Gender Neutral Kindergarten in Sweden

[InsatiableHeart]

Originally Posted by Novelafemme

Welcome to the site, InsatiableHeart!

Thank you! I am finding it to be quite interesting so far.

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by InsatiableHeart

Thank you and that is exactly my point.

I do not understand why you believe that a gender neutral classroom does not validate multiple gendered experiences...

[Novelafemme]

Now I want to have another baby just to raise it in a gender neutral environment. I would name it "Elephant". Too bad I don't have a uterus anymore.

[InsatiableHeart]

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

I do not understand why you believe that a gender neutral classroom does not validate multiple gendered experiences...

As a teacher I am not in the classroom to validate or invalidate anyone or any gender. I am there to teach children how to count, spell and read ect. I think we are placing too much emphasis on peoples genders. I am sure this will be taken wrong and I apologize if it is but, what does it matter what someone's gender is especially in 2nd grade? We need to teach children and adults alike to respect people not their gender. Once again this is my opinion.

[Toughy]

I believe that in America we have firmly constructed rigid gender classifications based on post-war nuclear family structure. Men are assumed to be bigger, stronger, breadwinners, take out the trash, lift the heavy things, fix the lawnmower, less concerned about appearance/clothing, encouraged to participate in rough/competitive activities, and anything that falls into this arena is considered masculine, associated with male gendered behavior. Women are assumed to be smaller, weaker, child-rearing caregivers, food preparers, clean the house, more concerned about appearance/clothing, and prefer gentler, softer clothing/activities, anything that falls under that umbrella is considered feminine, associated with female gendered behavior.

I would suggest that this model never did exist in post war America except on TV (think Father Knows Best and Leave It To Beaver). ALL the women (old enough) I knew as a kid worked during WWII. Where do you think Rosie the Riveter came from? During the war women did every job that men did before the war. It was the patriotic thing to do. The war effort was vital. Women earned a paycheck and took care of the house and kids. After the war many were not going to back to the housewife only. This time frame was the beginning of the civil rights movement for both women and blacks. 'Women's lib' started in this time. The GI Bill happened and men coming home from the war went to college, not work, paid for by the government. That is how my Dad got his education. My parents bought their first house by way of the GI Bill. My mother worked on occasion and her mother always worked.

Any way.......this so called 'american dream' with a stay at home Mom, a working Dad and 2.5 children during the 50's was not the reality in most of the country. TV is where that dream came from.

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by InsatiableHeart

As a teacher I am not in the classroom to validate or invalidate anyone or any gender. I am there to teach children how to count, spell and read ect. I think we are placing too much emphasis on peoples genders. I am sure this will be taken wrong and I apologize if it is but, what does it matter what someone's gender is especially in 2nd grade? We need to teach children and adults alike to respect people not their gender. Once again this is my opinion.

A is for Apple, B is for Boy... a gendered term is right in the beginning of the ABCs, but that is not the point I'm trying to prove, it just happened to pop into my head.



When you address your class, do you say "alright boys and girls, it's time for snack"? Are boy's cubbies and coathooks delineated by nametags with trucks and frogs on them, while the girls' tags have butterflies and flowers? Do any of your students have "boyfriends" or "girlfriends"? I think gender and its associated roles are present in your classroom whether you know it or not. You are a teacher, and what you teach is very important to youngsters (i commend you for being a teacher, it is a difficult and absolutely necessary job). I remember my 2nd grade teacher, Mrs. Love, she taught our class about diabetes because we were curious about why she needed to use that plastic box on her finger every day. Treating it as something normal that she did was enough to de-mystify it for us, help us accept it, and educate us about something that we could have viewed as scary (blood = scary for some people). Along those lines, I absolutely think teachers should validate all genders while teaching genderless concepts such as mathematics and language.

As a side note, all language (with the exception of english) is gendered. Crazy!

You are right, it doesn't matter what gender anyone is, but that's a concept that needs to be taught.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by 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?

As being someone that has seen more than a few of these types of "gender neutral" experimentations over a span of 40 years, I can't agree more with you. It is not about gender, it is about what is valued and de-valued within a society.

Thankfully, I was gieven Tonka Trucks and baby dolls as a kid not based on anything other than the fact that I liked both. My choices were accepted and validated based upon what I enjoyed, not my gender or any fear of my not "playing right" according to my being female. Now, this all changed outside of my home as I grew up.

The valuing of male gender tropes outside of my home began my experience of learning that anything female was not as good as male. The focus on gender neutrality in terms of child's play is not the issue at all. To think that these kids will somehow miss gender discrimination and de-valuation in the future is wrong until or unless male and female (and all variations) become equal as social currency.

