printIt is one thing to let children be who they are; a girl to play football, if she likes; a boy to bake bread. It’s quite another to engineer the obliteration of gender roles. And it is one thing for a private school to engage in “engineering equality between the sexes,” as the reporter euphemizes an experiment underway in a Swedish preschool based in Stockholm; it is quite another for the state to compel its tax base to pay and partake in such dangerous, invasive folly. Oh well, it’s good to know that American pedagogues are not the dumbest in the world:
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 color 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 1 to 6 is among the most radical examples of Sweden’s efforts to engineer equality between the sexes from childhood onward.
The literature in developmental psychology is clear—it was at least when I attended university. The development of gender identity early in life is a function of biology, psychology and learning. A small sample develops the opposite gender identity, likely because of innate, biological processes. It is a blessing that a male or female child no longer has to agonize over an innate mismatch between his or her physical being (for example, male) and the gender identity that attaches to it (female).
In these cases, acceptance and kindness is key. But to engineer gender confusion is a horrible idea. Profoundly stupid too. Going overboard and parading sexuality, any sexuality, in schools and the workplace—that’s plain vulgar, regressive and uncivilized. (See “Libertarianism Lite”)
If they wanted to know what would happen, all they have to do is look at all the ‘gender neutral’ experiments in the US 1970-80. I thought those failures were known worldwide. Personally, I have always enjoyed watching girls 3-6. Boys that age rarely do anything other than take up space, but little girls are bundles of energy. Momma’s serious little helpers, carrying trays, pushing little brother’s high chair to the table, an hour later running wildly down the aisle to make daddy chase them through the store, giggling with abandon. Jabbering constantly. These people want to take that away, what a way to destroy life.
I shudder to think what “toys” the teachers are scattering around the classroom.
Surely these people must know that even on the biological level, we are programmed to adopt the respective “stereotypical” gender roles. What are they trying to do? Experiments aren’t done in a vacuum, there must be a reason for this. And I won’t fall for the “equality” charade. There is something more sinister at work here.
The situation is just another reason to abolish GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS or, if unable to abolish those schools and the associated mandatory tax assessments, then issue unrestricted VOUCHERS for education so parents can determine how the child will be educated.
BTW…why place doors on unisex toilet stalls? Why have separate swim times for girls, boys? Why not force clothing manufacturers to produce a single line of clothing? “Buster Brown” haircuts for all or “Mister Clean”? Wow, just imagine the possibilities once the Government eliminates all gender references – excuse me while I puke.
I feel like jotting down 1000 words here on this subject, but actually I’m speechless. The education establishment in modern society is populated by blithering idiots. Much like the various legislatures and parliaments now in operation.
“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”
And I’ll bet if Jenny Johnson is/was manly, rough and outgoing she is/was not married – at least not to a man.
Let’s face it in most cases boys and girls are just wired differently. As an only child growing up in a male dominated world (friends, sports, etc) and then becoming a parent of two daughters, the differences were significant and sometimes staggering.
At least when I was a kid, albeit a long time ago, boys tended to handle disagreements in a straight forward way. First there was an argument, it that didn’t settle it you might have a fist fight, or you might just agree to disagree and that was that.
Watching my daughters agonize over who said what to whom, the backbiting, the grudges, and the outright nasitness was a whole new experience for dear old Dad.
Both of my daughters ended up having more guy friends than girl friends for the reasons I stated above.
Now, having said all of that I believe that girl’s best friends have a much tighter bond than most boys and their best friends. There is a also special bond between a father and a daughter that is all together different than a good father-son bond. Similarly there is a special bond between a mother and a son that is different than a good mother-daughter bond.
Now what does all of the above have to do with the price of beans in China? In the end IMHO it is a bad idea to ignore the differences between girls and boys. I also think it is a bad idea to pigeon hole individual girls and boys into roles his or her biology doesn’t support.
Once again common sense and natural law agree here. By all means recognize the differences in the sexes in the school systems and certainly allow individual for individual differences (or the liberty of the individual) within the norms of the Social Contract for a civil society.
(Begin Sarcasm) But what do I know I’m just an engineer and certainly not qualified to contradict our government endowed experts in the fields of education and psychology. (End sarcasm)
Hatred of inherited custom and social hierarchy, a revilement of norms and traditions, race and gender mysticism, at war with reality – where might one have ever heard of such things as that before our own enlightened age?
Plotinus had his Valentinians, St. Augustine his Manicheans, and Eric Voeglin writes of our contemporary Gnostics in The New Science of Politics, and Politics and Gnosticism.
The difference now? The Gnostics have insinuated themselves into power and have the intimidation of the state and the media to shield them from inquiry and the law to protect them from a good tar and feathering.
Eric Voeglin:
“A civilization can, indeed, advance and decline at the same time – but not forever. There is a limit toward which this ambiguous process moves,” and a society reaches this limit when “an activist sect that represents the Gnostic truth organizes the civilization into an empire under its rule.”
This silliness reminds me of when the Seattle public schools website said that anyone with a future time orientation was racist.
[Public schools officials knew what future time orientation was? for that alone they need to be commended. But I don’t believe it.]
“Agonizing over who said what to whom, backbiting, grudges and outright nastiness.” Now that we have come full circle to female dominated cultures that’s the way business, government and education operate.