In misguided attempt to achieve gender equity, kindergarten teacher prohibits boys from using Legos

November 25, 2015 • 12:00 pm

We are living in an Onion world now, where no act of political piety surprises me. When I sent this article to a colleague, he even thought it came from the Onion. But it didn’t, it comes from CBS in Seattle, and I’ve verified it from other venues.

As  CBS Seattle reports, a kindergarten teacher in Washington state, trying to promote gender equity by not restricting her pupils to “gender-appropriate” toys, has made a misstep by taking Lego blocks away from the boys. And then she lied about it:

Bainbridge Island Review reports that Captain Johnston Blakely Elementary teacher Karen Keller doesn’t allow male students to play with the blocks in order to encourage use among females. She even makes up excuses sometimes to set her agenda in order.

“I always tell the boys, ‘You’re going to have a turn’ — and I’m like, ‘Yeah, when hell freezes over’ in my head,” Keller told the Bainbridge Island Review. “I tell them, ‘You’ll have a turn’ because I don’t want them to feel bad.”

Keller says she started doing this because boys were flocking to the colorful blocks during their “free choice” playtime, while girls tended to play with dolls or crayons. Keller hopes by blocking use of the toys for boys that female students may be encouraged to play with them.

The teacher says that Lego play helps with development acceleration and math skills, while dolls offer little challenge or opportunity for growth.

So she’s lied to her pupils, and simply prohibits the boys from having Legos. I’m wondering what notion she was laboring under when she decided to rectify the tendency of boys to go for Legos and girls for dolls and crayons. Most likely she sees that as a result of the kids’ previous social conditioning—conditioning that to her is both sexist and an impediment to future achievement when the girls grow up. And it might be.

But we should consider that perhaps there are real biological (i.e., genetic) differences in those preferences which don’t result from cultural indoctrination. Should she still try to rectify those; and, if so, who is she to make that decision? (The source of behavioral differences that cause future inequities might, of course, be completely irrelevant to what we do.) Regardless, it seems to me that the children should have equal access to the toys. After all, what the hell is wrong with crayons? And I had stuffed animals when I was a kid (I still have my teddy bear here in my office.) How does that differ from a doll? After all, I played for hours with Toasty and his faithful sidekick Tiger (Tiger’s here, too!).

Keller also deceived her bosses as well as the kids:

She first used pink and purple Legos to try to attract the girl students to play with the toys, but she found this ineffective. Soon after she requested funds from the school to purchase Lego Education Community Starter Kits. She did not tell school officials that access to the toys would be denied for male students.

“I had to do the ‘girls only Lego club’ to boost it more,” Keller said. “Boys get ongoing practice and girls are shut out of those activities, which just kills me. Until girls get it into their system that building is cool, building is ‘what I want to do’ — I want to protect that.”

Keller says the practice is “fair” because she’s giving different students the tools they need to succeed.

“I just feel like we are still so far behind in promoting gender equity,” Keller added.

While Keller’s motivation is admirable, the way she’s achieving her ends is not. What we’re seeing now, and this holds for campuses, are ironic attempts to address perceived inequalities by promoting actions that are inherently divisive, or in some cases punitive. This holds whether we are talking about buildings designed for the use of only one ethnic group or the shaming of certain classes of people for “appropriating” types of clothing, food, or hairstyles invented by one ethnic group.
Now some attempts to address inequities by “divisive” actions are justifiable. I am, for instance, in favor of affirmative action in hiring and schooling for historically oppressed minorities, though some whites see that as divisive. On balance, though, I think such things are good for society. But when denying boys Legos, forcing students and administrators to take propagandizing courses in “cultural competency,” or denigrating “cultural appropriation,” you run the risk of creating—on balance—increased discontent, misunderstanding, and resentment.

I think most of us would favor children being given the choice of all manner of toys from the very moment they start playing with toys, and then letting them choose what they want. But I don’t think that any child should be denied toys as a mechanism of social engineering.

118 thoughts on “In misguided attempt to achieve gender equity, kindergarten teacher prohibits boys from using Legos”

  1. If she thinks dolls aren’t educational, shy not just remove them, and buy more lego?

    Parity of gender esteem and opportunity is admirable, but I can imagine nothing more counter-effective, for this goal, than having different rules for boys and girls.

