Sign of the Times of the Day: Swedish preschool bans gendered terms.
At the Egalia preschool, staff avoid using words like “him” or “her” and address the 33 kids as “friends” rather than girls and boys.
From the colour and placement of toys to the choice of books, every detail has been carefully planned to make sure the children don’t fall into gender stereotypes.
“Society expects girls to be girlie, nice and pretty and boys to be manly, rough and outgoing,” says Jenny Johnsson, a 31-year-old teacher.
“Egalia gives them a fantastic opportunity to be whoever they want to be.”
The taxpayer-funded preschool which opened last year in the liberal Sodermalm district of Stockholm for kids aged one to six is among the most radical examples of Sweden’s efforts to engineer equality between the sexes from childhood onward.
Breaking down gender roles is a core mission in the national curriculum for preschools, underpinned by the theory that even in highly egalitarian-minded Sweden, society gives boys an unfair edge.
June 27th, 2011 | 1:37 pm
Funny that the same people who champion evolution are the ones who insist that it’s only “superstition” – not evolution – that makes people, and social groupings, and human institutions, be the way they are.
When they do harm, and eventually learn a lesson – the hard way – they congratulate themselves for being so clever, and never once do they seriously ask themselves whether the lesson could have been learned without quite so much breaking of people and lives along the way.
June 27th, 2011 | 2:19 pm
Interestingly, some Asian languages do not have pronouns that distinguish between the two genders. It would be as if in English we could not use he or she but had to refer to any person as it. I think it is save to say this didn’t in any way contribute to the equality of men and women, but it doesn’t seem to have resulted in anything bizarre or catastrophic.
I can only imagine some people who oppose the Swedish ban (I think it is quite bizarre myself) also insisted that “he,” “him,” and “his” in the Bible always really included women, and that “brothers” meant “brothers and sisters,” and that inclusive language in general was just some silly feminist idea.
June 27th, 2011 | 2:38 pm
While most parents are concerned about their child being exposed to profanity, violence and sex at such a vulnerable age, they often overlook the most dangerous and harmful predator out there: pronouns.
June 27th, 2011 | 2:42 pm
“Interestingly, some Asian languages do not have pronouns that distinguish between the two genders. It would be as if in English we could not use he or she but had to refer to any person as it.”
Yep, and we all know that Asian nations like China and Japan have always been exemplars of women’s equality.
June 27th, 2011 | 3:00 pm
I recently read a story (linked by Drudge) about a couple in New England somewhere who have decided to raise their children in a “gender-neutral” fashion – even going so far as to conceal the sex of their youngest (an infant) so that it will be protected from the implantation of gender-specific prejudices at a young age. The parents insist that their two older childen, both boys, love the color pink, painting their nails, and playing with dolls – while also insisting that they’ve never done anything to encourage such behaviour. I’m wondering whether they underestimate, however, how subtle children are when picking up cues from adults. I’m assuming that they would be pleased (enough for the child to pick up on their preference) if one of their boys bent societies gender assumptions by playing with Barbies, etc. Children, I think, tend to go along with what they know their parents prefer – especially if parents are deliberate about it. It seems they might be proving what they’re trying so hard to avoid.
I’m also wondering how they would react if one of their children decides to rebel one day and becomes fascinated with G.I. Joes and BB guns.
June 27th, 2011 | 7:17 pm
“I can only imagine some people who oppose the Swedish ban (I think it is quite bizarre myself) also insisted that “he,” “him,” and “his” in the Bible always really included women, and that “brothers” meant “brothers and sisters,” and that inclusive language in general was just some silly feminist idea.”
Do you really not get the significance of the difference between understanding that different languages handle pronouns one way, and banning the normal usage of a language that handles it another way? Is there no difference between acknowledging a reality (biblical languages and early modern English used the masculine for the inclusive) and trying to change a reality (Swedish distinguishes between sexes by gender?)
