Lovelyish

I think it’s a case of the pendulum swinging too far. I applaud what they’re trying to do, but I believe they should be read stories about hetero couples too.

Honestly, gender is not about what parts someone has, and it’s very very nice to see a school trying to emphasize that. That gender or sex is not the determining factor in any one person’s life–or that it shouldn’t be.

I agree with you. Let the boys play with the kitchen and the girls with blocks, but they are male and female. There is a difference. 

Wait, there are no books about mommy and daddy families? But that kind of family isn’t wrong… Why exclude it?

I think they’re going way too far with this and in an effort to teach them to be open minded they’re really just teaching these kids to do the opposite of what their sex normally does.

@MiaJoyTheWriter@xanga - i was thinking the same thing, if they’re really trying to be all-inclusive, they ought to have that sort of family included as well.

that said, i do understand what they’re trying to do, and it’s well-intentioned, i just think their methods are a bit unrealistic. they mean well, but aren’t going about it well. close, though, so kudos to them for trying.

I don’t think they’re trying to “squash” girly girls or manly men. But the facts is that even from a young age we subconsciously program kids to

act their gender

. Think about it, when was the last time you bought toy trucks for a female toddler when you had no inclination to know if she liked trucks.  When you don’t know what a kid likes you do usually tend to buy gender-significant gifts. They’re just trying to eliminate that barrier. 

The only thing I think is weird is that they wouldn’t read books about heterosexual couples. But even then I think that article was probably a bit misinformed. And if they did keep away from hetero books it’s only because most of them are written with strong mommy and daddy roles that don’t support what they’re trying to do.

I think the concept of it is great, but completely excluding families with a mom and dad, or completely excluding the fact that some people really do have interests that are inherently masculine or feminine, is still exclusion.  I think the theory is good but the execution warrants some changes.

I think this is a little too extreme. While I’m all for female equality, we don’t need to be men. I do not want to scratch my non-existent balls and spit, and honestly, if I have a daughter, I don’t want her too either. Also, I work with little kids. You don’t have to put the blocks in the kitchen. Trust me, our little boys have no problem playing kitchen or playing with the disney princess weeble wobbles or the baby dolls, and likewise the girls see nothing wrong with playing with legos, our toy tool kit and the firetrucks.

I understand what they’re trying to do, and it’s great that they’re trying to make it so the children know that boys and girls are capable of the same things, but I think the book thing is kind of ridiculous… there’s nothing wrong with a straight couple, so why leave it out?

I think that’s a bit too extreme.  Their intentions for bringing up a more open-minded generation is admired, but the fact is, genders exist.  Rather than getting rid of the pronouns altogether, wouldn’t it be better to teach kids that gender (amongst many other things) is a category we use in order to process the world and that each individual is more than his or her gender.  Plus, the idea of diminishing gender differences is a very Western one; there are cultures out there that embrace gender roles.  Doing away with the knowledge of such could be harmful to future communication with people from other cultures.

What a sticky topic!  I wrote a lot of papers on gender vs sex for a few of my classes.  Feminism, cultural differences, the LGBT community, and on and on.

I think that it could hinder, rather than help, the children.  I understand their aim, however!  You’re raising children to thrive in the world we live in, and if you do not help establish their identities in some way so that they can find a “clique” or “group” to connect with, they’ll be lost.

You have to be realistic, not idealistic.  What will these children think in ten years?  Will they be more open minded and secure in themselves, or will they be insecure and unable to classify themselves in their cultures, in this world?  It’s a really tough line to walk.

If you’re going to do something like that, there at least needs to be some solid reason to do so. What they’re teaching is that to be masculine or feminine is bad- that referring to your gender is wrong. It’s not. Both are good genders. Both deserve respect and appreciation, not to be totally ignored.
Also, traditional families are just as valid as non-traditional- if they want everyone to be accepted, they should be mentioning those folks too.

I get the aim, but it is a bit extreme for me!  I am a girly-girl.  My parents tried to make me wear pants as a kid, all the girls in my grade wore pants, but I’d cry if I didn’t have a dress on!  I mean, gender is a part of who you are!  I can’t imagine them trying to rid themselves of race or religion or personal interests.  They all make up who we are!

And sorry, but in some ways, females get treated way better than males.  A man slaps a woman, OMG ABUSE.  A woman slaps a man, he must have had it coming.  Females can touch others and it’s friendly/nurturing, males do it in the same way and it’s pervy.  Gender biases go both ways.