[Heart]

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

I do not understand why you believe that a gender neutral classroom does not validate multiple gendered experiences...

That's interesting... what exactly is "gender-neutral," how is it achieved, maintained? Does it validate multiple gender experiences while reducing stereotypes or does it erase/minimize/police gender? Is it liberating or stifling?

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by Toughy

I would suggest that this model never did exist in post war America except on TV (think Father Knows Best and Leave It To Beaver). ALL the women (old enough) I knew as a kid worked during WWII. Where do you think Rosie the Riveter came from? During the war women did every job that men did before the war. It was the patriotic thing to do. The war effort was vital. Women earned a paycheck and took care of the house and kids. After the war many were not going to back to the housewife only. This time frame was the beginning of the civil rights movement for both women and blacks. 'Women's lib' started in this time. The GI Bill happened and men coming home from the war went to college, not work, paid for by the government. That is how my Dad got his education. My parents bought their first house by way of the GI Bill. My mother worked on occasion and her mother always worked.

Any way.......this so called 'american dream' with a stay at home Mom, a working Dad and 2.5 children during the 50's was not the reality in most of the country. TV is where that dream came from.

I agree with you to some extent, my nana was a riveter working in a factory making planes before she was married. After she was married she was a stay at home mom and my grandfather was the sole breadwinner in the house. My mother went to catholic school and was raised to be a good housewife. Her interest in circuitboards and science was discouraged. I feel that you raise a valid point about the TV dream of the white picket fence, but I also think many people aspired to achieve that. My family also has the intersectionality of being first generation Americans, coupled with rural geographic location and strong religious influence. I'm not sure how much of a role that played in all of this, but I'm sure it shouldn't be discounted outright.

it might be worthwhile to examine the trend of women enrolling in college, which skyrocketed in the 1920s and early 30s, only to plummet during the depression and never really regain momentum. There's a really interesting book that examines women and high education, feel free to check it out: [ame="http://www.amazon.com/College-Girls-Bluestockings-Kittens-Co-eds/dp/0393327159/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1309296302&sr=8-1"]http://www.amazon.com/College-Girls-Bluestockings-Kittens-Co-eds/dp/0393327159/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1309296302&sr=8-1[/ame]

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

As being someone that has seen more than a few of these types of "gender neutral" experimentations over a span of 40 years, I can't agree more with you. It is not about gender, it is about what is valued and de-valued within a society.

Thankfully, I was gieven Tonka Trucks and baby dolls as a kid not based on anything other than the fact that I liked both. My choices were accepted and validated based upon what I enjoyed, not my gender or any fear of my not "playing right" according to my being female. Now, this all changed outside of my home as I grew up.

The valuing of male gender tropes outside of my home began my experience of learning that anything female was not as good as male. The focus on gender neutrality in terms of child's play is not the issue at all. To think that these kids will somehow miss gender discrimination and de-valuation in the future is wrong until or unless male and female (and all variations) become equal as social currency.

I might go so far as to say this isn't really about insulating children from gender discrimination or devaluation, so much as raising them so that they can objectively recognize and value these things on their own terms.

[Chancie]

Originally Posted by InsatiableHeart

As a teacher I am not in the classroom to validate or invalidate anyone or any gender. I am there to teach children how to count, spell and read ect. I think we are placing too much emphasis on peoples genders. I am sure this will be taken wrong and I apologize if it is but, what does it matter what someone's gender is especially in 2nd grade? We need to teach children and adults alike to respect people not their gender. Once again this is my opinion.

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

A is for Apple, B is for Boy... a gendered term is right in the beginning of the ABCs, but that is not the point I'm trying to prove, it just happened to pop into my head.

When you address your class, do you say "alright boys and girls, it's time for snack"? Are boy's cubbies and coathooks delineated by nametags with trucks and frogs on them, while the girls' tags have butterflies and flowers? Do any of your students have "boyfriends" or "girlfriends"? I think gender and its associated roles are present in your classroom whether you know it or not. You are a teacher, and what you teach is very important to youngsters (i commend you for being a teacher, it is a difficult and absolutely necessary job). I remember my 2nd grade teacher, Mrs. Love, she taught our class about diabetes because we were curious about why she needed to use that plastic box on her finger every day. Treating it as something normal that she did was enough to de-mystify it for us, help us accept it, and educate us about something that we could have viewed as scary (blood = scary for some people). Along those lines, I absolutely think teachers should validate all genders while teaching genderless concepts such as mathematics and language.

As a side note, all language (with the exception of english) is gendered. Crazy!

You are right, it doesn't matter what gender anyone is, but that's a concept that needs to be taught.

