I am writing about this because we all come into contact with the world of school in one way or another, and besides - forgive me for the generality! – not all of us understand that it is from this world that people come into life who form around us, under the guise of the norm, a world of absurdity and nonsense. But we are all outraged by this world.
Of course, I do not at all believe that everything works out at school, that everything depends on the school, etc. But still, the process of socialization largely takes place there.

Last school year was the first time I worked in a school where not everyone is accepted. Overall, the students are truly better than in all my previous schools. But even this “in general” means, in essence, that there are almost no completely hopeless people here. There are also a lot of good teachers, but not that many. And I once again had to face precisely those stereotypes that not only greatly ruin a teacher’s life, but also turn the world upside down. To realize this, you don’t need the principle of defamiliarization, or supernatural characters or fantastic plots - it’s enough just to follow logic and not lose the ability to calmly assess what is happening.

Stereotypes that produce meaninglessness enslave us. And it is very difficult, sometimes even impossible, to resist them. One thing is especially depressing: as soon as you try to appeal to reason, to remind who we are, why we work and how we should work, you are immediately surrounded by a whirlwind of idiotic indignation and such unexpected forms of opposition, such stunning “arguments” that you are amazed. And only your own absurdity allows you to remain yourself and achieve your goals, although even in this case, few people still admit that you are right, since the overwhelming majority prefer the world of dislocated concepts and inverted principles.

I. “The transition to secondary school is always traumatic, you have to feel sorry for the children, and therefore, Sergei Igorevich, the tasks should be easier, the grades should be given more gently - this stimulates the children! And why demand so much? They weren’t taught this in elementary school! After all, the child tried!”

What means regret? Call to the board, give a primitive task and give an “A”? Listen to the monotonous, thoughtless reading poems and give an A, because the child tried?! And when did easy grades stimulate this?! Rave. Lie. But this crazy lie is repeated in every possible way by class ladies and parents, this crazy lie forces many teachers to create the illusion of success, and as a result we have outright lazy people who are unable to cope with a primitive dictation. And I, such a bastard, give C’s and D’s, you see, and I don’t know what I want from the poor children who have become so lazy that one cannot bring a notebook for essays for six months, although I regularly write reminders in my diary, the other is not able to in three weeks to learn the banal rules of alternating vowels in the root, the unfortunate rasch-rasch-ros and lag-lozh, and the third does not want to find time for a month to learn a poem. Well, of course, dissatisfied mothers, dissatisfied cool ladies, I spoil their picture of academic performance, I have a low percentage of quality, the child has 4-5 in all subjects, only Raisky gave C grades...

II. By the way, about the illusion of success. Another stereotype: “A student who is lagging behind needs to be helped, to increase motivation for learning, he needs to be put in a situation of success, so that he believes in himself, starts trying - then he will definitely pull it out, learn... But you, Sergey Igorevich, do not want to pick up the key, find an individual approach... ”

And again nonsense. It's nonsense because this invention of the Methodists is only suitable in certain cases. For example, if it’s just a psychological barrier: say, a student is afraid to answer in front of the whole class. Well, or he’s personally afraid of me, embarrassed... And if he didn’t learn basic knowledge in elementary school, confuses parts of speech and parts of sentences, doesn’t know case, can’t ask a question from one word to another - you can’t find any key here except a tutor. And if a student reads three times slower than he should, and he only has enough vocabulary for Agnia Barto, then only one individual approach is possible: urgently teach him to read, and it’s not me who should be doing this. And if a student cannot concentrate, writes slower than everyone else, constantly loses or forgets a pen, notebook and textbook, then a situation of success is possible only if the mother sits next to her with a set of everything necessary.

III. Let's get back to the ratings. The following stereotype: if in all subjects I got 5 and only I gave 3, it’s my fault: “We should have given the opportunity to retake the test, we should have taken a closer look at the child... Let's give a good boy/good girl a chance...”

It is incredibly difficult to resist this absurdity, especially regarding literature grades. The language is simpler: there is nothing to object to errors in dictation.
Here’s what’s curious: there are teachers who give A’s to everyone, and this doesn’t bother anyone. I myself have seen this many times. But I can understand this, say, in relation to physical education: everyone’s data is different, and if everyone really gave their best, then there is no point in comparing a quiet bookish boy with a Russian karate champion, so you can give five to both. An individual approach, so to speak, in action. I can also understand the A’s from the whole drawing class: yes, not everyone can do it, everyone tried – well, etc. But even straight A’s in music for the whole class are puzzling, since music is not only singing in chorus, but also, for example, studying the history of music, and this is already “learned - not learned, answered - did not answer”... And even straight A’s in history , and not even A’s, but B’s or A’s are a lie, unless the class contains children who are equally brilliant at mastering literature and the Russian language. And when in mathematics there are only four or five - well, I don’t believe it! This doesn't happen. I'm not talking about the fact that a well-deserved A in all subjects is a rarity.
Sometimes (alas, extremely rarely), only one thing saves you: if there is at least one more normal teacher in the same parallel who does not succumb to cooing, does not break down after persuasion, does not inflate grades and demands what needs to be demanded. How many people have this wild principle of equalizing grades crippled! How many arrogant lazy people graduate from schools every year who are accustomed to receiving undeserved A's and B's! And even the Unified State Exam will not correct the situation, because, firstly, it is not so difficult to get a four on the Unified State Exam, and secondly, if the exam score is a point lower than the annual one, the one that is higher is put on the certificate. This, by the way, already leads to a conversation about the next stereotype.