  2. What is it she does not understand about “free choice” playtime. Should maybe be called free to let the teacher choose playtime.

    The probability that during whatever they call this playtime, all the girls get together and all the boys get together is also very troubling for her.

        1. Yes. They use that term incorrectly. They mean “Teacher approved”, or “Teacher mandated”, or as you say, “Teacher Free choice”, but not what the term would suggest.

  3. Teaching boys that gender equality means you can’t have what you like and get lied to about it.
    Do you want meninists? Because that is how you get meninists.

    1. “Do you want meninists? Because that is how you get meninists.”

      How did we get feminists?

      feminist:masculinist :: womenist:meninist

      I’m thinking a Lego philanthropist should deliver a huge over-supply of Legos, in all possible colors, to the kindergarten facility, and let the youngsters do as they will.

  4. Way to turn off kids completely. I used to play with legos and toy cars with all the boys when I was a kid. I guess they wouldn’t be allowed to play with me now and I’d have to play stupid games with mean girls!!

    1. Oh snap, me too. I loved my cars. 🙂

      On a more serious note, that is what struck me too: why aren’t the girls and boys being integrated in their play sessions so that they can all play together? I’m sure there are some boys who would love to get the dolls sometimes without being mocked for it. Why does she think that apartheid leads to better equality for the disadvantaged?

      1. “I’m sure there are some boys who would love to get the dolls sometimes without being mocked for it.”

        Yes, they are called action figures, right?!!

        1. Do eyes that open and close count as action?

          Some boys like dolls. Some girls like cars. It shouldn’t really be something that people worry about. It’s one of those weird areas where women have achieved more liberation than men the same way as no-one (outside of a few theocracies) even notices if a woman is wearing trousers nowadays, but a man wearing a skirt gets at best strange looks and more likely, abuse.

          1. But if the skirt is decorated with a bold tartan pattern, the man can wear it with impunity.

          5. Yes, there needs to be man skirts – something to fit the male figure. I can say, I really like wearing skirts so why shouldn’t men have some made to fit them like women have pants that fit them?

            And kilts don’t count – there needs to be more man skirt choice.

          7. I must say that those skirts on men, as well as man-buns (except for the buns on their backsides;-), don’t “blow my skirt up”.

          8. I am still looking at these photos, extremely intriguing. First thought was, yeah, being free from chaffing needs to be available not just to women. Second thought, wow, skirts really do in their indirect but unfettering way cause us to focus on the genitalia being covered. No wonder skirts are sexier than trousers/pants/slacks.

            Photo No. 1: functional combo of tights and skirt is much flashier than the traditional kilt style of skirt and knee-highs. A fun look for sure.
            Photo No. 2: Mysterious but trustworthy at the same time. V attractive to this introvert.
            Photo No. 3: gorgeous, those are the kind of fabric I would like to touch.
            Photo No. 4: A little dour, but not without a straightforward, honest ambience.
            🙂

          11. I do so hope your request carries an implicit ‘… for men’ attached to it.

            😉

            cr

          17. I suppose we could grandfather that in, as long as you promise to shave, exfoliate, and moisturize your legs before each wearing. Perhaps a little fake tan, too.

          19. Does a Cinderella costume still qualify as PC?

            Or might it trigger impoverished economically-challenged young women from broken blended families living under the oppressive regime of a wicked stepmother and pair of rotten personality-disordered stepsisters?

          20. “Women in trousers” has a musty, Alice-B.-Toklas ring to it. Don’t women (and most men nowadays) call ’em slacks or pants?

            Also, there’s a good reason a fella in a skirt might get strange looks. Most men haven’t had the opportunity to practice the art of striking a chaste, gentlemanly pose. A guy in a skirt might be inadvertently prone to flashing more junk than Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct.

          22. This obviously demands additional research and closer inspection on my part. [Sharon — “call me.“]

      2. Oh yes I bet the boys would love playing with the dolls! I was friends with boys who had GI Joes and a rag doll. They would say, “want to play with my dollies?”

        I don’t even remember dolls in my Kindergarten. I suspect there probably were some but I was too busy playing with the cars. I think I also was born misanthropic as I always liked playing with stuffed animals and favoured my Yertle the Turtle toy over my dolls (even putting him in doll clothes & putting him in my doll’s cradle).