June 27th, 2011 | 8:49 pm
“heteronormativity’s” gonna become the new “racism.” just watch
June 27th, 2011 | 9:33 pm
Maggie, I wonder about those boys—so admirably playing with dolls and painting their nails—and especially the parents, who insist they have done nothing to encourage this. Except, I guess, buying the dolls and nail polish, and showing them how to use them. And then praising the infants for their open-mindedness.
June 28th, 2011 | 1:02 am
You are screwing the boys up though. I’ve never seen any boy that follows after feminine gender traits to have nothing but trouble. Women don’t like them, men don’t know what to do with them. There’s a double standard where its okay to be a tomboy, but not a mama’s boy.
June 28th, 2011 | 12:01 pm
Blake – One can be sure about evolution in general, and even that people evolved, without necessarily being certain about what is specifically ‘nature’ and what’s specifically ‘nurture’. See this (long but very interesting):
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/07/the_natural_basis_for_inequali.php
I have, er, a lot of reservations about the wisdom and utility of this… ‘experiment’. It’s worth noting that English is unusually ‘gender-neutral’ as languages go already, and that doesn’t seem to have had the effects these educators seem to be hoping for.
June 28th, 2011 | 12:26 pm
Boys and girls ARE different. “Equal” does not mean “the same”. Whatever anyone says to the contrary, we are physical beings who have in our natural state two genders. A biologic man will not get ovarian cancer because he doesn’t have ovaries. But it is also more than that–evey cell in a girl is different from the cells in a boy. The enzymes are different, muscle cells and bone cells metabolize differently. The brain actually DOES work differently. Why do we not celebrate these differences rather than erase them. Whatever happened to “diversity”–meaning each person is different, so let’s not make them all the same.
One of the basic biological differences between people is their gender. It is NOT just “plumbing”–as noted, there is a lot more to it than that. As a physician I know that we have medicines directed that work better in women, some in men, etc. It doesn’t matter if a woman has mastectomies and takes artificial pills to grow facial hair–she will still be a woman and subject to the medical conditions of a WOMAN in every cell of her body. She will still react to diseases as a WOMAN on a physiologic basis. Whatever may be “politically correct” or not, that’s how it is.
Biology is biology. Someone might not like it, but just as someone doesn’t like gravity, they need to accept it. If you choose not to accept the law of gravity because it is “too limiting” you are free to choose this, but you will also get a lot of broken bones when you try to ignore it and jump from a height.
June 28th, 2011 | 1:28 pm
Blake – One can be sure about evolution in general, and even that people evolved, without necessarily being certain about what is specifically ‘nature’ and what’s specifically ‘nurture’. See this (long but very interesting):
What difference does it make what is nature vs. what is nurture?
Either way, it evolved the way it did for a reason, and it’s pretty ignorant to assume that you can design a better construct than thousands of years of evolution.
Whether that construct is a kidney or a social unit, you have to understand what it is you’re tearing apart before you’ll be able to “improve” on it.
But liberals are too lazy to actually make the progress they claim to stand for. They’d rather just label everything they don’t understand as “superstition”, then arrogantly proclaim themselves better than the “superstitious” rabble, and pass laws demanding that everyone pretend things are the way they should be instead of the way they are.
It is a sign of the much-vaunted “superior intelligence” of the Left that no matter how many times this approach fails, they never get tired of trying it.
June 28th, 2011 | 1:31 pm
You are screwing the boys up though. I’ve never seen any boy that follows after feminine gender traits to have nothing but trouble. Women don’t like them, men don’t know what to do with them. There’s a double standard where its okay to be a tomboy, but not a mama’s boy.
That is because the big biological difference between men and women is reproduction.
When men and women make a baby together, women need to be protected and sheltered during the time when she is vulnerable.
A woman can be strong before and after that time. But a man who is weak is a threat to the family unit: if he fails in his task, the whole family is lost.
It isn’t fair. But then again it isn’t fair that women have to carry all the burdens and costs of reproduction, either.
June 28th, 2011 | 8:28 pm
Blake –
No epidurals or Cesarean sections for your wife, check.
