Gender Neutral Kindergarten in Sweden

[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.

[Chancie]

Years ago, before I started spending way too much time here, my ex and I made a concious choice not to use gendered pronouns whenever possible.

There were plenty of times when people went 'Hunh'?

Or we sounded crazy, diving all over ourselves to communicate without using 'she' and 'he' and 'her' and 'him' but

Our conciousness about how we used gendered pronopuns changed me and the way I thought.

I think we used to talk more about biology, gender and sexual orientation here.

The expression 'false duality of gender constructs' means that it is false to talk only about two gender constructs, and imbedded in that belief is the idea that gender is a social construct, as distinct from biology.

[cane]

Originally Posted by 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.

It is not an experiment, it's a life choice and a life ambition, a way of living. Not just for these kids then and there, but also for their parents.

[tapu]

Originally Posted by cane

It is not an experiment, it's a life choice and a life ambition, a way of living. Not just for these kids then and there, but also for their parents.

I'll have to reread. I did not get that this was a long-established model, extending out to more levels of society. I thought it was a new program that was nowhere as developed as you describe it.

[cane]

Originally Posted by tapu

I'll have to reread. I did not get that this was a long-established model, extending out to more levels of society. I thought it was a new program that was nowhere as developed as you describe it.

Didn't say long established, that was your word, and also I didn't describe it.
But yes, definitely extending to more levels, if not of society so of these peoples lives.

And with this being paid for by the government and supported by the national curriculum for schools and pre-school... Our government doesn't pay for experiments.

[Novelafemme]

See...I don't see this program as an "experiment" per say. I see it as a vast cultural difference between how Americans approach early childhood education versus how Sweden does. No Child Left Behind is a social construct - manufactured by a legislation driven by capitalistic neoliberals. (holy crap!)

And here is where my socialist undies get in a bunch. Sweden isn't out to propagate any sort of agenda. Rather, they are investing in their future by restructuring the social order of things. I think this is a marvelous step towards neutralizing the dominant gender binary that has suffocated America for eons.

[Chancie]

Though there was support from both Democrats and Rupublicans, NCLB was passed during the Bush Adminstration in 2001.

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by 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.

I don't seem much value in this experiment, either.

Originally Posted by tapu

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 suspect it would only take one catastrophe (natural or man-made) to cause liberal societies to revert back to caveman dynamics in a wink.

Originally Posted by tapu

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. >;-)

"War-like games" aren't the problem - except when they are. The problem is gendering those games. Some of the fiercest warriors in history have been female. We tend to burn such women at the stake, stone them to death, or impose regulations like the US Ground Combat Exclusion Policy on them.

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by Chazz

"War-like games" aren't the problem - except when they are. The problem is gendering those games. Some of the fiercest warriors in history have been female. We tend to burn such women at the stake, stone them to death, or impose regulations like the US Ground Combat Exclusion Policy on them.

That, of course, is another topic altogether that causes me to get incredibly worked up, and would be a fantastic discussion for another thread, if you feel so inclined. I think you have a lot of good thoughts about these things and that would be a good conversation.

I also have a copy of a U.S. government report from the 1930s that says gay men make better soldiers. Clearly, that one wasn't widely circulated.

[tapu]

Originally Posted by Chazz

I suspect it would only take one catastrophe (natural or man-made) to cause liberal societies to revert back to caveman dynamics in a wink.

I'm not sure how that relates to what you were quoting so I don't know how to respond. Can you connect it for me?

Originally Posted by Chazz

"War-like games" aren't the problem - except when they are. The problem is gendering those games. Some of the fiercest warriors in history have been female. We tend to burn such women at the stake, stone them to death, or impose regulations like the US Ground Combat Exclusion Policy on them.

I don't think war-like games are the problem either. But to acknowledge the historical infelicities and get back into now, we can start making female toy soldiers.

There. Nice, practical, sensible move that can be implemented now. Not what we imagine... or what we want but can't articulate... or what we implement in children's education without clearly defined and concrete details, and without defining our assumptions.

[Heart]

It's not the toys or the pronouns, it's the value placed upon them... It's not whether a little girl/boy plays with dolls/trucks, it's whether playing with a doll is as valuable and meaningful as playing with a truck, it's whether wearing glitter is as important as wearing a sherrif's badge. It's not war-games OR playing house, it's both (and neither for those who want to draw). It's not male or female essentialism or constructionism, it's whether feminine/masculine and every permutation/blend of these energies/performances are equally valued and necessary to society.

And I don't really have an opinion about the school in Sweden, as long as the kids are safe, happy, have healthy snacks and take naps.

Heart

ETA: When a little boy plays with dolls and wears a tutu it causes more angst then when a little girl plays with trucks or wears a tie, because "girl things" are less valued, have less status and currency, than "boy things." That's why sissies are more closely policed than tomboys. So I guess my question is: does the Swedish school experiment have an impact on the valuing of gender tropes?

[Chazz]

Originally Posted by tapu

I'm not sure how that relates to what you were quoting so I don't know how to respond. Can you connect it for me?

I think you may be thinking in terms of micro changes while I'm referring to macro change. As in a cultural metanoia (def. A fundamental change in beliefs; a transformative change of heart; a conversion).

Western culture consumes incremental progress and commodifies it, thereby taking the soul out of it, leaving things pretty much as they were before. (This is a whole other thread, too.) Heathcare was a progressive break through until the insurance companies turned it into a profit making enterprise that favored some while excluding far too many. "Progress" is not always progress for all.

Originally Posted by tapu

I don't think war-like games are the problem either. But to acknowledge the historical infelicities and get back into now, we can start making female toy soldiers.

There. Nice, practical, sensible move that can be implemented now. Not what we imagine... or what we want but can't articulate... or what we implement in children's education without clearly defined and concrete details, and without defining our assumptions.