        1. When I was at a high single-digit age, I was at the house of a second cousin, a year younger. She had a couple of Barbie dolls. I had been most curious about the details of Barbie’s unadorned contours and symmetry. While there I had a narrow but sufficient window of opportunity to investigate. Not something a kid could do undetected in a group setting.

          1. You wouldn’t find out anything interesting (or useful, or accurate) from Barbie.

            “There is nothing of interest here”.

            cr

          3. My kid sister had the complete Barbie set. Caught a glimpse once of the “Ken” doll en déshabillé. Talk about castration anxiety.

  5. When I was in kindergarten waaaay back in the early 60’s, all the toys were grouped in different activity stations and you were required to switch at specific times. One group did clay or fingerpaint, another did puzzles, another the monkey bars, another blocks, and another the play house. When the bell rang (?) we all changed to something else, moving around so that by week’s end you’ve hit them all. That way, everybody at least tried something new and nobody took over or dominated any particular thing.

    As I recall, groups didn’t stay together either. You ended up playing with everyone. I no longer have any recollection of how this was kept straight. Though this was a public elementary school, it was probably influenced by Montessori (’twas in Evanston IL, fairly liberal.)

    So I can sort of understand the teacher’s viewpoint. The early years ought to be a time of open exploration. Little kids are painfully susceptible to insisting on the need to obey RULES. Habits make RULES. This is an age when patterns take on meaning. What you can do is often assumed to be the same as what you have done. It’s the RULE.

    But another thing I definitely remember is that every day there was always a FREE CHOICE time, when you could go to whatever activity section you wanted. And 9 times out of 10, for me it was the play house area, with its absolutely astonishing miniature kitchen setup. “Mom” and “Baby” were the best roles – then came “13-year-old” (as high as we could imagine and still be a kid.) Worst role was “Dad.” Mostly that involved leaving and coming home tired.

    So we had the variety of experience and nobody lied. This teacher may have lacked imagination along with integrity. Or, perhaps, research skills.

    1. Waaay back when I went to Kindergarten, I can’t remember that far back, around 1955? I remember sleep time, we had our own rugs, and you had to bring 2 cents for milk. So sleeping and eating, that’s all I remember.

      1. Yeah, I remember you had to bring a towel to nap on the stupid hard ground. I remember they read the bible (I had no idea what that was) & I ran around most of the time playing.

        1. read the bible? No separation there.

          I would have asked for dolls or maybe a knife.
          Just kidding there.

          1. Yes, my public Canadian school in small town Ontario was Christian soaked. My parents complained to no avail. We also said the Lord’s Prayer (which I hated) & the Gideon folk came and talked to us and left us bibles. It gave me a headache because I felt so much cognitive disconnect.

          2. … and so they managed to make an atheist of you. Well done all. Don’t you love irony?

            cr

      2. By the time I hit kindergarten those waxy cardboard half-pints of milk were up to a nickel. Must’ve been the rampant inflation during Eisenhower’s second term.

      3. On the first day of kindergarten I was building something with (wooden) blocks, then a boy kicked it over. I ran out of the classroom, out of the school, crossed a busy thoroughfare and made it home. Scared my teacher & mother half to death.

    2. Her initial concern seems reasonable to me. Not a sure thing, but reasonable. It is certainly possible that girls don’t play with the legos because the rowdy boys dominate them and discourage the girls. I know that my own daughter is very put off by the rowdiness of the boys in her classes in elementary school and avoiding that is high on her priority list. The “station” scenario you describe would be a great solution/way to test this idea without creating a boys-vs-girls environment and it’s too bad that this teacher didn’t think of some less divisive and deceptive way to try to encourage a variety of play from the kids.

  6. What Paul Braterman said. Since Lego seems to be the only toy Karen Keller feels has value, the obvious solution is to offer nothing else, to anyone. A painfully young age at which to discover that your teacher is working against you.

  7. I wonder why she just doesn’t demo playing with Legos, herself. Making contests for bridges, cars, whatever. Use some imagination instead of prohibiting them for boys. Does she require the boys to play with dolls, too?

  9. “But we should consider that perhaps there are real biological (i.e., genetic) differences in those preferences which don’t result from cultural indoctrination.”

    Just suggesting such a possibility will often get you labeled a sexist even by many moderate feminists in the same way that criticism of Islam will get you labeled an Islamophobe. It’s not that you actually are, but that you must be silenced for giving ammunition to actual sexists who use the idea that men and women are different in order to keep them barefoot, and in the kitchen.

  10. The underlying assumption seems to be “girls like dolls, so dolls must be crap” and “boys like lego, so lego must be good”.

    Maybe I’m being unkind and/or cynical, but it looks like the usual thing of trivialising and/or demonising any activity traditionally associated with females while praising, lionising and privileging any activity traditionally associated with males.

    1. It is interesting that women/girls are to be celebrated for being more emotional, empathetic, socially connected, etc. while simultaneously being encouraged to be more analytical, concrete, etc. Only a sexist who thinks its a zero sum game would think positions, behaviors, personalities traditionally considered feminine should be discouraged in girls (and vice versa). I think most of us here understand that even if there are broad trends which differentiate the sexes, these have no bearing on individuals. I think much of it comes down to scientific ignorance and dangerous, confused ideology. But (to coin a phrase) social constructivists gonna social construct.

  12. Sounds like the problem is: not enough Legos.

    And of course:

    “I always tell the boys, ‘You’re going to have a turn’ — and I’m like, ‘Yeah, when hell freezes over’ in my head,” Keller told the Bainbridge Island Review. “I tell them, ‘You’ll have a turn’ because I don’t want them to feel bad.”

    That is a cruel mentality. Her attitude is borderline vindictive. This woman should not be in charge of children. Holding down one to uplift another merely shifts the weight of oppression. Not to mention the divisiveness of telling boys that they can’t play with girls, creating an early environment of female as “other”, which is at the root of misogyny. She’s also assuming the boys are stupid and won’t realize that her promises of playing with the Legos are empty. Kindergarten age children are smarter and more clever than adults give them credit.

    1. Approved…
      Qestion: What would happen if a male teacher would forbid the girls to play with dolls (or legos)?

  13. Ms. Keller’s kindergarten class: tearing down the patriarchy one Lego block at a time.

    Puts a new spin on the old saw “all I really need to know I learned in kindergarten.”

  14. It’s a sidebar to this appalling story, but when did Lego become the compulsory spatial-awareness toy? Lego shareholders must be delighted at the sweet gig they’ve got going here.

    Wooden blocks are what I want to see more of. Yes, they don’t snap together; but nor can you wear your fingers raw trying to prise them apart. And as a child I discovered the delights of making domino formations out of them (can’t do that with Lego). Plus, something bugs me about every single toy children are given to touch, being made out of plastic.

    But yes, the blocks should be free to all, to accept or (sigh) reject.

      1. I used to love Lincoln Logs – and Lego – as well as dolls and stuffed (and real) animals. Loved playing Lego with my kids (sometimes more thsn they did) and am looking forward to playing them with my granddaughter due in Feb and my other grandchild of as-yet-to-be-discovered gender due next week!!

        And yes, wooden blocks are great, too. I liked the original red and white Lego that were not “pre-determined” ( I think there’s a better word for what I mean- kind of like NOT hard-wired for a particular function).

        1. Should have said yet-to-be-discovered gender above. The gender has most def already been determined, but the the baby was at an awkward angle for the ultra-sound.

          1. So you’re a “social constructionist” when it comes to Legos but not gender, fair to say?

        3. I know what you mean. The whole joy of legos (to me, at least) is building whatever you can think up. If you just want to follow directions to build a predetermined object, get a model. It’ll even look more accurate when you’re done.

      2. My three and a half year old daughter has brand new Lincoln Logs and a brand new Slinky. She never touches either of them. She only really likes dolls or toys that come in the shape of a horse. She will very rarely play with blocks or magnatiles (which are great), but then only to build houses for the dolls and horses. If you hand her three objects (anything: rocks, coins, paperclips) she will begin playing with them by declaring: “This is a mommy one, and this is a daddy one, and this is a baby one!” I (and my wife) did not encourage this. Quite the opposite, in fact. We are powerless. She is a unique individual and she knows what she likes. And she likes dolls and horses and families. And pink and purple. And wearing dresses (try as we might, she refuses to even consider wearing a t-shirt). And none of this is learned, blank slate style conditioning. And it’s not my style, and it’s not her mom’s style, but it’s her style and I love it and support it unconditionally.

        1. I think you’re right on the money: kids spring from the womb with distinct personalities. Sometimes those personalities tend to conform to societal stereotypes; sometimes quite the opposite. That’s not to say that people don’t change over time; of course, they do. But there seems to remain a hard kernel at their core. Even where the changes are radical, they more often occur in reaction to what had been before, rather than in derogation of it.

          In this respect, it seems to me, newborns are like photographic negatives. [Trigger warning: people who came of age after the advent of digital photography.] Bring a kid up in a nurturing, healthy, enriched environment, and the features in that negative will develop as crystal-clear as one of those old Ansel Adams’ prints. Raise a kid in a severely dysfunctional environment, on the other hand, and things can get all Diane Arbus-y. 🙂

          FWIW, I think you and her mom are addressing your daughter’s current preferences in an entirely salubrious manner, not overreacting to them and providing her unconditional support. Maybe her preferences will change over time, maybe not. Either way she can grow up a happy, healthy, successful and productive person.

          I wouldn’t worry about that horse preoccupation of hers either. I mean, look how well it worked out for the kid in Equus. 🙂

          1. Thanks. Yeah, I agree. And its nice to know that even at such a young age she knows what’s important to her and she is not easily manipulated. THAT she probably got from her parents.

        2. I think, Mr pacicopiedra, I have diagnosed the root cause of your daughter’s behaviour.

          She is what we in the trade technically call a ‘girl’.

          😉

          (And it sounds as if she’s happy to be one. Nothing wrong with that).

  15. Keller could have an all lego play time to counter the free choice. This could show young girls (or not) that it can be fun.
    Set a goal in mixed groups.. experience lego players with less experienced. Some of the girls may catch on and this includes boys.
    Karen Keller’s creativity is being stifled by ideology.
    ‘Free’ choice is a mine field around here so she is lucky not to have to content with that.

    3. Ha! When I worked at one organization, they went through a big “Promote women in STEM” phase. It was horrendous and I described it as the “make it in pink” campaign.

    4. I’d be disinclined to encourage my daughter to play with pink sparkly Legos — if I had a daughter, which I don’t, just boys. I’d have been completely agnostic as to my sons playing with pink sparkly Legos (as long as they would have desisted while their grandparents, or my poker buddies, were over).*

      ____________
      *Just kidding with that parenthetical … I think.

  17. Just let the children play with whatever, for crying out loud!! If it is one thing that children do not do enough of is unstructured play. Every minute of their day is accounted for. Too much programming is hurting our children. And these little people are barely out of diapers!! Play is a child’s work!! What are we doing to our children?11

    1. I call it “the professionalization of childhood”.

      It actually makes me angry. My daughter discovered volleyball when she was 12. Loved it. Too late though. Only things available were year-round club teams and they wouldn’t have her because she hadn’t been playing volleyball year-round since she was 8. And kids don’t seem to play pick-up games anymore, partly because the facilities are always booked with year-round clubs for every sport imaginable.

      1. Oh yes, and they get regimented into sports teams with all the BS about ‘team spirit’ and ‘teamwork’ and all the rest of the crap. How to turn what should be enjoyable, into a drudge.

        When I was a kid the last thing I wanted was to be ‘organised’ by some ‘coach’. I just wanted to play hide-and-seek or muck around by myself. Maybe I was anti-social but I liked informal games, organised team games just turned me right off.

        cr

  19. I thought it was going to be something about how she was trying to make the boys more like girls, or vice/versa: instead, she’s being even MORE divisive in segregating them into groups that have different access to certain toys! If she feels so strongly about it, why doesn’t she just go out and buy some more Legos, so everyone that wishes to can play with them? I see an aspect of today’s liberalism in this: it’s not enough to make someone, “equal” to someone else, or for them to be considered, “equal”- it has to be accomplished by the TAKING AWAY of something from the other group, like “equal” is a substance that there’s only so much of….

