No 'Him' or 'Her' in Preschool. Wait, what?

[Tenky]

I don't see why people get uptight about it... I mean... school only account for about 30% of what children learn... the rest is from parents or family... or did you all plan to ditch the responsability on school?

If you want them to learn gender roles, your call, but at least those children will have a fighting chance, and since 1 in 8 will be gay or some variant, at least this bit of their generation will accept it. Call it generational filtering... Just like racism slowly dying out with old people dying.

 

[trollnystan]

Snip

You are mistaken, gender-neutral them is a singular pronoun that's retained the plural morphology of its plural ancestor. Use of they to refer to individuals is pervasive in virtually every variety of modern English (naturally, this doesn't stop the usual amateur grammarians from saying that this is somehow "wrong").

Notice how mismatches in grammatical number in structures like this sound really bad:
Whenever I see friends, I wave to him.

Yet singular antecedents with them are absolutely fine:
Whenever I see a friend, I wave to them.

The fact that singular they has become so common is actually one of the main reasons that none of the constructed gender-neutral pronouns are ever likely catch on in English - they're redundant.

Huh. I stand corrected then! I freely admit I know nothing of grammar =) Still sounds really wrong to my ears though.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

Snip

You are mistaken, gender-neutral them is a singular pronoun that's retained the plural morphology of its plural ancestor. Use of they to refer to individuals is pervasive in virtually every variety of modern English (naturally, this doesn't stop the usual amateur grammarians from saying that this is somehow "wrong").

Notice how mismatches in grammatical number in structures like this sound really bad:
Whenever I see friends, I wave to him.

Yet singular antecedents with them are absolutely fine:
Whenever I see a friend, I wave to them.

The fact that singular they has become so common is actually one of the main reasons that none of the constructed gender-neutral pronouns are ever likely catch on in English - they're redundant.

Huh. I stand corrected then! I freely admit I know nothing of grammar =) Still sounds really wrong to my ears though.

Yeah, I should have been clearer: it's pervasive, but by no means completely universal (not that pretty much anything is in language). It's definitely heading in that direction though. Also, when used to avoid making a gender distinction, it's still very rare to see it used except in cases where the gender is unknown. People typically still don't use it when the gender is known, but considered inconsequential.

 

[Killertje]

Anyone else want to fast forward these kids' lives to see how messed up they're going to be? I bet that would put a stop to this right away when you're able to see the results.
I'm sorry, but there are some things that girl generally like that boys don't, and things that boys like that girls don't. Our brains are wired differently and they react differently. It's just how it is. We're different. Embrace it.

This thinking is exactly why they are doing this. If you were never told dolls are for girls you probably would have played with them (a lot more). Same goes for girls and treeclimbing. Most people accept gender roles and nudge children that way too, or flat out tell them. What they do here sounds almost perfect to me. No words for him/her means people aren't constantly reminded that gender is an issue, which honestly, it isn't until children get to the age of "noticing" the other sex.

The only thing I'm a bit concerned about is that there are barely any stories about straight happy couples. I would expect at least 50% of those in the interest of giving the children decent role models for that sort of thing as well.

 

[Korolev]

Look....
I consider myself to be a humanist. I want equality for just about everyone.

But banning the equivalents of Him and Her? That's STUPID. And it won't change a thing. Mandarin Chinese doesn't have him or her either (which is why my mother often will refer to me as a she and my sister as a he, she still gets confused), yet sexism and stereotypes still exists in Chinese cultures, just as much as it exists in other cultures.

I hope this is just one stupid preschool and not something all preschools will have to follow.

 

[Flauros]

The title comes from this article which is also the basis of this topic: http://beta.news.yahoo.com/no-him-her-preschool-fights-gender-bias-122541829.html
(recommend reading it)

Alright, so the idea of things in this preschool is to encourage the break down of gender stereotypes (aka girls gotta love make up or boys love cars) by trying to implement "gender neutralization" attics. For example, "Lego bricks and other building blocks are intentionally placed next to the kitchen, to make sure the children draw no mental barriers between cooking and construction."

But then it gets ridiculous!
"A story about two male giraffes who are sad to be childless ? until they come across an abandoned crocodile egg. Nearly all the children's books deal with homosexual couples, single parents or adopted children. There are no "Snow White," ''Cinderella" or other classic fairy tales seen as cementing stereotypes." What I don't get is how Cinderella is going cement stereotypes?

They even try to get rid of the words "him" & "her" (han/hon in swedish) and replace it with a made-up word. That is not breaking down gender stereotypes, that is just being unreasonable. What will happen to these children when they get older and realize that there is no subject term called "hen" in the real world.

I support equality, but I find these antics over the top. A boy is a boy and a girl is a girl. Nothing will change that. (unless they get a sex change, but they are preschoolers for heaven sake.) To make choices on sexuality and gender when they are this young is unnecessary.

What do you guys think?

Sounds fine to me. Telling different fairytales isnt going TO BLOW THEIR FREAKING MINDS OUT OF THEIR SKULLS. Not like you throw a blue ball to a birl instead of a pink ball SHE WILL FUCKING MALFUNCTION AND DESTROY US ALL.
The only thing that sounds bad is that they say ALL the stories are gay. Even that may be wrong. Maybe they meant "gender neutral" couples, because remember, everything is gender neutral.
Everything sounds like conjecture "someday, if a boy plays with swords, he will be stopped, because hes MALE!" The school never said that.

Im all for new ideas. Remember, this is only for parents who PLACE the kids there. They are not going to kidnap any children, as far as i know.

I have a son, and i guess you would say i would raise him just like how you think...sort of.Hes my best friend. But if I had a girl, i would raise her the same way. She would run with me, she would play legos with me, teach her to throw a ball. The fact that they DONT teach their daughters things like that, just sit in the corner and look pretty and pretend to cook is BIZZARE in my mind.
Don't you want your kid to be your buddy? Shes still a clone of you, just female. Cmon now.

 

[cobra_ky]

The title comes from this article which is also the basis of this topic: http://beta.news.yahoo.com/no-him-her-preschool-fights-gender-bias-122541829.html
(recommend reading it)

Alright, so the idea of things in this preschool is to encourage the break down of gender stereotypes (aka girls gotta love make up or boys love cars) by trying to implement "gender neutralization" attics. For example, "Lego bricks and other building blocks are intentionally placed next to the kitchen, to make sure the children draw no mental barriers between cooking and construction."

But then it gets ridiculous!
"A story about two male giraffes who are sad to be childless ? until they come across an abandoned crocodile egg. Nearly all the children's books deal with homosexual couples, single parents or adopted children. There are no "Snow White," ''Cinderella" or other classic fairy tales seen as cementing stereotypes." What I don't get is how Cinderella is going cement stereotypes?

They even try to get rid of the words "him" & "her" (han/hon in swedish) and replace it with a made-up word. That is not breaking down gender stereotypes, that is just being unreasonable. What will happen to these children when they get older and realize that there is no subject term called "hen" in the real world.

I support equality, but I find these antics over the top. A boy is a boy and a girl is a girl. Nothing will change that. (unless they get a sex change, but they are preschoolers for heaven sake.) To make choices on sexuality and gender when they are this young is unnecessary.

What do you guys think?

it concerns me that the books apparently exclude heterosexual couples (they still exist, you know.) other than that i think this is fine. Calling a boy a boy or a girl a girl is making a choice on gender and sexuality.

Cinderella is about a woman who needs a man to rescue her from her terrible life and make her happy. it doesn't get much more gender-biased than that.

 

[WoodenPlanck]

We are witnessing the self-destruction of a culture in the ill-defined name of equality.

I would draw a parallel between this and an article here on the Escapist, the one that mentioned adults to be too eager to assume kids see things the same way adults do. Leading them to assume kids will only think to go around killing hookers in GTA4 instead of doing things like following most traffic laws and driving cars for fun.

So much can go wrong when the over-zealous go about pushing a counter agenda that is more harmful that the perceived problem. What is worse is that this is effectively a psychological experiment on the public. Not only that but one without a control group, statistics collection, or a follow up study. They are just assuming this is better for the public good.

Probably another public office holder trying to establish a better footing over his opponents.

Addendum: The bottom of the article states the people running the school say it is about Democracy. I want to point out the absurdity of such a statement, and that everyone in recent history that wanted to say what they were doing was good just said they were being Democratic, or promoting Democracy. This only makes me more suspicious of such an establishment, and it's ill guided social experiment.