IV. “No need to spoil the certificate. Why ruin a person's life? Because of this one C, he then got this and that, then he got this one C, so and so... What do you feel sorry for, or what?”

It's a pity. But I’m sorry! Because if you think like that, then there’s no need to teach at all, you don’t need to demand anything - you can just give everyone an A and be happy.
So, the horror is that there are a lot of teachers who are ready to inflate their grades for the sake of a certificate, and in such an environment a person who does not teach for the sake of grades finds himself in the wild position of a justifying villain. Previously, a B or an A was squeezed out of a teacher for the sake of a certificate competition, now this competition is no longer there, but other arguments have been found, including this: “Then he will be ashamed to show this certificate to his children!” What a game! Wasn’t he ashamed of fooling around in class for several years?! And the fact that after school these “excellent” and “good” students remember with contempt the very teachers who with the best intentions they were given A's, and later they taught their children not to study, but to squeeze out grades by any means - flattery, gifts, good behavior– isn’t that disgusting?

V. “The student has the right to make mistakes”. Another hackneyed phrase that people like to quote irrelevantly. Yes, we all make mistakes, and the learning process is still closely related to trial and error. In a training lesson or in homework, be safe to make mistakes! But this does not mean that you don’t have to work on the mistake later. And this does not mean that test results need to be falsified.
And also margin for error is not an excuse for any meanness or hooliganism. In schools, a double morality reigns: for the same offense they can be severely punished, or nothing can be done at all, depending on what kind of student, what kind of classy lady he has, what her goals are, what “method of work”. By the way, for many class ladies this method comes down to a primitive imposition on students "related" relationship: great "Mother" will be strict with "their"(when she needs it), but they "her kids", and therefore she "will not give offense", that is, he will cover up any nasty things committed towards other teachers, he will help to cheat on the exam, etc. And the style of relationships with students will be the same - obsessively emotional: a) “How I missed you, how I love you all!”; b) “How could you do this to me?!” We call this the educational process.

I reread it and decided to stop for now. Of course, the list of stereotypes is far from complete, there’s just no desire to continue any of them yet.

Today, the social status and public opinion of teachers, as surveys show, is not high, and teachers are faced with the task of changing their attitude towards themselves for the better. No one else will do this for you, teachers. So, the path will be mastered by the one who walks...

Stereotype one: teacher is a profession without income and low prestige

The main element of the typical image of a teacher in the modern consciousness of society is the non-profitability, and therefore the lack of prestige, of this profession. This stereotype, unfortunately, is the most painful of all, and it is very difficult to break it. This is due to reality, because everyone knows that the salaries that Russian teachers receive today are one of the lowest in the world. For example, in Turkey the salary of teachers is $10,000 per year, and in England and America - $38,000 per year. The closest teacher salary to us is Honduras - $2,500 per year.

According to sociological surveys, most teachers have enough money for food and basic necessities. And only one in three said that their salary allows them to purchase durable goods. And given that in the modern world the prestige of the profession directly depends on the amount of earnings, teacher education is considered something second-rate.

It is interesting that the prestige of the profession is low not only in public perception, but also in the perception of teachers themselves - this is evidenced by the same surveys. To the question “why did you choose this profession?” Most answer that they had no choice. As a rule, the attitude towards the profession of such lowly motivated teachers does not change for the better. And this can lead to a general decrease in the staff potential of teachers.

Therefore, this stereotype needs to be changed, because in reality, school is the first step on the path to success in life, which provides the basis for obtaining higher education. And the teaching profession is one of the most in demand in the world. Today there are many successful examples where a teacher earns good money and has a high social status. Good salaries, for example, for private school teachers. If you teach in a government institution, use individual lessons with students - this practice is common throughout the world, and there is nothing wrong with it. Know your worth and demand that others treat you accordingly.

Stereotype two: teacher? But she's already home at three o'clock

This is also a very common opinion, but in fact it is not true. After all, in addition to the time spent on the lesson, teachers have many other responsibilities. According to survey results, the average teacher's weekly workload is up to 30 hours a week. But there is also checking of notebooks, which takes up to 10 hours a week, preparation for lessons (up to 12 hours), a meeting of parents, a meeting of teaching councils (up to 8 hours). In addition, various paperwork, such as filling out logs and drawing up reports, also takes a lot of time (according to various estimates, up to 8 hours a week). Therefore, it is not difficult to calculate that teachers work no less, if not more, than representatives of other professions. In this regard, some teachers even had the opinion that a school is, firstly, an “office”, and the main activity of a teacher in an office, of course, is writing and filling out various forms. In fact, the task of a teacher at school is completely different, and such paperwork turns some teachers into employees who do not look for creative approaches to teaching, but simply “report the material.”

Therefore, we should look for ways to rid teachers of unnecessary writings. Perhaps some part of the work should be canceled altogether, and some should be transferred to a separate person who will deal exclusively with clerical work.