  20. Tried to keep thing neutral when my kids were small but they really gravitated towards sex stereotypical toys. My son took his doll and pretended to drive it around and end table making car noises. My daughter put her doll to sleep in her toy earth mover. I can’t say they were not influenced somehow, but I suspect there may be genetic tendencies.

    1. Ditto on all counts.

      My daughter liked Lego at least as much as my son did but my son was fanatical about “cars, and trucks and things that go” from as soon as he could crawl and actually delightedly operates heavy equipment as a young man. I don’t believe he makes the zooooom noises any more, though.

  23. Kindergarten teacher Karen Keller — another idjit (on top of the contemptible Kardashian Klan) debasing the once-proud “KK”-initials brand. Kris Kristofferson and I have grown accustomed to it; thanks be that Ken Kesey isn’t around to suffer this latest indignancy.

    1. You should get into Bollywood films. Plenty of KKs to go around there.

      (Also – the bookseller in Michael Ende’s [i]The Neverending Story[/i] had the initials KKK, to match the hero’s BBB; this was changed to CCC in English translation, for obvious reasons.)

  24. Ms. Keller would do well to read up on Montessori education methods, which focus on exploration, discovery, and hands-on activities. The toys and other materials in a Montessori classroom aren’t gender-determined and haven’t changed from what I remember as a child in preschool/kindergarten in the 1960s. Apart from some of the Anthroposophy woo, the Waldorf method wouldn’t be a bad education philosophy for her to investigate either. Both methods are centered around developmental stages, with children reaching their full potential as human beings, not on separate tracks as boys vs. girls.

  26. When I was in school in Tennessee in the 1940s, kindergarten was not an option. I used to think I was deprived. Maybe I was wrong.

  27. Soon those kids will be in adulthood and encounter a world of indifference and intolerance. If we really want to prepare them for the future, have playtime activities sorted by relative affluence. “Sorry, but only the wealthy families can play with the lego. You’re too poor, you only get to play with the chewed teddy bear. Thankfully we have a loan service that will allow you to play with the lego now for the forfeiture of playtime in the future.”

    1. We had a lonnnnng discussion of Lego vs. Legos maybe a year ago on this site (full disclosure – I am strongly in the former camp). Please, don’t get us started:-(

          2. oh, noes. Gotta look for the R in the emojis. Took me long enough to locate the TM…Ah, the stressssss…better go down to the basement and play with some elements of LEGO (with the R).

    2. It is, but having a long discussion about it in a thread about gender equality/discrimination is probably going to annoy all the people who want to discuss the thread topic. We know this because that is what happened list time and the time before that and the time before that…

  30. Free time is no longer an option in many schools – it’s direct instruction or guided practice all day long. But back when we had it the boys were simply more aggressive about what they wanted to do while the girls hung back and discussed what they were going to do with friends. One day everyone noticed it and I started switching who got to go to the free area first -boys or girls. I had to kind of scoot the girls out there but they did choose the blocks and the white boards – the “good stuff” that the boys usually got.

    I also noticed though that when the boys were at the blocks they simply cooperated silently building on what the other had done. The girls would chat about who was the mom and where was the kitchen, etc.

    I have no idea if this is due to socialization teaching or innate to the gender -it doesn’t matter to me. I try to encourage them to experience lots of things but usually choose their own while being fair and polite. IT’s not easy but it is fun to observe the choices and the way they’re made.

  34. There is a tremendous freedom of more aggressive and less supportive expressions and other allowed treatments of boys. This then leads to many subtle mistreatments of boys throghout school, usually by female teachers and society.

    The idea of toys is created from a young age through many many reinforcers given boys and girls from age one. The more aggressive and less supportive treatment given boys from age one creates much more social/emotional distance, fear, anxiety, and other tensions that leave boys not with naturally occurring more energy but with more maintained stress from the treamtment they receive. Boys are led by more harsh treatment and fear of any weakness, they feel more compelled to look to any areas that may create impression of acceptance.
    As girls, we are given much more care and support and so are able to go into any area we choose and maintain support and care from society. Modeling also allows us to broaden our horizons. However, our more secure and better treatment allows us to have more innersecurity and so we are not as driven to gain love and honor in areas boys are driven into “to maintain love and honor from society”.

Comments are closed.