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

Sordak

New member
Oct 5, 2010
119
0
0
you know males should be "masculine" and females should be "feminine" cause thats how it turned out, you know evolution and all, yess there are very feminine males BUT as it turns out those arent the majority and they arent the majority for a reason because if they were wed be extinct for quite a while now. sorry to put this in a blunt way but thats simply how it is
 

Blow_Pop

Supreme Evil Overlord
Jan 21, 2009
4,863
0
0
Mackheath said:
Why are people becomming increasingly forceful in insisting differences don't exist? They do. All they are doing to these kids is coddling them; what will happen when they grow up and enter the world of work?

Why the fuck can't we just have winners and losers, girls and boys, and let kids be kids nowadays? Why are parents so obsessed with protecting kids in this way?
Because its not possible to let kids be kids. They'll be just like half the people I use to work with. Show up, do nothing, expect to be paid. And I suppose (at least in the US) that they fear what *could* happen if ya know, they showed actual parenting and took responsibility for their kids......*shakes head* people disgust me nowadays.
 

Jonluw

New member
May 23, 2010
7,245
0
0
Beliyal said:
NinjaDeathSlap said:
Isn't imposing on children the mantra of "YOU MUST BE ANYTHING OTHER THAN A STEREOTYPICAL BOY/GIRL!" just as bad as imposing on them "YOU MUST BE A STEREOTYPICAL BOY/GIRL!"
What? Seriously, what? Quote the part of the article where it says "We are going to make children be something they might not want to be". It is exactly what they're fighting against. Allowing children to choose for themselves and giving them the opportunity to grow up without societal gender norm imposed on them is something I'd hardly paraphrase as "YOU MUST BE ANYTHING OTHER THAN A STEREOTYPICAL BOY/GIRL!". Fact is, there is nothing wrong with being a "stereotypical" boy/girl; as long that was chosen by the said boy/girl himself/herself. They are giving children a choice; you don't have to be a genius to be able to comprehend which toys you like more. If a girl chooses a car, fine. If a girl chooses a Barbie doll, fine. She chose that HERSELF. Which makes it perfectly fine. What is not fine are conventional preschools where they separate boys and girls and give boys only cars and give girls only kitchen utensils and encourage the social gender norms which removes the free will and choice of the child to be what he or she wants to be. There is a middle ground, people, and this might be the path to it. Stop demonizing the project by making it look like they're trying to go from one extreme into the other, Jesus. The article is perfectly clear to me and I honestly don't understand how can you think that they want to impose something on those kids. They are giving them a choice, something which current educational system is not doing.
Holy shit, someone who understands what the preschool is trying to do!

I swear it seems most people just read the biased OP and jumped straight to their stupid conclusions.
Half the commenters seem to think the boys will be actively discouraged from "swordfighting" with sticks. *facepalm*
 

Beliyal

Big Stupid Jellyfish
Jun 7, 2010
503
0
0
Iron Mal said:
Beliyal said:
About straight couples; most kids are in a straight couple family, they have that knowledge by experience. And no one said that they will not teach that too, they only mentioned that they included less "common" possible families.
By that logic doesn't a child coming from something besides a 'normal' nuclear family already have an understanding and awareness of that family structure because of their experience with it?

In that case they already know what they need to know and we don't need to focus too much on it.

I already mentioned my issues with the whole situation in general in my previous post but here I'm just saying that I have an issue with the statement quoted above, if we're going to be argueing that every choice is just as valid and acceptable as any other then surely all choices should be covered in just as much detail as every other (all things being equal there's no legitimate reason not to), especially if our interests lay in informing children of the choices they have and to help them understand (just assuing they know all about it just sounds lazy and careless to me, not to mention being something of a double standard).
True, all choices should be taught to children. What I said maybe has no real value in the argument, but as I said in the sentence after that one, nowhere did they state that heterosexual couples won't be mentioned. I believe that teaching children about heterosexuality is something that goes without saying. They only noted that, while other preschools do not cover anything besides heterosexuality, they will teach children about other choices. The article is about the differences between Egalia preschool and other, ordinary preschools. The difference is "Nearly all the children's books deal with homosexual couples, single parents or adopted children." -> this by no means should be read as "There is no mention of heterosexuality". It means that they have books that, along with heterosexual couples, ALSO cover homosexual couples, single parents and adopted children which is something no one else does. For a preschool such as Egalia, which is trying to take the modern approach to cultural norms, I think it's safe to assume they will cover all issues, including heterosexuality. It's just a waste of space and time to point out that they will also cover something that everyone covers by default.

edit:
Jonluw said:
Holy shit, someone who understands what the preschool is trying to do!