And up until yesterday humans have always lived in single-family units, not tribes of fifty or more members.
June 29th, 2011 | 2:29 pm
And up until yesterday humans have always lived in single-family units, not tribes of fifty or more members.
I would really prefer if you could actually address the arguments I make, instead of conflating my points with silly irrelevant points.
Example:
I think I have read all the major books out there on the history of the family – the various rules and structures and creative housing arrangements different family units within different societies have used – and I can’t make heads or tails about what you are trying to say, what sort of claim this is supposed to be. That societies change over time, so therefore you simply can’t refer to anything as being constant?
Are you trying to say that women aren’t vulnerable during childbirth anymore?
The standards and methods by which families care for women and children change according to time and circumstances, but the idea that women have the babies while men protect and provide for both women and child during this time of vulnerability has been remarkably stable – sort of like how many different types of bicycle have been tried, but there’s a reason most people prefer contemporary bicycle styles over earlier prototype models.
That doesn’t mean no other style of bicycle will work – many of them did, and there’s not much reason to ban them. But there’s no reason to go out of one’s way to force everyone to pretend a velocipede is just as good as a Schwinn, either.
As a general rule, if you have to apply force to make people believe something is true – because the evidence refuses to cooperate – you’re doing it wrong.
June 30th, 2011 | 5:08 pm
Blake –
Of course, you said “But a man who is weak is a threat to the family unit: if he fails in his task, the whole family is lost.”
I was pointing out that since people live in tribes, a particular man doesn’t have to be particularly strong for the whole family to survive, so long as the tribes warriors in general are strong enough to protect pregnant women and children.
Tribes allow a certain amount of specialization; as agriculture developed, even more specialization became possible. There’s always more than one way to get along.
For example, I read about several species of frog that use mating calls – the males make their croaking, and when a particularly deep-voiced, “Barry White” frog sings, females let out calls to announce their willingness to mate. Size directly correlates with basso profundo, so obviously the way to go is to be a big male, right?
Well, actually, there’s a lot of size variation. Big males are general slower, and often the smaller, faster males get to the female first.
Humans and human societies are vastly more complex than frog societies. So we wouldn’t expect that being the big strong alpha male was the only possible successful strategy there, either.
Note – I’ve said already that I have enormous doubts about the wisdom and utility of this experiment. I wouldn’t enroll my kids there. But – just sometimes – there’s a fine line between being onto something and being on something. I kinda hope for those kids sake I’m wrong.
Oddly enough, that’s an argument for allowing same-sex marriage, isn’t it?
July 1st, 2011 | 6:31 am
Dblade
June 28th, 2011 | 1:02 am
You are screwing the boys up though. I’ve never seen any boy that follows after feminine gender traits to have nothing but trouble. Women don’t like them, men don’t know what to do with them. There’s a double standard where its okay to be a tomboy, but not a mama’s boy.
============
First, I totally agree that the parents are doing great harm to the boys’ psychological development.
However, there is not that much of a double standard about a girl being a tomboy and a mama’s boy. It depends very much on which environment the girl is in and what do you mean by “tomboy.”
And that is when they are still children, when adolescence hits, which boy wants to prom night with a girl that looks or acts like a gorilla? Even in the workplace, women who are assertive (not violent) often receive recriminating feedback.
The reason why some adolescent girls start to develop a homosexual psychology in is part because they have so many problems concerning femininity and relating to boys/men.
Now these femininity problems may be a result of even more complex problems -why would anyone have so many problems out of the blue?- but they are profoundly connected nevertheless.
July 2nd, 2011 | 8:07 am
Oddly enough, that’s an argument for allowing same-sex marriage, isn’t it?
If you want to invent a new type of social unit, go ahead.
As long as you don’t cross the line between honesty and fraud, and try to pass off your newly made-up social unit as something it isn’t.
You’re welcome to believe that boys can be girls, girls can be frogs, frogs can be cowboys – that’s your business. But those of us who believe that truth is not something we can simply choose are not obliged to participate in your fantasies.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact