Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnas Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 (edited) ... Way to completely miss chair's point... Edited January 24, 2012 by Jonnas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Zechs strikes again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chairdriver Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Survival of the fittest is how the real world works. It's how nature works and it is the natural order of things. Liberalism is foolish doctrine that flies in the face of nature and will ultimately lead to the death of Western civilisation, which may or may not be a good thing. But be assured, if there ever is a revolution, the following scramble for power will soon boil down to the iron law of nature - that might is right. I'm not a liberal, you're preaching to the choir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ipaul Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Survival of the fittest is how the real world works. It's how nature works and it is the natural order of things. Liberalism is foolish doctrine that flies in the face of nature and will ultimately lead to the death of Western civilisation, which may or may not be a good thing. But be assured, if there ever is a revolution, the following scramble for power will soon boil down to the iron law of nature - that might is right. Oh dear god man what are you on about? Do you ever try and back up anything you say? On topic: The woman is very silly and is somehow managing to capitulate the child's free will or personal development more than the socially constructed gender stereotypes she derides - quite something in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zechs Merquise Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 I'm not a liberal, you're preaching to the choir. Wow, you surprise me. But I'm happy we agree on something! ha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diageo Posted January 24, 2012 Author Share Posted January 24, 2012 Bypassing this silly off-shoot. As far as I read, which was skipping large parts of the article, she is not forcing the kid to wear the girls clothes, but only allowing him if he wants to and placing it as a viable option. I agree that however gender neutrality is not reached if there are bans on certain more masculine clothes. I don't see a problem with not telling people what sex the child is until pressed, and as far as I saw, that's all she did. Allowing him to wear and play with whatever he wants does not seem to damage the child in any way. As long as the child is educated on how the gender stereotypes of the world work, and that he has to make a choice to fit them or stand out, this can be a viable parenting style. Is she taking drastic measures I have missed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yvonne Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 LOL those are some great quotes. Anyway back on topic, and as some have said so far: * seems like a good sentiment, poor implementation * there will be no way to avoid the internalisation of gender cues from social spaces like school, so perhaps instead just teach your kid about this stuff early? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EEVILMURRAY Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 I'm wondering how she'll handle it if he ends up being gay, then kinda conforms to the stereotype that some gays like to dress up like fairies. Her efforts will have been in vain. Also, would she do the same had Sasha been a girl? Dressed her up like the stereotypical one half of the lesbian couple (the butch one) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cube Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Is she taking drastic measures I have missed? While she's letting him where what is usually considered girls clothing and play with girls toys, he's not allowed certain boys clothing and boys toys. Therefore completely ruining her "gender neutral" reason for doing this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EEVILMURRAY Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 As well as girls dolls. He needs boys ACTION FIGURES. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheikah Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 I don't know how any upbringing where you could potentially choose from TWICE THE NUMBER OF TOYS could possibly be a bad thing. You could always choose from twice the number of toys, just you'd be looked at weird / potentially bullied for playing with dolls if you're a guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chairdriver Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Wow, you surprise me. But I'm happy we agree on something! ha! You can't really be a liberal when you're as far left as I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dog-amoto Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 A Rokhed in the making... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fierce_LiNk Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 I'm not really an expert on the subject, but wouldn't it be better to give the child everything that is "available for the opposite gender" as well? For example, instead of just solely giving the boy an action man figure, why not allow it play with "girl's toys", too. In fact, isn't it a bit cruel to deny these kids to play with toys anyway? They're fun, quite interactive and its good for their imagination. I thought about maybe gender-less/unisex clothing, but I'm not sure if it exists for kids. That's a potential idea. Or, why not just allow it access to both girl's and boy's clothing? That seems to be more gender-neutral, rather than purposefully dressing up the kid as the opposite sex. That doesn't seem gender-neutral to me. Saying that, the majority of toys "designed for girls" are pretty shit. I've spent quite a bit of time helping out in nurseries and reception classes, and the girls just end up playing with the boys stuff anyway. So, maybe there's more to it than that. Edit: I've only skim-read the article because I'm tired, so if the Mother is doing that (allowing him to wear both), then that's fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Saying that, the majority of toys "designed for girls" are pretty shit. I've spent quite a bit of time helping out in nurseries and reception classes, and the girls just end up playing with the boys stuff anyway. So, maybe there's more to it than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Gibbs Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 I saw something on this woman about 6 months ago, and i was as shocked then as i am now there