PC preschool bans words 'him' and 'her'

I recall a social experiment where everyone was told to refer to one another as "comrade". That's exactly what this is trying to achieve, no?

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Its an interesting experiment they are doing overall.

to recap
they are basically removing the references if gender differences amongst one another and let them do and be whatever they want...such as if a kid wants to go "play swords" they can, or if they want to pick flowers and skip, they can also...regardless of their gender (because they do not have the programming that one does one and the other does the other).

They use multi-colored dolls, and are anatomically correct


It actually may produce some very revealing results...
As a person raised "old school", the concept seems initially strange to me...however, intellectually, I wonder if these kids will develop far more secure in themselves than I was.

I reckon eventually (after school) they will adapt to a more traditional role through a greater society peer pressure, however, they may have a stronger core of self understanding...I mean, hey...if you like to skip and sing, you like to skip and sing. eff society that tells you thats weird.

Well said. Letting children decide what they would like to do without the notion of the right/wrongness of gender roles is very interesting.

If Johnny wants to jump rope, fine let him and its great that he doesn't have to listen to everyone saying "only girls do that" and if Susy wants to be a cowboy? all fine by me.

reply to post by D1Useek


The world would be a better place if society bans words "b*tches" and "hoes

reply to post by Aeons


i actually think more in pictures than words =P but that's besides the point. you're probably the type of person that hates assumptions (and yes, i realize my statement is ironic), but i'm guessing you're a feminist/progressive? you wish to combat "limiting female/male stereotypes?"

you haven't explained how referring to someone by their gender enforces gender roles. if i see a woman drop something, i'll pick it up, and say "excuse me ma'am, you dropped this". if it was a guy, i would add "sir" in the same sentence.

the only argument you could make for that goes completely against what you believe. you would have to say "someones sex IS their gender specific role, so referring to someone by their sex binds them to their role".

if you don't believe that, then removing "him/her" or adding a gender neutral term wouldn't change anything, because by definition, there would be nothing to change.

Originally posted by guessing

PC preschool bans words 'him' and 'her'

www.news.com.au

AT the Egalia preschool, staff avoid using words like "him" or "her" and address the 33 kids as "friends" rather than girls and boys.

I want there to be a difference between boys and girls.

Well it could be worse, in britain up untill the mid fifteenth century all children were called girls.

I know there is alot of knee jerk reactions on here, but think critically for a minute.

Imagine what these children won't have to unlearn the way we did.

Such as what is 'expected' of their gender roles, etc.

Did it occur to anyone else that at least half the world already does this?

There are no Pronouns (he. she) in any language that isn't rooted in Latin.

Mandarin Chinese, Japanese, pretty much all Asian languages do not make the gender distinctions, using simply the person's name to refer to them.

I say, question everything, and remove the things that divide us.

The earlier, the better.

And to those who think this will injure these kids somehow, think again.

You complain about the terrible state of education, but defend every old fashioned tenet in it.

Think!

Adults love to complicate things for their own preconceived ideas on how things should be. How confusing and sad for the children.

reply to post by jimnuggits


again. he/she don't refer to gender roles. they refer to the sex of the individual. if you say banishing gender specific pronouns will remove gender roles, then you are also saying that gender specific roles exist because of gender differences. if the argument is fully flushed out, it is valid, but i don't think it is one you will want to accept.

This is funny.

When I was just a little guy, way back when, one of the boys in our class was caught by his father playing dress up with dolls. When the little boy told his father that he was allowed to do that at school, the father was furious. When the father confronted the offending instructor about it, he was told (quite flat out if my memory serves) that "kids will be kids".

This is nothing new, nothing that hasn't been done many, many times before.

They just called it something different back then...the just said "kids will be kids" and "let them be, unless somebody is getting hurt".

That boy grew up pretty normal btw.

More proof of lunatic control addicts who are usualy communist or socialist or autocrats or a government that is way way way to big.Common sense is just getting worse after some of the stuff that is happening.

I'm making bumper stickers that read my son will be your sons slum lord

Originally posted by pimpinette

Originally posted by guessing

Is this the way our children are destined to be educated, using de personalisation techniques and early childhood social conditioning?

Well, I remember being told as a kid, several times, "A girl don't do/say/act like that" from both other kids and adults. I am sure that I also corrected others, both boys and girls, in this way. If this is not early childhood social conditioning I don't know what is.

We as a society control each other very hard in this area, which probably leads to a sort of depersonalisation: none of us can be who we truly are, just "boy" "girl", "man" and "women". I think it is right that this kindergarten tries to work against that, just as they would work against bullying (which actually often occurs when people do not play their given gender role).

edit on 27-6-2011 by pimpinette because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-6-2011 by pimpinette because: (no reason given)

Sadly, it seems many people on here can't see the truth for what it is. You & I are may only be part of a select few, I'm afraid.

Originally posted by peck420
This is funny.

When I was just a little guy, way back when, one of the boys in our class was caught by his father playing dress up with dolls. When the little boy told his father that he was allowed to do that at school, the father was furious. When the father confronted the offending instructor about it, he was told (quite flat out if my memory serves) that "kids will be kids".

This is nothing new, nothing that hasn't been done many, many times before.

They just called it something different back then...the just said "kids will be kids" and "let them be, unless somebody is getting hurt".

That boy grew up pretty normal btw.

Amen to that.

Please tell me that in the title of the article, 'PC' doesnt stand for politically correct?