 

[Biosophilogical]

Equality and tolerance should be achieved through education, not ignorance.

Agreed. I think the intention is good but the execution is sorely lacking. Though in their defense, how do you teach children the concept that girls and boys are different, but aren't? I mean, they haven't reached any level of sexual maturity, so short of getting the girls and boys to drop their pants, how are you really going to explain the difference? When I was that age I knew there was a difference, and I knew it had something to do with the pants area, but I had no clue what the difference was. I'd never seen a woman's 'bits' at that age.

So sure, tolerance through education, rahter than ignorance, but you can't teach something that they don't understand, because if you start trying to teach how boys and girls aren't really different to people who are unlikely to even be aware of the concepts of gender, race or sexual orientation, you are just as likely (if not more) to create a issues that weren't there before.

At that age, I would probably try and limit the use of fairy tales like Cinderella (don't exclude them, just don't make fairy tales with similar gender roles or themes the main type you read), because while you don't want to leave them ignorant, you also don't want to accidentally enforce (and subsequently reinforce) a view on gender roles that creates a gap between men and women. So I don't think a heavy educational stance is the best method at that age, and I don't think that ignorance is the best course either. What needs to happen is for there to be a range of source material, so that you don't exclude things out of fear, but don't over-include anything so much that it begins to enforce stereotypes.

 

[Matthew Valkanov]

I just wonder what the point of a school like this is. We somehow managed to have a large number of open-minded people with varied non-stereotypical likes and dislikes come out of regular schools and pre-schools. The people whose kid's are in Egalia would probably give their children the same values if the school didn't exist.. And homophobes and sexists wouldn't have their children in this type of school. So why exactly do we need this mind-numbingly pointless school?

The whole idea just gives me nausea, especially the outlawing of fairy-tales. Fair enough, not the most PC of stories, but if you can't let your child read one without magically turning into a tosser, I think there's a real problem with your parenting.

The two giraffe's thing really irritated me too. Not the gay adoption slant of it it. That's fair enough. But the fact that they adopted a crocodile. I'm tired of people trying to PC bloody fauna for kids. Those parents are going to be dinner in a year.

Sheesh, I'm so disturbed by the whole story I can't even write properly ^^

 

[cobra_ky]

I am NOT just saying this to disagree. I actually see Cinderella as the opposite. That they shouldn't just aspire to clean and all that stuff, but should in fact aspire to break free from the oppressive chains that hold them back, and fight to make their dreams come true no matter what those dreams may be (a peasant woman marrying a prince? Like that'd happen!). I think it's an awesome story (not that children would analyze it this way anyways...).

when did Cinderella fight for anything? a magic lady pops out of nowhere and hands her everything she needs. What exactly does Cinderella teach girls to aspire to? Magical thinking and a literal Prince Charming?

 

[Spy_Guy]

Augh, that stuff.

If I ever became a parent I'd make damned sure to keep my kids away from places like that. I kid you not, they do use the term "hen" for gender-neutrality.

I don't know what to say, really. The practice disgusts me, that's for certain.

To me, it reeks of ignorance, really. Yes, boys and girls are different, that's an undeniable fact. Trying to pretend that difference doesn't exist is just plain dumb.

Then again, so is using said difference to justify the claim that "This gender is less worth than that gender" is also plain dumb.

The idea of some strange person teaching my (hypothetical) boy to be a girl is utterly peculiar and offensive to me, similar to how some strange person teaching my (also hypothetical) girl to be a boy is peculiar and offensive to me.

That being said, I'd teach my (hypothetical) kids to respect people without regards to gender.

 

[Beryl77]

It's just a fact that there are differences between men and women whether they like it or not, sure there are some special cases but that's a minority. I'm not saying that they should encourage stereotypes but just telling the children that there are no differences is simply ignorant. They should teach the children what those differences mean and how to handle them and not denying their existence.

 

[dyre]

Look....
I consider myself to be a humanist. I want equality for just about everyone.

But banning the equivalents of Him and Her? That's STUPID. And it won't change a thing. Mandarin Chinese doesn't have him or her either (which is why my mother often will refer to me as a she and my sister as a he, she still gets confused), yet sexism and stereotypes still exists in Chinese cultures, just as much as it exists in other cultures.

I hope this is just one stupid preschool and not something all preschools will have to follow.

Actually, mandarin does have a him and a her, but it's pronounced the same way. The characters are different though.

 

[WoodenPlanck]

other than that i think this is fine. Calling a boy a boy or a girl a girl is making a choice on gender and sexuality.

I'm a little confused by this statement. What do you mean? As in making a choice for the child? or. . . Are you agreeing that using gender specifics encourage some type of preference amongst children?

 

[Thaluikhain]

Sounds fine to me. Telling different fairytales isnt going TO BLOW THEIR FREAKING MINDS OUT OF THEIR SKULLS. Not like you throw a blue ball to a birl instead of a pink ball SHE WILL FUCKING MALFUNCTION AND DESTROY US ALL.

Im all for new ideas. Remember, this is only for parents who PLACE the kids there. They are not going to kidnap any children, as far as i know.

I have a son, and i guess you would say i would raise him just like how you think...sort of.Hes my best friend. But if I had a girl, i would raise her the same way. She would run with me, she would play legos with me, teach her to throw a ball. The fact that they DONT teach their daughters things like that, just sit in the corner and look pretty and pretend to cook is BIZZARE in my mind.
Don't you want your kid to be your buddy? Shes still a clone of you, just female. Cmon now.

Exactly.

Also, it's not like the rest of society is immediately going to shut up about gender roles when these kids are around. They'll still be watching the same TV etc as everyone else.

Trying to counter the enforcement of arbitrary roles in some small way like this is hardly the end of the world.

 

[LostTimeLady]

Although I admire the removal of unhealthy social stereotypes that opress women and put expectations on men this is taking it too far.
When I was younger my bedroom was painted yellow, I had a train set, played with stuffed animals, liked books about talking rabbits, I wore shorts, my favourite colour is blue, oh, and I'm a girl! Shock horror!
My sister on the other had was far more girly when she was very little but that's ok too, cos we were aloud to like what we liked. She liked horses, I liked trains, so flipping what?! If I had been made to like horses and have a pink bedroom then, yeah, that's reinforcing stereotypes but my sister liked pink so that's fine, the same way as I liked blue.

No-one is gender neutral, it's a fact of biology. I think the best way for a child to grow up is to be given the right to choose. A child isn't thick, if they like playing with lego, let them play with lego, if they like playing 'house' let them because it's what they want to do regardless of gender. (As a point of information, when me and my sister played 'let's pretend' I was usually the boy if the cast was one male, one female. When you're six you don't think about it.)

Paint the kid's first room yellow (a 'gender neutral' colour but also a nice colour, green works too I guess), let them experiance lots of things and make up their own mind. But that's up to the parents, not teachers.

P.S. what's wrong with refering to a person of unknown gender as 'they' (i.e. 'We've got a visitor next week, THEY are a Doctor')? It works in English, or does that pronoun not exist in that form is Swedish? I was just wondering.

 

[Mad1Cow]

DERP.

This reminds me of a customer at a grocery store I work at... he complained about the "Moms and Tots" parking spot being discriminatory against single fathers. The best part is that his wife was right there.

Nope, I don't understand why people get hung up on gender. Where'd they come up with this idea, anyways?

Also, is depicting stereotypes really a bad thing? When 90% of the population (or so) is straight, and about 60% of them married, then how is depicting a straight marriage "reinforcing a negative stereotype"? (I'm assuming it's somehow negative, otherwise they wouldn't take umbrage to it.)

Just to clarify here, what exactly is a "Moms and Tots" parking spot? Does it mean that any single mothers get to have a parking spot close to the building? I understand the idea of having a spot for pregenant women, but if it's just because they're single mothers that they get the spot, I may have to side with the guy who brought it up on this.

It's meant for pregnant women and mothers with very small children that they want off the parking lot as quickly as possible. Men with babies/toddlers are totally allowed to use it, he was just pissed by the wording on the sign.

See in Britain we have "Parent and children" parking bays. This get's abused when a 50 year old mother parks up with a 30 year old son, but they soon get a spanking. Basically if you have an adult with a child under 3 years of age, you can park up fine and dandy...