I swear it seems most people just read the biased OP and jumped straight to their stupid conclusions.
Half the commenters seem to think the boys will be actively discouraged from "swordfighting" with sticks. *facepalm*
Thanks. I tried to refrain from posting, to avoid further annoyances, but I just had to do it once I read that.
 

crystalsnow

New member
Aug 25, 2009
567
0
0
WayOutThere said:
I like the way you completely twisted what I said into whatever you needed it to say.

Whoever said that these kids were going to be subjected to ultra-stereotyped male and female models?

And I suppose you know how to raise these kids correctly right? Because the way kids are being raised currently, it doesn't look too good.


EDIT:
Jonluw said:
I swear it seems most people just read the biased OP and jumped straight to their stupid conclusions.
Half the commenters seem to think the boys will be actively discouraged from "swordfighting" with sticks. *facepalm*
Allow me to refer to the article:

"The kind of things that boys like to do ? run around and turn sticks into swords ? will soon be disapproved of," he said. "So gender neutrality at its worst is emasculating maleness."
Yeah, yeah they are being discouraged from sword-fighting with sticks. Perhaps we're not the ones that need to read more closely?
 

Jonluw

New member
May 23, 2010
7,245
0
0
crystalsnow said:
EDIT:
Jonluw said:
I swear it seems most people just read the biased OP and jumped straight to their stupid conclusions.
Half the commenters seem to think the boys will be actively discouraged from "swordfighting" with sticks. *facepalm*
Allow me to refer to the article:

"The kind of things that boys like to do ? run around and turn sticks into swords ? will soon be disapproved of," he said. "So gender neutrality at its worst is emasculating maleness."
Yeah, yeah they are being discouraged from sword-fighting with sticks. Perhaps we're not the ones that need to read more closely?
That's not at all what the preschool is saying they're doing, nor is it what they are going to do. That's a very good example of the use of the slippery slope fallacy presented to you from Jay Belsky [http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2001/04/26/belsky], a child psychologist at the University of California.
And I don't know about you, but I'm not too keen on listening to a guy with this [http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2001/04/26/belsky] kind of publicity.
Perhaps "we" are the ones who need to read more closely after all?
 

HalfTangible

New member
Apr 13, 2011
417
0
0
Am i the only one who didn't know what a vagina was until the fourth grade?

The Mighty Thesaurus said:
You know that feeling of outrage you got when you read the OP? That's your privilege being challenged. Though it may hurt now, it is the only way to progress as a society.
The only way to progress is to completely ignore the society and make up a new way of thinking?

Yeah, that makes perfect sense. While we're at it, let's tape wings to a baby! I'll betcha it'll fly, and we can test it by throwing it off this cliff! =D
 

iDoom46

New member
Dec 31, 2010
268
0
0
Yeah, I'm all for equality- in fact I'm usually the one cheering these kinds of things on. I really do think we need to do something about changing the way we raise our kids to obey these gender stereotypes.

But I have to agree, some of this stuff is just too much. I like the things like putting the Legos near the kitchen (though I always considered Legos to be a gender-neutral toy) and not exposing kids to content that can be seen as enforcing gender stereotypes but, while in most cases gender-modifiers are a good thing (Police man/woman turned to Officer, waiter/waitress turned into server, etc.), getting rid of "him" and "her" seems a bit over the top.
 

Demgar

New member
Jul 31, 2010
40
0
0
Not being Swedsh myself, but knowing quite a few Swedes, I find them pretty down to earth people. That's a pure generalization of course, but you get a feel for a culture's character after some exposure.

