolution, but you'd need its cooperation or at least its acquiescence at some point.

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by tapu

Yeah but Andy, don't you figure we'll have to build up to that?


Also, I don't know how invested you are in the science of evolution, but you'd need its cooperation or at least its acquiescence at some point.

No, i'm not a fan of "building up to" anything just because the thought of it makes people uncomfortable. It wasn't so long ago that it was uncomfortable for men to entertain the notion that women were capable of making an informed decision and should have the right to vote.


I am very invested in evolution, and very interested to hear how you believe societal gendering of behaviors is related to it.

[tapu]

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

No, i'm not a fan of "building up to" anything just because the thought of it makes people uncomfortable. It wasn't so long ago that it was uncomfortable for men to entertain the notion that women were capable of making an informed decision and should have the right to vote.

Picard could say, "Make it so" but his underlings had to find a way to get there. That's more what I mean by "building up to it."

Men did not suddenly wake up, entertaining the notion that women were capable of an informed vote. Acceptance of gays and more obviously gay marriage has followed the same "build-up."

But besides the human factor behind a need for "build-up," we also need that development time to figure out HOW to do it. It's the recognition of that lets us move toward the ideals, and to refine them as necessary.

From an evolutionary viewpoint, oof, so much to explore! My first post in this thread brought it up but there didn't seem to be any general interest. If you want to discuss that perspective, we could try to do it here, or in another gender thread.

Cheers! tap

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by tapu

Picard could say, "Make it so" but his underlings had to find a way to get there. That's more what I mean by "building up to it."

Men did not suddenly wake up, entertaining the notion that women were capable of an informed vote. Acceptance of gays and more obviously gay marriage has followed the same "build-up."

But besides the human factor behind a need for "build-up," we also need that development time to figure out HOW to do it. It's the recognition of that lets us move toward the ideals, and to refine them as necessary.

From an evolutionary viewpoint, oof, so much to explore! My first post in this thread brought it up but there didn't seem to be any general interest. If you want to discuss that perspective, we could try to do it here, or in another gender thread.

Cheers! tap

I do understand what you're saying, and yes there need to be individuals who figure out how to accomplish a common goal. As I'm sure you've seen, there are different ways to get things done. Nearly every committee or group I've been in has seemed to split fairly evenly into two loosely defined camps:

The ones who get it done right away and sometimes break some things in the process, and the ones who go slow and steady and don't break anything, but are sometimes forced to accept compromises that deter progress.

Clearly, i'm a hard-headed, liberal, jump in with both feet, raging feminist dyke, and I have no qualms about being loud and open about it. This approach doesn't work for everyone, and some individuals' personalities and skills are much better suited to slow maneuvering through the system as opposed to trying to smash it all.

Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were "in your face" suffragists, and working in concert with them were hundreds of other women who moved behind the scenes, avoiding the public eye. I'm a firm believer that the two pronged approach is the way to go, and I think we can look at conquering gender the same way. I know that there are individuals posting in this thread that do not agree with my opinions or my approach, but to them I say: You need my fighting style just as much as I need yours.

I respect your desire to go slowly and make lasting changes, but from the current mental and physical treatment of differently gendered individuals in the world right now, I must insist that there be immediate action taken as well.


P.S. i'm totes down with jumping in on a discussion in an evolution in regard to gender thread.

[tapu]

I have to laugh because I am often considered a little too much "git 'er done, in your face."

I think your analysis of the best dynamic for effecting social change is right on. It's not really like Picard and the underlings; it's more those out in front cutting a path and those behind them widening and further shaping it.

That said, I think the frontrunners need not only to know what they're talking about, but be able to articulate the vision. Saying "gender-neutral" is saying nothing unless you define your terms.

People on the thread are contrasting terms such as "gender-neutral," "gender-equality," "gender-diversity." I would wager that at this point, no one has the same definition for any of these. The "gender-neutral" of the OP wasn't even defined.

Until some move toward defining the goal is made, in concrete terms, even the frontrunners are running in circles. Women didn't get the vote without someone defining what it meant to treat the sexes equally in that respect: let both vote. Thus was born a movement.

[Heart]

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

And again I say: screw your categories. I don't want to be put in a box that is equal to all the other boxes. I want there to be no boxes at all.

Here's what I don't get: Why would you celebrate and honor different ethnicities, but not different genders? Why promote multiculturalism, but not multigenderism? Where does this idea of neutrality come from? Given that both race and gender are, to a large degree, social constructs, why would you seek recognition, empowerment, and equality with race, but neutrality when it comes to gender?

Perhaps "gender-neutral" environments promote acceptance of varied gender expressions, but I wonder... what about the girl who wants to twirl in colorful costumes with a fairy wand -- will she be seen as enacting a stereotype? What about the boy who wants to spend the day building block towers and knocking them down? Will he be seen as un-evolved? There is something about a gender-neutral classroom that sounds subtly coercive. Insisting on defying gender norms can be as oppressive as insisting on complying with them.

Heart

[Novelafemme]

Originally Posted by Heart

Here's what I don't get: Why would you celebrate and honor different ethnicities, but not different genders? Why promote multiculturalism, but not multigenderism? Where does this idea of neutrality come from? Given that both race and gender are, to a large degree, social constructs, why would you seek recognition, empowerment, and equality with race, but neutrality when it comes to gender?