I teach math in a public high school, and of course I don't teach in a vacuum.

My students are people first, with life experiences and a culural context, and then learners of math and robotics.

There is no pretending that they don't walk into my classroom, in the school where my classroom is located, in the town where the school is located, etc, without a strong sense of race, class, and gender.

[Novelafemme]

Originally Posted by Heart

That's interesting... what exactly is "gender-neutral," how is it achieved, maintained? Does it validate multiple gender experiences while reducing stereotypes or does it erase/minimize/police gender? Is it liberating or stifling?

Remember that we are discussing a kindergarten classroom here...not a college sociology experiment. In my opinion these children's experiences are validated 150% simply by allowing them the freedom to create their own identities and "roles" within the safety of their classroom. By negating gender oriented language/toys/stereotypical representations of boys and girls, the children are afforded the opportunity to create...to actively engage in an etherial realm uninhibited by societal constraints that have been punctuated by the male-female dichotomy. Play, in all its magnificent forms, allows the child to cultivate a healthy curiosity that in turn (over time - via life experiences) metamorphosizes into an ideology.

[tapu]

Originally Posted by Chazz

tap: What is happening in progressive classrooms like that that is undesirable or unnatural that could be done better? What change being engineered is desired, exactly?

As ScandalAndy suggested, that's a whole other thread.

Really now? I would say that it's the fundamental question to be answered in the context of this thread. It's stepping back and questioning your assumptions.

[tapu]

Originally Posted by cane

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.

Either it's new and thus an experiment; or, it's established enough to support your claims about its value to more levels. Sounds like it's still experimental to me (1 year) and so who knows what its relationship will be to anything else.

[tapu]

Originally Posted by Chazz

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

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

I'm only insulted if you sincerely thought that I meant female toy soldiers were the full solution. I'll gladly receive your remarks as condescension. >:-)

But, at what point can we march the female toy soldiers in? You speak in ideals. Wonderful. Give me something concrete that backs up your flowery language. What would you DO?

[tapu]

Just to throw a real zinger into it:

I'm one of the people who creates the instructional design for our nation's--our children's--textbooks. Plus then write and edit, too. Suggest design, and approve. Gosh, maybe that's why I'm tied to the concrete. >:-)

Recently, I had a really terrible job as managing editor for a company that publishes high-stakes assessment--precisely the tests that calibrate for NCLB. (Or, No Child Left Unturned, as I affectionately call it. Retch.)

The stories I could tell. Wow.

Anyway, I'm enjoying this very much and am pleased to have those in Sweden here to discuss this, and everyone else, of course.

tap

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by tapu

Just to throw a real zinger into it:

I'm one of the people who creates the instructional design for our nation's--our children's--textbooks. Plus then write and edit, too. Suggest design, and approve. Gosh, maybe that's why I'm tied to the concrete. >:-)

Recently, I had a really terrible job as managing editor for a company that publishes high-stakes assessment--precisely the tests that calibrate for NCLB. (Or, No Child Left Unturned, as I affectionately call it. Retch.)

The stories I could tell. Wow.

Anyway, I'm enjoying this very much and am pleased to have those in Sweden here to discuss this, and everyone else, of course.

tap

I would love to hear the stories and perspectives you have been privy to in your profession. Many years ago, I developed curriculum and the politics surrounding me were amazing and more often than not, alarming as applied to what, how and why is adopted by public school boards.

[tapu]

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

I would love to hear the stories and perspectives you have been privy to in your profession. Many years ago, I developed curriculum and the politics surrounding me were amazing and more often than not, alarming as applied to what, how and why is adopted by public school boards.

What is was like in those respects many years ago, has continued on in the same direction.

There's a book about the politics of American education, called The Language Police. It's about 10 years old. It's a little repetitive but at the same time, it is a great way to get a kick in the head about what really goes on politically w.r.t. what our children read (in any subject).


I think it probably counts as "a whole 'nother thread." >:-)

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by Novelafemme

Remember that we are discussing a kindergarten classroom here...not a college sociology experiment. In my opinion these children's experiences are validated 150% simply by allowing them the freedom to create their own identities and "roles" within the safety of their classroom. By negating gender oriented language/toys/stereotypical representations of boys and girls, the children are afforded the opportunity to create...to actively engage in an etherial realm uninhibited by societal constraints that have been punctuated by the male-female dichotomy. Play, in all its magnificent forms, allows the child to cultivate a healthy curiosity that in turn (over time - via life experiences) metamorphosizes into an ideology.

Definitely separated at birth!

[tapu]

I found it was very helpful to me, working in textbook publishing, to get near an actual child upon occasion.