Stereotype three: a teacher is a conservative

This widespread opinion has developed due to the fact that most teachers are middle-aged people. Statistical calculations have shown that the majority of teachers, namely 31%, are people between 31 and 40 years old. Young people under 26 years old make up 5.7% of respondents, those aged 27-30 - 7.1%. It is believed that in middle age a person has little interest in news, is inclined to use accumulated experience, and does not listen to others. But this stereotype also needs to be broken, because it only half corresponds to reality.

According to surveys, more than half of teachers spend 1-8 hours weekly improving their qualifications, studying professional literature, and new techniques. Only no more than 5% of teachers do not find time for this. All teachers undergo advanced training courses at least once every five years - this is mandatory.

As for using a computer and the Internet, more than half of teachers and most directors can do this. Almost every third teacher and every second director knows how to use the Internet. But this figure does not approach 100% due to the fact that access to computers is limited - they depend on the size of the school and the area where the school is located. Only every fourth teacher in the village has access to the global network, while in the centers half of those surveyed have this opportunity. Thus, teachers want to “communicate” with the computer, but usually they simply do not have this opportunity.

It should be noted here that the Internet is a necessary reality of the present, a bottomless well of diverse information, and without it, movement forward will be incomplete. Therefore, if you have not yet mastered the art of searching for useful information on the global network, it’s time to improve your skills in this direction.

Stereotype four: teachers are bombarded with gifts

Many believe that the tradition of gifts and bribes is deeply rooted in higher education institutions and schools in our country. But it is necessary to distinguish gifts from bribes, because there is nothing illegal in the fact that schoolchildren all together gave their teacher a gift on New Year, March 8 or Teacher’s Day. This is a sign of respect and attention, which is completely acceptable in a teacher-student relationship. Surveys of teachers have shown that they are pleased to receive small gifts from children, but this does not in any way affect their attitude towards students.

Stereotype five: over time, a female teacher completely loses her femininity

The teaching profession is considered female, unlike many others. And this is logical, because a woman is traditionally perceived as softer, kinder, and more attentive than a man. The feminization of teaching staff is not increasing, but the number of women in schools already exceeds the number of men: 80% of teachers are women. Among directors there are slightly fewer of them - 76%.

Many people believe that a woman at school ceases to be a woman in the literal sense of the word, i.e. to be attractive, to please the opposite sex. But school and female beauty seem to be completely opposite things. On the contrary, female attractiveness can be useful to you both in relationships with colleagues and in relationships with students, because the “laws of female attractiveness” apply here too. Being liked will also be useful in relationships with students’ parents; it will help establish mutual understanding. A woman who is more like a “working machine” is much less likely to get a “yes” answer from her colleagues and get people to meet her halfway in resolving issues that arise. Nor does she evoke a sense of self-respect. Therefore, if a woman remains a woman even in the circumstances of school time pressure, she will only benefit from this.

Therefore, our dear ones, be Women with a capital W and, first of all, break negative stereotypes, create for yourself a new image of successful women and make your profession not only prestigious, but also beautiful. Let men envy...

16 years old, Perm region

I started thinking about rights violations a couple of years ago, when I accidentally wandered into a group with girls’ stories. We were talking about terrible things - rape, domestic violence, and the criminals were not punished because the police did not find evidence of a crime or no one believed the girls. I wondered: where is justice if such outrageous crimes go unpunished?

Since then, I began to more often notice the pigish behavior of men in relation to women, which in our country is apparently considered normal: they whistle at girls, touch them - simply because they wanted to. Girls usually just tolerate it. I recently encountered a similar situation myself. I like to dress beautifully - not for someone else, but for myself. One fine day, when I was walking through the city center in a short skirt and heels, an unpleasant elderly man touched my leg. The first reaction was shock, this had never happened to me before, I couldn’t even react, but the man managed to leave. The outrage, which I never expressed, swirled around in my head for the rest of the day. But this became a lesson for me, from now on I will know how to behave in such a situation: if this happens, I will try to stop such actions, and then bring some sense into the person.

There were situations when I was the only one who raised my hand to answer, but it was the boy who was chosen so that he would “take the rap for everyone” because “the stronger sex must protect us”

In college, I keep noticing the unequal treatment of boys and girls. We have only three boys in our group, and usually only one of them goes to pairs. There were situations when I was the only one who raised my hand to answer, but it was the boy who was chosen so that he would “take the rap for everyone” because “the stronger sex must protect us.” In geography we were told about the inequality of salaries between men and women for the same work. Someone shouted: “That’s right!” Others laughed. In our almost all-female group, not one voiced disagreement. Was I the only one who thought this was unfair? Even at school, I was amazed when female teachers said that the main thing for girls is to find a good husband, and that studying well is a secondary matter.

On social networks, again, I encounter injustice. Here is a survey: “Who should be the head of the family?” Answer options: “man” and “both are equal.” The answer option “woman” is not even provided, and more than half of the respondents voted for men.

I am very glad that in my family the parents are truly equal. No one orders anyone, much less use force. But I also recently had an unpleasant conversation with my mother: they explained to me that I was a future woman, that I would have to find myself a male other half (necessarily!) and have children. Because this is supposedly my purpose. When I asked for arguments, they told me that this is the way it is.

There is no escape from the patriarchal mindset; we live in a country where ordinary life is closely connected with the church and traditions. Everyone seems to have forgotten that we are a secular country. I get the feeling that our authorities judge people by “Domostroi”, where you can hit your wife.

