Gender Neutral Kindergarten in Sweden

[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.

[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 destrctive. 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

[ScandalAndy]

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 destrctive. 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

I agree with what you are saying, for the most part. I feel I need to stand by my opinion that gender neutrality doesn't discourage gender exploration and, in fact, encourages it. I believe it allows an individual the freedom to examine all aspects of gender and make the personal decision about how they choose to present themselves. Re-examination of oneself over time may or may not lead to different presentations, all of which should be acceptable.

I think we are trying to say the same thing with different terms. personally, I don't support "equality" as, to me, that denotes preclassification in groups which are then judged to be equal to one another.

[AtLast]

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 destrctive. 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

This has been the major flaw in the many "experiments" like this through the years. Yes, reinscribe, not neutralize and equality.

Although I have had many times in life in which my gender presentation as female has met with negative consequences, I have always internally enjoyed and even felt much flexibility concerning my gender presentation.

[Novelafemme]

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

This has been the major flaw in the many "experiments" like this through the years. Yes, reinscribe, not neutralize and equality.

Although I have had many times in life in which my gender presentation as female has met with negative consequences, I have always internally enjoyed and even felt much flexibility concerning my gender presentation.

I feel very similarly, ALH! Thank you for sharing this.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Novelafemme

I feel very similarly, ALH! Thank you for sharing this.

You are very welcome! You know, it would be very interesting to hear more about this from femmes. But, I guess that is for another thread. Some of this is expressed in femme threads- I take a look sometimes, but I wonder if this could be discussed in combination with butches and ranges of femmes and butches including transmen and women.

I know that this varied community has so many areas surrounded with negative experiences and self-perceptions (at times) surrounding our gender presentation that we all have to deal with- yet, I have found a fundamental freeing as part of this community in terms of gender as a butch woman. And learned so much from a more positive perspective via other identifications and gender presentaions.

[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.

[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

[dreadgeek]

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 destrctive. 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

Yes. This. Precisely. The problem is not gender, the problem is injustice. There is nothing wrong with the category female or male. There is nothing wrong with the category boy or girl, man or woman, butch or femme, what-have-you. The problem is when we determine that we are going to ascribe 'good' or 'superior' to one and ascribe 'bad' or 'inferior' to another.

Cheers
Aj

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Yes. This. Precisely. The problem is not gender, the problem is injustice. There is nothing wrong with the category female or male. There is nothing wrong with the category boy or girl, man or woman, butch or femme, what-have-you. The problem is when we determine that we are going to ascribe 'good' or 'superior' to one and ascribe 'bad' or 'inferior' to another.

Cheers
Aj

This is not my most thought out response, so apologies if it's a bit convoluted, but I'm not saying that the problem is gender, i'm saying the problem is the arbitrary definitions assigned therein and the injustice that results.

Also, i'm seeing a lot of binary terminology here, and that really gets my goat. Again with the division into A or B, opposites, whatever. It's not true in nature or life in general so I dislike that it's being touted in a thread where my entire point is that it's ludicrous to think we can divide things into neat little oppositional categories and find a way for everyone to explore these categories without bias or judgment.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by ScandalAndy

This is not my most thought out response, so apologies if it's a bit convoluted, but I'm not saying that the problem is gender, i'm saying the problem is the arbitrary definitions assigned therein and the injustice that results.

Also, i'm seeing a lot of binary terminology here, and that really gets my goat. Again with the division into A or B, opposites, whatever. It's not true in nature or life in general so I dislike that it's being touted in a thread where my entire point is that it's ludicrous to think we can divide things into neat little oppositional categories and find a way for everyone to explore these categories without bias or judgment.

For the sake of brevity, I'm using binaries because--quite honestly--I don't want to type out every *possible* combination of gender expressions that human beings might be capable of. That strikes me as convoluted. So let's start here, what would a less arbitrary definition be?

Humans categorize. To use language is to categorize. The moment I call something a bird, I am tacitly making the statement that the animal I'm speaking of is not a mammal. When I speak about a land-mammal, I am tacitly making the statement that I'm not talking about water-fowl or water-dwelling mammals. I can't talk about water-dwelling mammals without making two distinctions, mammals and everything that isn't a mammal and water-dwelling and everything that is not water-dwelling.

Again, my concern is that the new normative will be "thou shalt not have a defined gender expression". Therefore, it will be fine as long as one is not identified with 'he' or 'she' in any kind of consistent fashion. What does it look like when we no longer have these arbitrary categories? What does our language sound like? How do we keep 'gender-neutral' (whatever that might mean) from being the new normative position?

Cheers
Aj

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

For the sake of brevity, I'm using binaries because--quite honestly--I don't want to type out every *possible* combination of gender expressions that human beings might be capable of. That strikes me as convoluted. So let's start here, what would a less arbitrary definition be?

Humans categorize. To use language is to categorize. The moment I call something a bird, I am tacitly making the statement that the animal I'm speaking of is not a mammal. When I speak about a land-mammal, I am tacitly making the statement that I'm not talking about water-fowl or water-dwelling mammals. I can't talk about water-dwelling mammals without making two distinctions, mammals and everything that isn't a mammal and water-dwelling and everything that is not water-dwelling.

Again, my concern is that the new normative will be "thou shalt not have a defined gender expression". Therefore, it will be fine as long as one is not identified with 'he' or 'she' in any kind of consistent fashion. What does it look like when we no longer have these arbitrary categories? What does our language sound like? How do we keep 'gender-neutral' (whatever that might mean) from being the new normative position?

Cheers
Aj

My apologies, i did not mean to imply that you list every possible combination. Believe it or not you and I are saying the same thing. My objection is to your example of female being emotion-oriented and male being action-oriented. I say, rather, that the autonomous individuals self identify however they wish, and the responsibility rests with them for how they choose to define the terminology they use for themselves.

I favor neutrality because it does not assume to know how you view yourself and how you present yourself to the world. Gender neutral language is still in it's infancy, yes, but it is being used. I'm not saying "thou shalt not have a defined gender expression" (although there are some androgynes who embrace that wholeheartedly), I'm saying that my interpretation of the word I choose to label my gender pantomime might not match yours.

So yes, you are correct: humans categorize. I support the gender neutral rearing of children because I would rather these children define gender, categories and their best fit in the world on their own terms rather than the interpretations that have been accepted without question for so long. Sure, it was great for men to be defined partially by their musculature back when we needed to throw spears to hunt, but we are no longer a species whose evolution depends heavily on our physical nature, I believe it is shifting towards intellectual evolution.

I understand your (and Heart's) apprehension that this will turn the judgment against those who prefer a sharply defined sense of their gender and the way they choose to represent it, but I can't see how that would be the case if all expressions were welcomed and encouraged from birth.