I'd be surprised if this is more than an isolated incident that won't catch on. Silly things are done in the name of education all over the world. Add this to the list of all the institutionalized nonsense in the US.
 

Jonluw

New member
May 23, 2010
7,245
0
0
iDoom46 said:
Yeah, I'm all for equality- in fact I'm usually the one cheering these kinds of things on. I really do think we need to do something about changing the way we raise our kids to obey these gender stereotypes.

But I have to agree, some of this stuff is just too much. I like the things like putting the Legos near the kitchen (though I always considered Legos to be a gender-neutral toy) and not exposing kids to content that can be seen as enforcing gender stereotypes but, while in most cases gender-modifiers are a good thing (Police man/woman turned to Officer, waiter/waitress turned into server, etc.), getting rid of "him" and "her" seems a bit over the top.
If you read the article, you'll see that they aren't getting rid of 'him' and 'her'.
What they're saying, specifically, is that if for example a plumber is coming to visit, and they do not yet know their sex, they will refer to the plumber with a gender-neutral pronoun, the way I did in this sentence.
I'm sure they will still refer to Julie as 'her' and Jake as 'him'.
 

HalfTangible

New member
Apr 13, 2011
417
0
0
DoctorPhil said:
iDoom46 said:
getting rid of "him" and "her" seems a bit over the top.
Why?
Because him/her is one of the few things in that list where who it's applied to IS appropriate to define by gender. Such as from 'Policeman' (implying only men) to 'Police Officer' (no gender implied)

That was... probably worded poorly =/ i'm not sure how to put it...

Jonluw said:
iDoom46 said:
Yeah, I'm all for equality- in fact I'm usually the one cheering these kinds of things on. I really do think we need to do something about changing the way we raise our kids to obey these gender stereotypes.

But I have to agree, some of this stuff is just too much. I like the things like putting the Legos near the kitchen (though I always considered Legos to be a gender-neutral toy) and not exposing kids to content that can be seen as enforcing gender stereotypes but, while in most cases gender-modifiers are a good thing (Police man/woman turned to Officer, waiter/waitress turned into server, etc.), getting rid of "him" and "her" seems a bit over the top.
If you read the article, you'll see that they aren't getting rid of 'him' and 'her'.
What they're saying, specifically, is that if for example a plumber is coming to visit, and they do not yet know their sex, they will refer to the plumber with a gender-neutral pronoun, the way I did in this sentence.
I'm sure they will still refer to Julie as 'her' and Jake as 'him'.
Oh. THAT makes sense. Making up a word for it, on the other hand, does not.
 

Antari

Music Slave
Nov 4, 2009
2,246
0
0
Snowy Rainbow said:
HalfTangible said:
And how is that different from saying 'I like girls'?
Not all girls have vaginas.
And what planet are you living on? Biology dictates that, weather you make the choice to THINK your something else is fine. But you aren't. Thats called a fact. Not a guess. Not a social political idea. Just a plain old fact. They are part of life and the sooner you start accepting some of them and moving on with your life the better off you'll be.

Boy and Girl mean fairly specific things. If you want to call yourself something else, again, thats fine. But if you think your "equal" rights give you the right to change the language because you don't happen to like it. Keep dreaming...
 

Lord Of Cyberia

New member
Jan 4, 2009
177
0
0
That's... That's... There are no words for how f*cked up this is. Gender NEUTRALIZATION? Because obviously there are NO differences between males and females in any way whatsoever. I am deeply worried for these children's futures. What are they gonna do when they're 13 and think humans reproduce via budding, or parthenogenesis?
 

Jangles

New member
Mar 12, 2010
201
0
0
cobra_ky said:
Jangles said:
What the creepy ass preschool is doing: Attempting to ignore something which governs who we are. Genetically, hormonally, reproductively, and socially.

There have been many experiments in which the participants ( usually volunteered by their parents) have been isolated, or manipulated into thinking that they are of the opposite gender. Even to the extent where they have had other genitals implanted onto their bodies. Despite these manipulations, however, they have had extreme identity crises because their bodies tell them they are a male, while the lab made them grow up as femlaes, for example.

Thus proving that all gender roles are not dictated by society, but also by your body's and your brain's natural functions.