And some girls don't respect each other. As long as men see this, they will think that they can also treat girls disrespectfully.

I don’t know when this chaos will end, but now it’s unpleasant for me to live in a society where sexism and homophobia reign.

17 years old, Ivanovo

When I became interested in the ideas of feminism, many people thought it was very strange because I was a boy. Today my worldview is a set of views against discrimination on any basis. Much has changed within me, but little has moved around me.

Yes, it’s stupid to deny that gender inequality reigns in the “adult” world. But things are worse in the world of children, to whom stereotypes and attitudes are imposed. We are brought up according to the standard system: “Boys, you are strong, you are not allowed to shed tears. Girls, you should be sophisticated princesses."

In physical education classes we were divided into strong and weak

Schools often abuse the right to educate children. It all starts with the school uniform. Your appearance - one of the most accessible forms of self-expression - is strictly regulated by others. Next comes the division into “M” and “F”. In technology classes, girls are taught to cook and boys to be carpenters. Personally, I was terribly upset that I couldn’t learn how to cook something tasty, although I think it’s a wonderful activity. Instead, I have to do the stupid work that hired workers do today for money. In physical education lessons we were divided into strong and weak. The boys, of course, were obviously strong, so the physical education teacher always shouted after us: “Don’t give up, you’re a future fighter. Who will your wife stand behind?”

In high school, I began to feel less of this pressure. Maybe because the teachers decided that by this time we had already become “correct”?

With friends it’s a special situation. Their heads have already been washed, stereotypes have taken deep root. They don't want to see the framework into which they have been driven. I get snapped at when I try to consider the opinions of both boys and girls. Personal life seems to have already been written down by someone in advance, and everyone follows these instructions.

In the family, things are different - everyone here is family, there is no one to fight with. My parents, who were raised in the 70s, of course, transfer gender attitudes to me and my brothers. But should we blame them for this? In our father’s eyes, we are future businessmen, entrepreneurs, and leaders in high positions.

Some may say that this is the only way we can preserve humanity and a normal society. But who defined these standards and why can't we violate them? Now people suddenly think about preserving some truths. But if you look at history, it turns out that the “truths” have always been different.

It is in feminist and similar ideas that I see a way out of the situation. I think activists should take these ideas to schools. We need to change our upbringing - not radically, but gradually. This is the only way to raise a society in which there is no inequality.

17 years old, Transbaikal region

I live in a military town where almost all families consist of a wife and a military husband. In such families, the head is a man, he is considered a protector, and the woman is obliged to stay at home and perform all household duties. There is not much work here, nor are there any chances for self-development. These families don’t even know about equality. If this comes up, the result is the same: the husband is the breadwinner, the wife sits at home, which means she doesn’t get tired, there’s no point in pretending to be oppressed.

It’s a mystery to me why women don’t recognize this oppression.

Half of the boys, having seen enough of this, certainly want to become soldiers. It is not difficult for them to achieve this goal. The guys immediately make it clear to their girls that they must wait for them from the army. And then at any moment she will have to quit school, work and come to him in a godforsaken town to start her career as a maid.

I'm trying to convey to others (at school as well) that this is not normal. Everyone takes it as a joke. The worst thing is that girls react the same way as guys. It is a mystery to me why women do not recognize this oppression.

I think that women's rights are systematically violated only because the ideas of feminism are like a secret club, which is spoken about in whispers, and even then not to everyone. If all the stories about rapes, kidnappings and beatings reached the people, then everything would be much better. Women would more often think that such a number of crimes is not just an accident.

17 years old, Minsk

At the age of 13–14, I began to think about how many gender stereotypes surround me. I didn’t understand at all why people encouraged this, and I fought against inequality without even knowing what feminism was. When I found out that such a movement exists, I immediately began to support it.

Recently, in a biology lesson, the teacher told us: “If a girl says “no”, it means “yes.” Girls are all like that."

There are a lot of gender stereotypes at school, and it's sad. School should be a place where they teach not only math and history, but also respect. Even teachers support inequality, what to say about students?

Recently, in a biology lesson, the teacher told us: “If a girl says “no”, it means “yes.” Girls are all like that." And our class teacher concluded the open lesson about the feats of Belarusian women during the war years with the words: “The meaning of a woman’s life is creating a family, raising children.” She is generally quite a religious woman; she constantly says that girls should be weak and give their beauty only to their husbands.

One day in class I said that a woman does not have to give birth. My classmate replied: “If a woman doesn’t give birth, then why is she needed at all?” It's all sad.

According to the stories of my classmates, I was once again convinced of the closed-mindedness of our society: hysterics and demands from daughters to “give birth to grandchildren”, limited communication with the opposite sex, insults based on orientation - this set of stereotypes is already known to everyone.

Disrespect for one's own children, students, and just people, rejection of any opinion other than one's own, fear of the new - this is just a short list of ailments that plague our society.

Author: Oksana Elizarovna Krupoderova, teacher of history and social studies, Khakass National Boarding School named after. N.F.Katanova”, Abakan city, Republic of Khakassia.

Overcoming stereotypes among modern schoolchildren.