EUREKA ! ! ! ....Female toy soldiers, at last, a solution.

I mean no insult, but it's going to take hella more than female toy soldiers.

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by Chazz

I suspect it would only take one catastrophe (natural or man-made) to cause liberal societies to revert back to caveman dynamics in a wink.

Just reading this thread, and not sure exactly what I think yet...but this sentence stuck in my head.

When my son was in elementary school, we attended a school carnival...complete with games, bouncie houses and a gigantic inflatable slide about 2 stories tall.

There were hundreds of kids and their parents, all roaming around the play fields, eating, drinking, talking, playing.

Suddenly, there was the sound of many children all screaming.

Evidently, the inflatable slide was poorly designed...with a stairway going up only one side. The people managing the slide had evidently not staked it down properly, and had also allowed children to fill the stairway rather than go up a few at a time.

I, and a few hundred parents, looked up to see the 2 story slide rolling over slowly...with the children ready to be pinned underneath.

Without an alarm, a sound, or anyone organizing anything...we all simply reacted...limbic brain...no training...just instinct.

About 10% of the adults froze in place. The other 90% dropped whatever was in their hands - food, drinks, purses - and ran towards the tipping slide.

Without exception, every male bodied person ran to the slide, braced themselves, lifted their arms and held the slide up off the children.

Without exception, every female bodied person ran underneath the mens' arms, and started grabbing children, pulling them away from the slide, setting them down just past the mens' legs and saying "Run!"

By the time the children were all safe, and the slide started to roll back into an upright position, there was a fair amount of laughter....when we all realized that every woman had planted her ass against the crotch of the man behind her to brace herself in a crouch....the only way to reach the kids.

I'm an independent, tough woman who has always supported herself...and I always felt like gender roles were taught. But ever since that day....I've wondered.

[Ebon]

Originally Posted by JustJo

Just reading this thread, and not sure exactly what I think yet...but this sentence stuck in my head.

When my son was in elementary school, we attended a school carnival...complete with games, bouncie houses and a gigantic inflatable slide about 2 stories tall.

There were hundreds of kids and their parents, all roaming around the play fields, eating, drinking, talking, playing.

Suddenly, there was the sound of many children all screaming.

Evidently, the inflatable slide was poorly designed...with a stairway going up only one side. The people managing the slide had evidently not staked it down properly, and had also allowed children to fill the stairway rather than go up a few at a time.

I, and a few hundred parents, all looked up at the same time...to see the 2 story slide rolling over slowly...with the children ready to be pinned underneath.

Without an alarm, a sound, or anyone organizing anything...we all simply reacted...limbic brain...no training...just instinct.

About 10% of the adults froze in place. The other 90% dropped whatever was in their hands - food, drinks, purses - and ran towards the tipping slide.

Without exception, every male bodied person ran to the slide, braced themselves, lifted their arms and held the slide up off the children.

Without exception, every female bodied person ran underneath the mens' arms, and started grabbing children, pulling them away from the slide, setting them down just past the mens' legs and saying "Run!"

By the time the children were all safe, and the slide started to roll back into an upright position, there was a fair amount of laughter....when we all realized that every woman had planted her ass against the crotch of the man behind her to brace herself in a crouch....the only way to reach the kids.

I'm an independent, tough woman who has always supported herself...and I always felt like gender roles were taught. But ever since that day....I've wondered.

That is a good point and I still think that gender roles are taught. It is programmed deep inside of our subconscious. I am very interested in seeing what these kids are like a few years down the road without or with a limited amount of this sort of programming.

[dreadgeek]

JustJo:

I'm going to dovetail off of what you have said because I think that Nature gets a vote in almost any plans that Homo sapiens can conceive of. SOME gender expressions are taught but some are just there. They are just there because we have an evolutionary history--whether we like it or not, whether we believe it or not--and that history informs what we are. For all but the last 75 years or so, men have needed the greater upper-body strength. When all humans were hunter-gatherers, it was men who went out and hunted the big stuff, everyone hunted the small stuff, and women did most of the gathering. That kind of thing is written in our genes because, in fact, it *matters* if you have good upper body strength if you are using a spear or a bow and arrow. The boundaries of the *possible* human societies were constrained because women give birth to relatively large babies that have to be squeezed out of a relatively small space and then are fairly helpless as far as providing for themselves for the first 5 years and are not truly ready to start contributing until their teens.

Does that mean that *all* gender roles are genetic? No. The fact that, in Western societies, women decorate themselves more lavishly, on average, than men is a rather interesting anomaly since it's not what we would necessarily expect. However, pretending that all gender roles are culturally conditioned is to make Homo sapiens both more and less than an animal at the same time. More because it means that unlike every *other* animal on this planet, we have no evolutionary history that made us. Less because it means that while we can try to understand, say, dogs by holding onto the idea that, in essence, a dog is a wolf-puppy that will always remain a puppy (as wolves would mark that behavior, not as we would) with a wolf-brain we cannot try to understand human beings as a social ape that is now living in an environment our brains were not designed for and which we are waiting for them to play catch up.

Cheers
Aj

Originally Posted by JustJo

Without exception, every male bodied person ran to the slide, braced themselves, lifted their arms and held the slide up off the children.

Without exception, every female bodied person ran underneath the mens' arms, and started grabbing children, pulling them away from the slide, setting them down just past the mens' legs and saying "Run!"

By the time the children were all safe, and the slide started to roll back into an upright position, there was a fair amount of laughter....when we all realized that every woman had planted her ass against the crotch of the man behind her to brace herself in a crouch....the only way to reach the kids.

I'm an independent, tough woman who has always supported herself...and I always felt like gender roles were taught. But ever since that day....I've wondered.