I dont see how the school could be damaging the children in a way that they'll have huge difficulties in the future, and in a way it might help with issues such as women being portrayed as being the oppressed gender all the time... but, I do agree with the following quote within the article:

"Different gender roles aren't problematic as long as they are equally valued."

Children that age do have gender specific roles such as playing with dolls etc... but ages one to six, they have NO concept of prejudice with regards to these, thats just something they learn to attach to them as they get older. When did you ever see a child of that age believing they were better than another because of what toys they played with?

Gender specific roles are a fundamental part of human society, and of all other species in the animal kingdom, showing pure ignorance towards these does nothing but prolong the inevitable until these children are older than six.
If they wish to promote equality, maybe they should accept that these roles exist, but teach the children that (as the above quote states) that all roles are equally valued. And that it is acceptable for any gender to adopt these roles if they so wish.

Found this part of the article slightly worrying.. 'Nearly all the children's books deal with homosexual couples, single parents or adopted children.'
Nearly all? I dont see anything wrong with introducing these to children to different family constructs... but shouldnt they be introduced in equal amounts with stories concerning the traditional 'nuclear family' set-up? Also, such an allegedly liberal school... yet where are the stories concerning polygamous families? Do hope they arent letting societies view of what polygamy entails influence what they teach!

Also, cant help but wonder what they will say to those children that ask why mummy cant grow a beard, and why daddy cant have babies.

Originally posted by Bluebelle
Please tell me that in the title of the article, 'PC' doesnt stand for politically correct?

I dont see how the school could be damaging the children in a way that they'll have huge difficulties in the future, and in a way it might help with issues such as women being portrayed as being the oppressed gender all the time... but, I do agree with the following quote within the article:

"Different gender roles aren't problematic as long as they are equally valued."

Children that age do have gender specific roles such as playing with dolls etc... but ages one to six, they have NO concept of prejudice with regards to these, thats just something they learn to attach to them as they get older. When did you ever see a child of that age believing they were better than another because of what toys they played with?

Gender specific roles are a fundamental part of human society, and of all other species in the animal kingdom, showing pure ignorance towards these does nothing but prolong the inevitable until these children are older than six.
If they wish to promote equality, maybe they should accept that these roles exist, but teach the children that (as the above quote states) that all roles are equally valued. And that it is acceptable for any gender to adopt these roles if they so wish.

Found this part of the article slightly worrying.. 'Nearly all the children's books deal with homosexual couples, single parents or adopted children.'
Nearly all? I dont see anything wrong with introducing these to children to different family constructs... but shouldnt they be introduced in equal amounts with stories concerning the traditional 'nuclear family' set-up? Also, such an allegedly liberal school... yet where are the stories concerning polygamous families? Do hope they arent letting societies view of what polygamy entails influence what they teach!

Also, cant help but wonder what they will say to those children that ask why mummy cant grow a beard, and why daddy cant have babies.

I guess a few problems could possibly pop-up here & there, too. But it is a major step forward from where we were, say, 50 years ago.

Originally posted by Jobeycool
More proof of lunatic control addicts who are usualy communist or socialist or autocrats or a government that is way way way to big.Common sense is just getting worse after some of the stuff that is happening.

Common sense just isnt common any more.

Originally posted by Bluebelle
Also, cant help but wonder what they will say to those children that ask why mummy cant grow a beard, and why daddy cant have babies.

Don't want to be a besserwisser, but mommys can grow beards en.wikipedia.org... and daddys can have babies www.guardian.co.uk...

I do agree with you though that it is a bit weird that the majority of books are fokused on non-traditional families, since it does not mirror how society is at the moment.

Originally posted by peck420
This is funny.

When I was just a little guy, way back when, one of the boys in our class was caught by his father playing dress up with dolls. When the little boy told his father that he was allowed to do that at school, the father was furious. When the father confronted the offending instructor about it, he was told (quite flat out if my memory serves) that "kids will be kids".

This is nothing new, nothing that hasn't been done many, many times before.

They just called it something different back then...the just said "kids will be kids" and "let them be, unless somebody is getting hurt".

That boy grew up pretty normal btw.

I'm glad that people working with children were tolerant even back then. It is the fathers reaction that is sad in this story. Hopefully the kids that go to Egalia won't judge their children like that in the future.

Originally posted by pimpinette

Originally posted by Bluebelle
Also, cant help but wonder what they will say to those children that ask why mummy cant grow a beard, and why daddy cant have babies.

Don't want to be a besserwisser, but mommys can grow beards en.wikipedia.org... and daddys can have babies www.guardian.co.uk...

I do agree with you though that it is a bit weird that the majority of books are fokused on non-traditional families, since it does not mirror how society is at the moment.

It does not mirror society now but the sick perverts in goverment know what kind of world they want to live in,paedophillia is just a few decades if not sooner away

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
While I applaud the intentions of the people making these stupid decisions, the fact remains that trying to undo the basic behaviors that makes us human (behaviors exhibited across all civilizations) is not the way to make us better. Gender identification is key in any and all Earth animals that have 2 sexes.

Instead, why not attack traits like greed, lust, subterfuge, and other traits that lead to manipulative actions? Seems THAT is far better than girls growing up not knowing how to be women.

For some reason, psychologists have always had this love affair with androgeny.

Androgeny? pffft!

I like my women to be northern european blood and corn fed!

If she's not big enough to "fight for it" why bother LOL!

Bad thing is, my wife is as mean as I am