It is known that we live in a world of stereotypes. Despite some positive aspects of this phenomenon, the most important of which is saving our time and mental costs, according to modern researchers, stereotypes have a more negative impact. Stereotypes hinder a person's individual development. A standard-minded person cannot be a full-fledged creative person, since he is completely or partially deprived of independence in judgment. They are more suitable for uncomplainingly performing the same type of mechanical actions. In today’s rapidly developing, changing world, what is in demand is not just the executors of someone’s ideas and plans, people who act according to a template, but creative, proactive people who are capable of making non-standard decisions in non-standard situations

The most common reasons for the formation of stereotypes during schooling include the following:

Information stereotypes are social stereotypes that arise in the absence of any information knowledge in the human mind, aspects of which are indirectly considered in the stereotype. Schoolchildren also often resort to them, as it is easier than searching for information.

The media play a special role in the formation of stereotypes. The opinion of mass media becomes the opinion of people, displacing individual attitudes from their thinking. A non-critical approach to information in the media contributes to the emergence of many stereotypes. Without sufficient life experience, students perceive all information at face value.

Stereotypes of authority are social stereotypes that are based on the stereotype that some people have greater amounts of information knowledge in any area than the knowledge of a person subject to this stereotype, that they always provide objective information and cannot be wrong. Often, schoolchildren, especially junior students, perceive their teacher or an excellent classmate as such an authority.

Stereotypes can be caused by fear. When performing this or that act, we, one way or another, look back at society, hoping for its support and fearing its condemnation. Thus, we accept someone else’s opinion, fearing to make a mistake and hurt ourselves.

Ethnic and religious stereotypes that exist in our society in the form of prejudices and prejudices pose a great danger to the younger generation.

Stereotypes of attaching certain “labels” are typical for both students and teachers. This is manifested in the fact that properties are attributed to the object of knowledge without attempts to identify its individual characteristics. When evaluating people, a person uses so-called identification rules, from which, for example, it follows that people who have certain physical properties or behave in a certain way have certain personality traits.

It is concluded that schools contribute to increasing gender stereotyping by socializing children into traditional characteristics of male and female roles: for example, school textbooks depict a girl helping her mother with housework, and a boy helping his father in the yard.

How to avoid the formation of stereotypes during the learning process and combat existing ones?

Firstly, it is necessary to teach children to recognize stereotypes.One of the first researchers, Walter Lipman, described four properties of a stereotype:

stereotypes are always simpler than reality. They describe the most complex phenomena in simple phrases.

stereotypes are most often not confirmed, or partially confirmed by life experience, but are perceived as immutable truths received from the outside (the media, authoritative people), without criticism.

Most stereotypes are false because they attribute to a specific person traits that he must possess due to his membership in a group.

By their persuasiveness, stereotypes are stronger than reality and have a strong emotional impact.

The classic stereotype formula looks like this: “EveryoneXhave the propertyY" For example, “all blondes are stupid”, “all overweight people are kind”, “all Chinese are short”, etc. It is especially important to distinguish and combat ethnic stereotypes that are most dangerous to society.

Teaching a child to think outside of stereotypes means:

teach schoolchildren to identify cause-and-effect relationships;

highlight errors in reasoning;

be able to draw a conclusion about whose specific value orientations, interests, and ideological attitudes are reflected in the text or the speaker;

avoid categorical statements;

identify preconceptions, opinions and judgments;

be able to distinguish a fact, which can always be verified, from an assumption and personal opinion;

question the logical inconsistency of spoken or written language;

separate the important from the unimportant in a text or speech and be able to focus on the first.

In order to avoid the formation of stereotypes, every teacher has a sufficient arsenal of tools. Thus, the non-traditional forms of lessons in history and social studies: lesson-discussion, lesson-dispute, lesson-trial, lesson-conference, seminars, which I use, make it possible not only to teach students to express their opinion, but also to defend it with reason, compare it with other points of view, identify the correctness or error of judgments. At the same time, it is important to teach a child to respect other people’s opinions, listen to them, and positively perceive criticism addressed to them. The emotional reaction to any substantive remark must remain unchanged. This is the path to self-improvement. A special role in the fight against stereotypes is played by the problem-search method of teaching and project technology, which contribute to an alternative perception of the material and critical analysis of sources. In a playful way, they lay the foundations of critical thinking in primary and secondary school children. For example, the game “optimists” (those who must find positive aspects of any processes and phenomena) and “pessimists” (those who must find negative aspects) teaches one to doubt the assessment of facts. Gaming technologies are also used for high school students. For example, the game “Journalist” with writing a critical note in a newspaper or magazine allows you, in general, not only to be critical of the media, but also to separate facts from their subjective interpretation. The business game “amateur” and “professional” successfully combats stereotypes. It is known that the opinions of amateurs are based on stereotypes and have the nature of unreasoned beliefs. It is this property that children must discover during the game and draw conclusions. The educational aspect of the game is to develop a negative attitude towards stereotypes and the desire to avoid them. Certain tasks for working with text help to overcome stereotypical perception of material. For example, find the author’s opinion in the text. Whether you agree with him or not. What ideological and political views does he express, justify your opinion. Make a logical chain. Find a factual error and explain it, etc. Motivation is important in overcoming stereotypes, i.e. desire to overcome them. Therefore, the student should certainly be aware of the negative impact of stereotypes, such as falsehood, bias, conservatism, racism.

INIn modern society, highly controversial ethnic and national stereotypes are widespread.Ethnocultural stereotypes are a generalized idea of ​​the typical features that characterize a particular people. German neatness, Chinese ceremonies, African temperament, Estonian slowness, Polish gallantry - stereotypical ideas about the whole people that apply to each representative. This makes it difficult to see a person’s individuality, because we are all different.Stereotypesmay take the form of negative ethnic biases and prejudices.Prejudice is characterized by a negative emotional charge and corresponds to such forms of behavior as avoiding communication or avoiding interethnic contacts in certain areas of life. Prejudice, in turn, is characterized by a large concentration of negative emotions, excessive praise of the achievements and qualities of one’s own nation, combined with an arrogant attitude and hostility towards other nations. Bias in real behavior is no longer limited to strategyavoidance, but manifests itself in specific acts of a discriminatory nature.Such stereotypes include, for example, racial discrimination. In the history of mankind there have been many tragic events that were the result of negative prejudices regarding one or another nationality. Such sentiments in society can result in clashes and wars. It is necessary to talk to the younger generation about these facts and instill tolerance in them.

Thus, in order to raise an independent, creative, tolerant personality, we must teach the child to express his opinion on any issue, defend his point of view based on logic and facts, not be afraid to make mistakes and admit his mistakes, correct himself and move forward. At the same time, teachers themselves must free themselves from some stereotypes that develop over time as a result of the accumulation of certain pedagogical experience. A typical example of such stereotypes can be considered the belief of some teachers that all poor students are people who will not achieve anything in life. Or, for example, that excellent students have exclusively positive personal qualities, which may not be true. Gender stereotypes are especially persistent in school.Whether a person is male or female allows one to attribute to him those stereotypes that relate to that gender. Although it is absolutely clear that a person’s belonging to a certain gender does not indicate that he has certain qualities, behavior, habits attributed to people of this gender. Teachers often reproach boys for not acting like men, and girls for not acting like girls. Some teachers still tend to attribute technical abilities to boys and humanitarian abilities to girls, and build their requirements accordingly. Distribute types of activities in accordance with ideas about male and female roles. Only serious work on oneself allows teachers with extensive work experience to avoid categoricality and polarity in thinking, conservatism of views. An effective means of overcoming stereotypes is an individual approach to students, p.The ability to recognize each child’s abilities and talents.

Stereotypes begin to form in the family. Parents, willy-nilly, sharing their life experiences with their children, impose their stereotypes on them. The task of the teacher, first of all the class teacher, is to teach parents ways to avoid excessive stereotyping of the child’s thinking. To do this, it is necessary to form logical thinking and best of all - from early childhood. With the help of logical thinking, parents will be able to teach their child to separate the essential from the secondary, find relationships between objects and phenomena, create conclusions, search for and find confirmations and refutations. It is also necessary to teach the child to think critically.

Here are some tips that psychologists give. They will help develop critical thinking in children:

There must be logic in statements. From a very early age, you need to teach your child to think logically.

To teach your child to develop thinking in different ways and in a playful way. Let him compare objects, find common features, and draw conclusions after reading fairy tales.

Do not accept the answer: “Because I want it that way” or “Because I like it that way” when it comes to arguing an opinion about something. Ask the child to think and name the real reason. Help him by asking leading questions.

Allow your child to doubt. The child doubts, expresses distrust of some facts - great! This means he will try to prove that he is right. This means he will want to know everything about the object of the dispute. Learns and remembers a lot of new and interesting things.

Is the child pointing out an error in reasoning? Or does he ask a lot of clarifying questions? This is amazing. This means that he is attentive, ready to express his opinion and really wants to know everything. Such conversations need to be encouraged.

Try to teach your child to first find out all the information, and only then draw conclusions .

In conclusion I would like to say thatstereotypical thinking- the scourge of modern Russian society. It interferes with the individual development of people according to their own program, independent of anyone. The effectiveness of combating it is determined by how sooner a person realizes the need for it. At school, when the process of personality formation is still underway, it is much easier to develop basic approaches to overcoming stereotypes than later, when the personality is already formed. Thus, teachers have a huge responsibility - raising a generation of free-thinking people who are not pressured by stereotypes.

9 Sakavika 2015

14 737

Using the example of school education, we will trace how, under the guise of “gender culture,” stereotypes about the social roles of men and women are built into the minds of children, which reproduce late Soviet realities: a boy whittles stools, and a girl knits and cooks.

School is one of the significant social institutions that a person encounters. Educational policy is closely related to the structure of society, the balance of power in it, and the existence of rules that ensure the functioning of control. Thus, secondary education is not only a complex of academic disciplines, but also social dogmas that orient a person to exist in a certain paradigm. And gender is its cornerstone.

This social “superstructure” over gender declares the importance of the physiological differences between men and women and the determinacy of their social roles. When sex and gender do not match, a person experiences alienation from other people, feels “wrong,” and is subject to condemnation and pressure.

“What will happen to gender roles if we don’t instill behavioral patterns in children according to gender? What will happen if the division between female and male professions, character traits, and items of clothing disappears?..”

With the disappearance of the concept of “gender”, and therefore the phenomenon itself from our lives, society will have to undergo a serious transformation. However, today in Belarus such a reformist path seems unreasonably difficult. It is easier to legislate and “preserve” traditions that are losing their real viability.

Gender education is an officially articulated concept of Belarusian education. Educational work includes “gender education,” designed to form in students “ideas about the role and life purpose of men and women in modern society” and “family education aimed at developing a value-based attitude towards family and raising children.”

“Family values” is the key concept of gender education in the post-Soviet space. It is important to understand that the official rhetoric in the delineated cultural region does not mean by family values ​​the need to work with the problems of the institution of the patriarchal family, to modernize and humanize it. This is not about the value of trusting relationships and equality on which a happy family is built, but about the value (more precisely, the profitability) of the myth of heteronormativity and the preservation of traditionalism. Family values ​​in this case are synonymous with patriarchy, gender stereotypes and lack of freedom.

© ussr-lib.com

By shaping children’s perception of themselves as girls and boys with specific female or male roles, the education system constructs in people ideas about the family “norm”, and in this idea there is no place for otherness. Shiloh Nouvel, the 7-year-old daughter of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, recently asked to be called John and considered a boy. Parents respect this decision. For the first time, people started talking about Shiloh-John’s gender back in 2010, when the tabloid Life&Style published an article entitled “Why is Angelina turning Shiloh into a boy.” The reason for the publication was changes in Shiloh’s style: she stopped wearing dresses, and instead of hairstyles with clips, a unisex haircut appeared. Jolie commented on the situation, saying that her children can choose their own clothes according to how they feel. As a result, we see a unique experience of self-acceptance: already at an early age, a person was able to make a choice, knowing that he would not be judged. Is it possible for such a development of events in a society that makes transgender people invisible and reinforces outdated clichés about the determining role of gender in children?

Raising children within the framework of the binary opposition of masculine and feminine leads to the formation of gender stereotypes that facilitate classification and, as a result, control. After all, instead of an individual with his needs and aspirations, there are standardized “men” and “women” with aspirations and needs common to the class. Conservative upbringing makes people uncritical, reduces their ability to reflect and openness to new practices, no matter how many arguments in favor of the latter are voiced. Gender stereotypes encourage rigid thinking and blind trust in tradition.

If we consider school as an integral part of preparing an individual for professional activity in the realities of a particular society, then we need to find out what expectations exist for him in Belarus. In a recent report, the Minister of Labor and Social Protection of Belarus, Marianna Shchetkina, said that “gender stereotypes often prevent one from seeing the true picture, and this hinders both men and women.” When asked by a journalist whether it is worth fighting gender stereotypes in this case, Shchetkina speaks surprisingly vaguely:

The main thing here is not to get too carried away. A weak-willed, pampered man will never become an attractive image in the mass consciousness. As for women, as the great Russian surgeon, teacher and public figure Nikolai Pirogov noted, “a woman with a male education and even in a man’s dress should remain feminine and never neglect the development of the best talents of her feminine nature.”

But this is far from an isolated contradiction: it seems that the entire concept of Belarusian gender education is built on oxymorons.

© ussr-lib.com

“State policy is based on a gender model of symmetrical and balanced inclusion of men and women in all spheres of public life.” But can there be a symmetrical and balanced inclusion of men and women in all spheres of public life if different subjects are introduced for students of different genders, which reinforce the existing gender-role approach?

Thus, deciphering the concept of “gender education” at the level of official rhetoric is an attempt to sit on two chairs: on the one hand, to preserve conservative positions, on the other, to put them in the form of liberality and progressiveness, to put them on a par with the concepts of “gender equality” , "equality".

The explanatory note by E. Konovalchik and G. Smotritskaya to the curriculum of elective classes for VIII (IX) grades of general secondary education institutions “Fundamentals of Gender Culture” states that the goal of elective classes “Fundamentals of Gender Culture” is the formation of gender culture of students as an element the basic culture of the individual and the conditions for its successful implementation as a family man, professional, citizen.

The main objectives of these classes:

Acquiring knowledge about gender characteristics of both sexes;
systematization of ideas about socially approved qualities of men and women and the distribution of gender roles in the modern world;
consolidation of knowledge about gender equality, the inadmissibility of sexual and other discrimination, and all types of violence;
the formation of a value attitude and tolerant perception of representatives of both sexes, the ability to communicate constructively and cooperate;
developing positive attitudes towards marriage and family, raising children.

We are again asked to combine “ideas about the socially approved qualities of men and women and the distribution of gender roles in the modern world” with knowledge about equality, as if these are not mutually exclusive things. The statement about the gender characteristics of the sexes completely casts doubt on the level of understanding of the terminology used by the program compilers.

The gender-role approach to compiling an educational program is clearly represented by a series of “separate” disciplines. Different standards for boys and girls provided for in a physical education course may seem logical, since we are talking about the physical characteristics of sex, and not about gender. However, if you think about it, the meaning of such ranking is not self-evident. Why are standards differentiated by gender, and not by the capabilities of people in general?

“There are girls who have more physical strength than boys. There are boys who jump worse than other boys. There are girls who run slower than other girls."

Isn’t it more reasonable to evaluate different categories of physical capabilities differently, rather than assigning the label “weaker sex” to women at this level?

It is also worth adding that the issue of physical activity during menstruation has not been resolved at the official level: students negotiate with teachers individually, and this means that they may be subject to ridicule or not receive permission to rest at all. The Russian website “PHYSICAL CULTURE ON 5,” for example, gives teachers the following advice:

At the same time, it is well known that during the period of menstruation no one exempts a woman from work, from performing household duties, etc. But often these loads are no less, and sometimes even more, than in physical education lessons.