The "school" is ignoring this fact completely, and a lot of kids are going to have unnecessarily hard lives because of it.
and there have been plenty of people who weren't isolated or manipulated at all who suffer those same identity crises, because society told them that weird thing in their pants defined what their gender should be. the correlation between genitalia and gender identity is not absolute, and it's harmful to pretend it is.

Mimsofthedawg said:
cobra_ky said:
Mimsofthedawg said:
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?
it teaches them to have faith, even when things seem hopeless and beyond your control.
that sounds like something that should be taught in churches. that's not necessarily a message i want my children learning. i want them to believe in themselves, to find things they can have control over, and reach for them.


1st. Very, very few have an extreme problem because they don't feel like what society calls a man. And at that point it becomes their job to be who they think they should be.

2nd. Faith doesn't necessarily mean believing in a/many gods. It is synonymous for numerous things.
 

Bara_no_Hime

New member
Sep 15, 2010
3,646
0
0
Oathy said:
What I don't get is how Cinderella is going cement stereotypes?
Have you READ any of the original Cinderella stories? Try googling Ashputtle (her name in the Grimm Brother's version). Or read the French court version (Cinderella)? Or hell, the DISNEY version?

If you aren't married, and you're a woman, you're worthless. That is the message of Cinderella. How's that for a stereotype?

Oathy said:
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?
These aren't choices about sexuality. This isn't about gay or straight (or bi), this is about gender bias - the belief that men are better at some things and that women are inherently inferior to men and should stay at home in the kitchen and raise children.

No one is trying to convince these kids that they aren't boys or girls or whatever - the kids aren't stupid, they know the difference. BUT, if boys and girls are treated exactly the same in all ways, then maybe the kids will treat both men and women the same when they grow up. Maybe they will hire women to construction jobs, or see nothing odd about a man being a primary child care giver (ie a housewife).

It's about deconstructing male and female roles so that neither exists - not about who likes to have sex with whom. Get your mind out of the gutter.
 

Jonluw

New member
May 23, 2010
7,245
0
0
HalfTangible said:
Jonluw said:
iDoom46 said:
Yeah, I'm all for equality- in fact I'm usually the one cheering these kinds of things on. I really do think we need to do something about changing the way we raise our kids to obey these gender stereotypes.

But I have to agree, some of this stuff is just too much. I like the things like putting the Legos near the kitchen (though I always considered Legos to be a gender-neutral toy) and not exposing kids to content that can be seen as enforcing gender stereotypes but, while in most cases gender-modifiers are a good thing (Police man/woman turned to Officer, waiter/waitress turned into server, etc.), getting rid of "him" and "her" seems a bit over the top.
If you read the article, you'll see that they aren't getting rid of 'him' and 'her'.
What they're saying, specifically, is that if for example a plumber is coming to visit, and they do not yet know their sex, they will refer to the plumber with a gender-neutral pronoun, the way I did in this sentence.
I'm sure they will still refer to Julie as 'her' and Jake as 'him'.
Oh. THAT makes sense. Making up a word for it, on the other hand, does not.
I agree. However, Swedish doesn't have a gender-neutral pronoun like 'they' to use in contexts like this.
Personally, I'd just refer to them as "the plumber", rather than using an obscure LGBT-term.
 

Jangles

New member
Mar 12, 2010
201
0
0
Antari said:
Snowy Rainbow said:
HalfTangible said:
And how is that different from saying 'I like girls'?
Not all girls have vaginas.
And what planet are you living on? Biology dictates that, weather you make the choice to THINK your something else is fine. But you aren't. Thats called a fact. Not a guess. Not a social political idea. Just a plain old fact. They are part of life and the sooner you start accepting some of them and moving on with your life the better off you'll be.

Boy and Girl mean fairly specific things. If you want to call yourself something else, again, thats fine. But if you think your "equal" rights give you the right to change the language because you don't happen to like it. Keep dreaming...

"Boy" and "Girl" actually do not. Gender is not relegated to reproducing, but the clothes you wear, the jobs yoou have, your hobbies, and many other things. Read a book or two and you will see that "Boy" and "Girl" are used for maannny different things other than defining reproductive roles.