have been some great points made in this thread by @Fierce_LiNk, @Cube, @chairdriver @Daft etc etc The woman has something seriously wrong with her! if she wanted to "show" society wouldn't she be better renaming herself and treating herself gender neutral? What she is doing to her child is effectively abuse! she is stunting his/her social development by making the child a visible outcast to all. He will undergo years of abuse, and no doubt rebel in the worst possble ways in his teenage years, assuming he survives that long. with the level of abuse and bullying he will certainly receive i wouldn't be surprised to hear in a few years he's topped himself, that or has been beaten/stabbed/shot to death by a gang especially now the family is so well known and publicized. The strange irony of all this, is that when that boy grows up he will undoubtedly become virulently 1 gender over the other and exist at 1 end of the gender sterotyping to compensate, probably male given all the girly things he is allowed* to do *he isn't allowed if he is being shoved these effeminate things under his nose but being refused access to masculine things, she is socially conditioning him towards being effeminate I do wonder is she secretly trying to create a woman's ideal man, whilst being physically a man but having all the "positive" aspects of a woman such as a sensitivity. Long and the short of it is she is living through her child in the way she wishes she could have obviously lived, the child is her puppet her plaything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diageo Posted January 24, 2012 Author Share Posted January 24, 2012 Camouflaged clothes and skulls are hardly the epitome of masculinity and he isn't being forced into femininity because of it. He has plenty of other manly clothes to wear. If he had been stopped from wearing army clothes and being close to guns because his father had died in a war, no one would twitch an eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fierce_LiNk Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Seen that before, but it really is a great point. Some of the toys aimed at girls are horrendous. I don't think we've seen any real progress there. The only progress we possibly have is with computer/videogames that are more accessible to girls than perhaps they were before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Camouflaged clothes and skulls are hardly the epitome of masculinity and he isn't being forced into femininity because of it. But the fact is she is banning certain things that she deems overly-masculine, yet appears to be pushing dresses and tutus, which are overly-feminine. That's not gender neutrality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 If he had been stopped from wearing army clothes and being close to guns because his father had died in a war, no one would twitch an eye. I would be more understanding, sure, but I still wouldn't like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Gibbs Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 @MoogleViper illustrated my point better there, thats what i was getting at, if she wants neutrality there can be no exclusions else it is therefore no longer neutral Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The fish Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 I'm off to shoot people in a violent videogame while my clay mask facial dries. This. I always use purple as my colour of choice when given the option, especially in FPS's. The first to I remember asking for was a Polly Pocket, but I love guns as much as the next 'man'. I have, in my time, been accused of being sucked into the stereotypical male likes and dislikes, and that even though I have decided for myself what I like and dislike, I didn't actually chose but instead fell for the stereotypes. To these people I say "fuck off: my favourite colour is purple and my favourite sport is Latin & Ballroom dancing, and the fact I like science, tech, computers, firearms, military history and video games isn't related to my gender or that anyone has told me I should like them". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zechs Merquise Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Look, the long and short of it is that she is a totally twisted and deranged woman who isn't suitable to be a parent. We're talking about a child - his biggest worry should be which is his favourite Pokemon, not being pressured into deciding whether he's a boy or a girl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diageo Posted January 24, 2012 Author Share Posted January 24, 2012 If you actually read the article, which I just have, you can see that she is not pushing it at all. There are frilly dresses there because they are hand downs from a girl in the family. She bans camouflage clothes and skulls, you don't need that to be a man. It even says in the article that the mother has not problem if he wants to be a butch rugby player. As far as I've seen, the only thing that she's done is allowed him to wear and play with whatever he wants. Without telling him things are particularly male or female. He even wears the girl's uniform in school and has received no trouble for it apparently. I don't agree that she should ban camouflage and skulls but that's hardly making him into a woman. He is wearing the dress because he likes it, and so do many young boys. Reading the article I don't think she has done any damage to the child, the only negative I can see is that the child can't wear a certain small section of clothes, but it's not the only masculine clothes. Also, I don't think that the child will be unable to cope in later educational environments, because enough of the media can teach the child on typical stereotypes in schools. Heteronormativity can be a large problem in schools and is at an extreme in single sex schools. Any femininity is seen as deviant and abnormal which shouldn't be the case for males. Parents and teachers do nothing about it and it only adds to the natural homophobic views that are born from this narrow view on masculinity. I wish there was a change from this in society, but I don't really know how it can be changed. It's definitely not "fine" and "healthy" as it is anyway. Look, the long and short of it is that she is a totally twisted and deranged woman who isn't suitable to be a parent. We're talking about a child - his biggest worry should be which is his favourite Pokemon, not being pressured into deciding whether he's a boy or a girl. He's hardly pressure into choosing his sex, he knows he's a boy. He's just not forced into gender roles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts