No 'Him' or 'Her' in Preschool. Wait, what?
- Thread starter Heartcafe
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Hey, making sure girls know they dont need to be girlie and making sure men know hey dont need to be big butch bastards is a fantastic idea. However, in the end, girls have vaginas and boys have penises. It is anatomy, it is scienfe, it is a fact. Him and her is an identifier of one's gender, not a reinforcement of gender stereotypes. Everything girlie being in pink is a reinforcement of stereotypes, this is just calling someone by their gender...Sneaky Paladin said:
Why does something NEED to be radical to make a difference nowadays?
Yeah Cinderella teaches kids great lessons, no matter who you are or where you come from you can be successful as long as your incredibly hot and can get a powerful man to love you... well maybe not that one. But all joking aside I agree with you, acceptance and encouragement are crucial lessons regarding gender roles, but if we all did this everyone would turn into one neutral blob.Oathy said:
Indeed, because men and women are virtually the same. That is why our ancestors bothered to create different words for the two.
Wait.
Wait.
I'll quote the article for you, since you probably missed an important point in it:Celtic_Kerr said:
The fact that girls have vaginas and boys have penises is a biological fact (although, as one user (@Snowy Rainbow) explained, that too might need a bit tweaking). The fact that biological sex and social gender are in no way connected or should have specific roles assigned is another fact. We (and our kids) learn in society today that there are gender based rules assigned to each sex which are pushed and forced onto kids since early childhood (girls like pink, boys like blue and girls like kitchens, boys like cars), but in reality they have absolutely no scientific backing up. In this preschool, no one is taught how girls and boys are biologically identical. They are not and kids will know that. What they are taught is that girls do not need to like pink and kitchens and boys do not need to like blue and cars. They CAN, but they are not expected to. And it is perfectly normal if they do like it, or if they don't. Their biology has absolutely no effect whatsoever on their personality and interests. This is something that most schools somehow fail to teach, because we all emerged from schools with stereotypes built in us. My mom is an excellent driver and very liberal in her views, but she repeatedly calls other incompetent drivers (whose sex she can't see) "women". These kids will emerge from this preschool without stereotypes (they should at least; the project just started, we need time to accumulate data). Why are people raging and worrying about kids that will one day be people without gender based, sexuality based and race based stereotypes? I can't comprehend this.
I'd also like to point that Sweden, as a country, is a few decades ahead of all of us, so I don't understand this worry and pity as if we're talking about a third world country, filled with stereotypes, discrimination and intolerance, which can't seem to get out of the middle ages. It's fucking Sweden, people. It's not the perfect country, but it's far from a country that I'd be worried about fucking up their children.
iDoom46 said:
Guys: while I was writing this, I accidentally swallowed a table-sized slab of drywall. I know! Wacky.
I guess what I'm saying is: It isn't really correct grammar, but noone gives a shit and you don't have to use those silly LGBT-terms, so go ahead and use it that way.
And to add another comment to the general discussion:
I think it's very good that they try to break down gender-specified toys and activities. Your sex does not dictate what you like to do.
Anyone who knows me can tell you that I have always liked weapons, killing, monsters and superheroes and boy-things. I own several bows, knives, daggers, airsoft pistols and swords; some of which I've made myself, and I play violent videogames.
However, if I went digging through my photoalbums, I could show you pictures of five year old me in my mother's high heels, dress, lipstick and a blonde wig. Or other photos where I play with my toy-kitchen.
it's not the marriage it's the gender roles they're taking offense tolacktheknack said:
i can see moving the legos and not wanting to read cinderella (a story about a woman who does nothing but cook and clean until she's saved by a magic prince, all without any real effort or anything on her part), but the whole removing his/her thing seems a little silly
This exactly. These 'teachers' are refusing to admit that there are any fundamental differences between males and females- which their are. What are they going to do when they become teenagers and see that the girls in their class suddenly have breasts and they don't? Teach them that everyone is equal, but everyone is different as well. This is complete ignorance on the schools part.Deschamps said:
You fail at reading comprehesion, so let me help you:Rex Fallout said:
That's from the article the OP referenced. The ignorance in this case is coming from the people who think that Egalia is trying to achieve some kind of radicalfeminist brainwashing.
I really really don't see the problem here. Everybody acts as though those kids will be in shock when they finally realize that there is a term for girls and a term for boys when they most likely wont. And to me, the only true differences between boys and girls are strictly biological.
I was exaggerating, sorry for you not picking that up. What I find wrong with this is that you are messing with mere children during a time when their individuality is not yet fully developed. They are brainwashing children and trying to teach people that, "Cinderella is bad, story about two guy giraffes good." Is that not brain washing? I played with cars all the time when I was a kid, but I know nothing about cars today because that isn't something that interests me. At all. I know many girls who, when they were toddlers, ran around playing house and play cooking, who turned into very different individuals. But I suppose it doesn't matter. In theory this should mean nothing, who we are as children and who we are as adults are many times very, very different, so in the long run these children could grow up to fulfill the very stereotypes that the school is trying so hard to erase.Gethsemani said:
What I am not getting here is how the seniment that Egalia wants to give the children the choice to be whoever they want to be, regardless of what gender stereotypes say, is somehow turned into Egalia forcing these kids into something horrible. They are basically promoting the right of the children to choose for themselves (which they are capable of doing, mind you) and the detractors wants to make this out to be the preschool forcing the children into nasty radical feminism.Rex Fallout said:
If anything, it is the other way around. Most preschools imprint the social gender stereotypes on the children as soon as they get there. That's not to say that everyone will adhere to them when they grow up, but the chances that children that has been forced to conform to these stereotypes will continue to do so when they grow up is far higher than if they haven't been subjected to them in a pedagogic enviroment from an early age.
As for old children's tales, we are not living in 1850 anymore and Brother's Grimm are not the epitome of children's tales anymore. There are plenty of good modern stories for children, that don't reinforce antiquated social ideals or gender stereotypes. Nostalgia is never beneficial when it comes to didactics and teaching.
They are wasting time and energy on something that doesn't need to be done. Any individual with half a backbone will be whatever the hell they want to be when they want to be it. And people have been ignoring social gender stereotypes for some time anyways, ie. women in the military, stay at home dads- so your argument is invalid. The only thing that would force these stereotypes on these children are the parents of these children, something the school does not, and should not have the power to dictate over.Gethsemani said:
Oh tell me then oh merciful wise leader, when should we start burning our copies of 1984, Atlas Shrugged, and 2001: a space odyssey because they are from the past and therefore due to your logic, unimportant? Next we shall throw out all history books because the bloody history of mankind is just to darn violent for our small childrens minds. Oh! and then we can have the government take care of us completely because us peasants is too dumb to lead us selves.
LiquidGrape said:
cobra_ky said:
The agenda of preschool teachers isn't so much to "prepare them for the real world" It's also to inflame their imagination, their social skills, very basic problem solving and intuition.
Anyone who wants to turn it into a device to teach them liberal attitudes, or try to change the way the human race views gender and sexuality is gravely missing the point.
I haven't met one 2-4 year old in my life (and I've met a lot of them, my son is 2) who would understand the connection between placing lego blocks near the kitchen. Not one. It's far too conceptual and you're kidding yourself if you think it is even going to do anything. I would wager that most Escapists wouldn't even draw the parallels if they walked into a classroom with lego blocks near the kitchen. They aren't going to draw social parallels (that they don't even understand yet) and they aren't going to view gender roles any differently.
And getting rid of the word "he" and "she"? It's only going to confuse them. They are going to come into preschool saying the words "he" and "she", be told a made up word instead, get confused and then ask their parents about it. That's all that is going to happen there.
Also I may add, in Arabic, the words "he", "she" and "it" are all interchangeable and are completely different to our perception of the words. That must be why Arabia is the at the crest of gender equality.
And replacing fairy tales with books involving homosexual relationships instead? This one really makes me laugh. This is akin to South Africa's race policy in their sports, where they basically think:
"We had a huge problem with racism, so let's make sure at least 5 black people are in every team of 11 men".
But instead, it's:
"Homophobia is a bit of an issue for some people in today's society.. I Know! Let's make sure we shove homosexuality in three year old's faces! They'll be accepting then!"
What?. Do you really believe that that is going to change anything? Homophobia is a very complex issue, and I think most of it is seeded in our biology and evolutionary views regarding difference. Thinking that the perception of homosexuality will even shift slightly by reading a story when you are three involving two princesses is ridiculous.
However, this one may do some good and I do approve of presenting children with stories involving gay couples. But the fact they are getting rid of every other story and all the other fairy tales just destroys any chance of making this a positive thing. Why does everything else have to go just because you want to teach children that being gay is okay?
This whole thing reeks of going the wrong way about things. Deceiving children, presenting a world that doesn't exist to them, drawing social analogies and concepts that they are too young to understand and, perhaps worst of all, making them the target of some new left wing idealism.
My prediction? This won't change a thing and we won't hear anything about it.
Nice hyperbole. It has nothing to do with "backbone", because cultural pressure has nothing to do with courage. That we are moving in the right direction now doesn't mean we are close to reaching a gender neutral society. The easy way to point this out is: How many women doesn't want to be soldiers because it isn't feminine? How many men doesn't want to be nurses because it isn' manly?Rex Fallout said:
While parents have some sway in their childrens upbringing, they are far from the end and all be all. There are plenty of studies that shows that social and pedagogical arenas (preschool, school and other activities like sports or dancing) are just as important in shaping a childs future perceptions of the world. Children are quick to percieve if they are considered a boy or a girl and how they are expected to act, while parents can counter act this to some degree they are not entirely capable of preventing it.
As for the litterature, you are completely missing my point. I am not saying we should PC every single book in the world and retcon out all the violence in history. There comes a time when you'll be able to read on your own just for fun, at which point you are free to read whatever you want. It is a part of your personal freedom to do so. But the entire god damn point of a children's book is to not only be amusing but also to be pedagogic. While old stories might be good from a purely narrative perspective, they are usually ripe with outdated moral "lessons". By reading them to the children you are also teaching the children such ideals that men must be strong and silent and women should be pretty and take care of the home. It has absolutely nothing to do with whatever or not Asimov or Rand are good authors.
Just as a closing note: Egalia bases its' didactic principles on sound scientific research. These preschool teachers are not pulling their pedagogic ideas out of their ass, but have identified a weakness in modern preschools. It has nothing to do with "How they think it is", but rather how it is scientifically proven that it is. Your ideas about the parents roles and gender equality run directly contrary to how the latest research in those areas claims it is. But it will be fun to see you misinterpreting and twisting my arguments again.
they don't need to understand it. you're putting kids who like blocks next to kids who like cooking. it's easy for them to play with each other. is that going to instill them with a profound sense of gender equality? probably not, but it can't hurt, and if it doesn't work, who cares?SillyBear said:
They'll learn the words "he" and "she", and probably use them for most of their lives, but they'll also be taught from an early that the distinction in gender is not a particularly important one.SillyBear said:
that's exactly how you change things. Why do you think the gay rights movement is only gaining traction now, and not at any other point in human history? Because a few decades ago people started coming and saying it was OK to be gay. Gay rights issues have stronger support among young voters, because they were more likely to grow up knowing people who were openly gay, and more people were willing to come out the more accepting society became. I myself was pretty intolerant of trans people until someone "shoved it in my face" by coming out to me.SillyBear said:
is handing some Westboro Baptist kids a story about a gay couple going to magically turn them tolerant? of course not. but raising them in a culture of acceptance does, and these stories are part of that.
Well, they were getting rid of stories that they felt set a bad example for the children. i don't know that they got rid of every other story.SillyBear said:
Why is this any worse than presenting a world with princesses and magic in it? Kids aren't stupid. They'll see how the real world is, and adapt like kids always do. No one ever tried to teach me what gender roles were expected of me, or that heterosexuality was normal, i figured that out on my own just by looking at the world around me. The only difference is that these kids will understand how the world should be and they'll work harder to make it that way.SillyBear said:
What analogies? and what's so complicated about the concept of people falling in love, regardless of gender?
My prediction is that the world will progressively grow more accepting and tolerant, and that we'll never hear about a child who was harmed by going to this school.