Separate labor lessons (grades 5-9)

If the normative documents cited above mention the cultivation of a sense of equality, then the school labor education program does not allow such conclusions to be drawn. These lessons so openly convey ideas about the patriarchal family, as if there weren’t many authors who wrote about the invisible work of women - housework is still devalued and taken for granted. In the minds of children and adolescents, work is divided into male and female, and schoolchildren receive only those skills that are considered useful for a representative of one gender or another. Sewing, knitting, embroidery, cooking - these are about girls. Working with tools, wood and metal - boys. In such conditions, it is impossible to develop your abilities and inclinations, because simply no one will ask about them.

© ussr-lib.com

Pre-conscription training and medical training (grades 10-11)

This complex not only reinforces gender stereotypes, but also contributes to the strengthening of militaristic sentiments. The fighter and the nurse, romantic Soviet images, have migrated into modern life. If you want peace, prepare for war? As an answer, I would like to recall the feminist slogan that there is no need to teach women to defend themselves, we need to teach men not to rape. To poeticize war by holding military parades, where parents take pictures of their children in front of tanks and Katyusha rockets, and reinforce this with school lessons, means making violence acceptable. In the previous paragraph we talked about the neglect of feminist works, and here it is appropriate to recall Remarque, Vonnegut, Hemingway, Tolstoy with his “Sevastopol Stories”, “Tomorrow there was a war” by Boris Vasiliev... Isn’t this truer than idyllic postcards with smiling nurses hugging happy Red Army soldiers?

Gender stereotypes simplify the manipulation of mass consciousness, and militaristic rhetoric requires exactly this: typification, uncriticality and controllability.

It is worth noting that the school implements the principles of gender education not only in classroom hours and “separate” subjects, but also in “general” disciplines: for example, the school traditionally questions girls’ abilities in the exact sciences. This leads to the fact that a woman’s capabilities are systematically and consistently devalued, and girls themselves feel less capable and strong than boys.

Research conducted in schools across the country by the American Association of University Women showed that boys are 5 times more likely than girls to receive teacher attention and are 8 times more likely to be called to the blackboard. As a result, boys feel more confident and capable outside the school walls. Research also shows that between the ages of 9 and 14, girls are most likely to lose confidence and self-worth. They become less physically active, begin to study worse, and neglect their own interests and needs.

© ussr-lib.com

The tools of oppression in school do not only apply to students. In November 2014, recommendations regarding the appearance of teachers were sent to schools in Brest. This dress code, developed by the Ministry of Education back in 2009, caused a strong reaction from Baynet users. And it’s not surprising: the recommendation is replete with the words “must,” “should,” “must,” and even the most enthusiastic fan of uniforms will inevitably wonder who determines the “traditionally” permissible amount of jewelry, the “correct” size of buttons and the “school” colors of tights.

Cloth
“It is considered rude to teach a lesson in jeans; sportswear, clothes with fringes, sequins, lace, large bright buttons, clothes that leave the abdominal area exposed, a miniskirt, a skirt with a large slit, a see-through blouse or a blouse with a very deep neckline; ponchos and similar shapeless capes; “gypsy” skirts, etc. Clothes for school (gymnasium, lyceum) should not be too tight and of provocatively bright colors. Fishnet, checkered or floral tights and stockings are not allowed. Bare legs, although very beautiful, are also not welcome, even in very hot weather.”

Shoes
“Business style also does not accept sneakers, flip-flops and any shoes with an open heel, open sandals, or over-the-knee boots. Shoes should be of strict classic shape, with low, stable heels (no higher than 6 cm), and in no case massive or fragile.”

Hairstyle, makeup, manicure, jewelry
“The hairstyle or styling should leave the face open, because, firstly, it looks neater, and, secondly, an open face inspires more confidence. Too long flowing hair, African braids, dreadlocks - all this is also not for a school teacher. Makeup should be discreet and light. When it comes to manicure, you should avoid two extremes: unkempt or too long and bright nails. Decorations should not shine, be bulky, or ring; all these factors will distract students from the essence of the material being explained. Traditionally it is believed that there should be no more than three decorations.”

Who is “considered” to be? Who are “not allowed” or “not welcome”? Why do the recommendations for teachers contain clauses like “even if they are very beautiful” (legs)”? Why do the recommendations mainly concern women (shorts are not mentioned in the same category as miniskirts)? Massive and fragile shoes - by no means, because the course of the lesson depends on the strength of the teacher’s shoes? What's wrong with a shapeless cape and bright colors? From these questions it is easy to move on to others: what will happen if girls plan stools and boys learn to sew and cook? What happens if children are not told “you’re a girl” and “you’re a boy”? How would the world change if there were individuals in it, rather than an abstract mass of men and women who are supposedly endowed with fundamental similarities with all members of their sex?

1. The concept of continuous education of children and students in the Republic of Belarus // Collection of statutory documents of the Ministry of Education, No. 2, 2007, p. 11.
2. Stakhovskaya S., State Educational Institution “Krynkovskaya Secondary School of the Liozno District” (from the materials of the conference on gender education, 2013)
3. Mufel N., “Main problems of gender socialization of girls.”