Perhaps "gender-neutral" environments promote acceptance of varied gender expressions, but I wonder... what about the girl who wants to twirl in colorful costumes with a fairy wand -- will she be seen as enacting a stereotype? What about the boy who wants to spend the day building block towers and knocking them down? Will he be seen as un-evolved? There is something about a gender-neutral classroom that sounds subtly coercive. Insisting on defying gender norms can be as oppressive as insisting on complying with them.

Heart

The girl who wants to twirl in colorful costumes with a fairy wand and the boy building and knocking down block towers are free to do so, according to the main article. The point of it all is to create a "gender neutral space" that consists of a merging of the two spectrums...the kitchen is next to the block tower, the dolls are mingled in with the trucks and planes, the aprons and fire helmets are hanging together. There is no punctuation in terms of boy/girl themes. No finality or border between male and female, feminine and masculine. The grey area is their playground and these children are allowed the space and freedom to simply *be*. In my opinion there is nothing subtly coercive about that.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Heart

Here's what I don't get: Why would you celebrate and honor different ethnicities, but not different genders? Why promote multiculturalism, but not multigenderism? Where does this idea of neutrality come from? Given that both race and gender are, to a large degree, social constructs, why would you seek recognition, empowerment, and equality with race, but neutrality when it comes to gender?

Perhaps "gender-neutral" environments promote acceptance of varied gender expressions, but I wonder... what about the girl who wants to twirl in colorful costumes with a fairy wand -- will she be seen as enacting a stereotype? What about the boy who wants to spend the day building block towers and knocking them down? Will he be seen as un-evolved? There is something about a gender-neutral classroom that sounds subtly coercive. Insisting on defying gender norms can be as oppressive as insisting on complying with them.

Heart

Heart;

Thank you. This is what bothers me as well. I fear a situation where what we will see is that 'appropriate' behavior will just be moved. I say this, in part, based upon my experience with race and multiculturalism. About the time I was born, there was a shift in the black community away from assimilation and toward Afrocentrism. Now, had it been the case that it was merely a choice of what one might choose for oneself, that would be one thing but that's not how it played out. What happened is that Afrocentric-behavior became the new norm. So if one was not sufficiently 'African' one's entire racial identity could be be challenged. People set themselves up as gatekeepers as to who or what was considered sufficiently African. The irony is that one of the things that was proposed as a sign of an Afrocentric worldview was that there were no hierarchies or gatekeepers!

My concern, based upon prior experience, is that there will be unintended consequences to this kind of policy and one of those consequences will likely be that 'gender-neutral' will become normative and any expression of a strong gendered identity--in any dimension--will be considered against the norm.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Chazz

You're so smart and concise, Heart !

Of course it's about gender equality and NOT gender neutrality.

Can anyone really feature resolving racism by never mentioning race; having all dolls be green instead of Black, Brown, Asian, Indigenous or White; banning terms like African-American, Latino, Pacific Islander, etc.? That would be color blindness taken to the nth degree. Color blindness is not a desirable outcome under any circumstances.

I would be seriously irate if my gender variant child got stuffed into someone else's politically correct, gender neutral closet.

Actually, you bring up a point I was going to make the other day and then decided to wait on it. What you describe re: race is almost *precisely* what both the Left and the Right have decided is the best way to deal with this. I see something similar happening with gender. The problem with this is that it puts the emphasis on the wrong part of the problem.

I'll describe it with race and then bring it back to gender. Both the Left (race doesn't matter) and the Right (content of our character...) appear to have decided, incorrectly in my estimation, that if we just *ignore* race then racism will go away. So one hears things like "I don't see color" or "I'm colorblind". The subtext is this: "I know I'm not supposed to be a racist so I won't see color. So as long as I can *pretend* that race doesn't exist I won't have racist thoughts or make racist statements. The moment I have to acknowledge the existence of race, I will have racist thoughts."

I think this is wrong. The problem is not that race doesn't exist (obviously there are genetic differences that lead to differences of phenotype) the problem is that we mistakenly ascribe *meaning* to these genetic differences. It is one thing to say "85% of all black Americans will develop hypertension by the time they are 50", a statement that could not be made if there were no such thing as black people. It is quite another thing to say "black Americans are more prone to be criminal than whites". One is simply a statement of fact about a particular disease and its frequency within a defined population. Another is a imposition of a meaning onto blacks.

Now we seem to have decided that the *best* way to deal with gender is not to extract mistakenly placed meaning but to do away with the category what-so-ever. So male and female must be done away with instead of the idea that, for instance, female = emotion-oriented or male = action-oriented Nor is the object to do away with the idea that the former is intrinsically bad and the latter is intrinsically good. No, the only way to liberation *must* be that the categories do not exist.

I think this is gravely mistaken. Equality is not, nor can it be, predicated on their being no categories or on the idea that all our categories are mere social constructions. Our commitment to equality and our arguments in favor of it are better based upon the idea that people are individual, semi-autonomous, self-interested agents and that it is morally unacceptable and ethically indefensible, to judge an individual on the perceived average characteristics of some group that person might be a member of.

Cheers
Aj