NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm honestly rather befuddled by a lot of the claims in this thread.

If gender differences are so "innate," then why do children need to be taught to adhere to them?

They don't, as has been shown by studies.


If a boy is "naturally" going to want to be "masculine," then why would a boy ask to wear traditionally "feminine" clothing and need to be told that he cannot do so?

Haven't had the experience.


Why would a girl need to be told that she is supposed to behave like a girl, or prefer girl toys, if her femaleness innately makes her want to be feminine?


Haven't seen that happen either.


And if these qualities are not innate, then why are we forcing children to adhere to them?

Who's using force?

I'm honestly rather befuddled by a lot of the claims in this thread.

If gender differences are so "innate," then why do children need to be taught to adhere to them?

If a boy is "naturally" going to want to be "masculine," then why would a boy ask to wear traditionally "feminine" clothing and need to be told that he cannot do so?

Why would a girl need to be told that she is supposed to behave like a girl, or prefer girl toys, if her femaleness innately makes her want to be feminine?

And if these qualities are not innate, then why are we forcing children to adhere to them?

For their own good. They might get ridiculed.

I found the link nb was talking about:

http://www.yerkes.emory.edu/index/yerkes-app/story.90/title.yerkes-researchers-find-sex-differences-in-monkey-toy-preferences-similar-to-humans

For their own good. They might get ridiculed.

By the very folk and the offspring of the ones who would force them to comply. Don't do it or the assholes will make fun of you is a shitty reason.

I found the link nb was talking about:

http://www.yerkes.emory.edu/index/yerkes-app/story.90/title.yerkes-researchers-find-sex-differences-in-monkey-toy-preferences-similar-to-humans

That seems to be the one from earlier in this thread. Thankya. 10,000 points to whomever finds the other one.

Because nothing freaks out a straight guy like finding out they're hitting on a tranny.
Heh.

The whole theory about "innate gender roles" bugs me, in particular, because I never felt comfortable being "girly." I did not--and do not--feel comfortable in skirts. I detest make up. I hate doing my hair. I wear women's shoes only when absolutely necessary. I dislike caring for babies. I never understood "playing house." I liked to wrestle, play catch, ride bikes, and build with blocks or Legos.

I did have a doll as a child...her name was Molly and she was a WWII fighter pilot and we shot down "boogers" together (I misunderstood the term "bogie").

All of this would not have been a problem, except I was constantly confronted with people who insisted that the things I liked were "for boys," and the things I didn't like were "for girls." I am not exaggerating when I say that for a while I considered the possibility that I was a transsexual. I didn't think of it in those terms, but from about age 6 to age 15 or so I was pretty solidly convinced that I was a boy who just happened to get a girl's body. I didn't like any of the things that people told me girls were supposed to like. I didn't "act like a girl" or feel any desire to act like a girl. I felt naturally "boyish." So I concluded that I must be a boy, deep down.

Took me a while to figure out that I'm a girl, and glad to be one, I just happen to not fit the stereotype of "feminine." Heaven knows my mother tried to get me to be more "girly," but it just never took.

Meanwhile, my baby brother is the ultimate manly man type, who loves cars, trucks, heavy lifting, sports...and having his toenails painted. As a child he would always "tuck in" his toy trucks and give them night-night kisses as if they were his babydolls. He's basically a mish-mash of extremely "feminine" and extremely "masculine" behaviors.

Long story short, I get annoyed with people who push gender essentialist ideas. They fucked up a lot of my childhood by convincing me I wasn't a real girl. They're the ones who teased my brother when he wore purple nail polish to first grade.

Just let kids be kids. If all those gender essentialist theories are right, then kids will CHOOSE to obey stereotypes and you have nothing to worry about. And if they don't, you're wrong and should shut up and get out of the way. :D

For their own good. They might get ridiculed.
So Kid A makes fun of Kid B, and our response should be to make Kid B change his behavior?

Do you also suggest that if my wallet is stolen, the solution is to tell me to stop carrying a wallet, rather than, say, catching the person who stole my wallet and punishing them?

They don't, as has been shown by studies.



Haven't had the experience.



Haven't seen that happen either.

You've "met" me.

So either I'm not a girl...

**checks pants**

or femaleness doesn't automatically make a person "feminine."

By the very folk and the offspring of the ones who would force them to comply. Don't do it or the assholes will make fun of you is a shitty reason.

agreed - I bet that their mental anguish later in life will me much worse for them by wearing a mask they dislike for too long

agreed - I bet that their mental anguish later in life will me much worse for them by wearing a mask they dislike for too long
*Raises hand*

Yep. And I was a very, very mild case, in the grand scheme of things.

**checks pants**

...

Nah, too easy.

As a child he would always "tuck in" his toy trucks and give them night-night kisses as if they were his babydolls.

That is just absurdly cute.

So Kid A makes fun of Kid B, and our response should be to make Kid B change his behavior?

Do you also suggest that if my wallet is stolen, the solution is to tell me to stop carrying a wallet, rather than, say, catching the person who stole my wallet and punishing them?

Precisely! :D

...

Nah, too easy.
That's my grand strategy, you see. I make the marks so easy that any self-respecting wise-ass will feel it is beneath him to go for it. ;)

The whole theory about "innate gender roles" bugs me, in particular, because I never felt comfortable being "girly." I did not--and do not--feel comfortable in skirts. I detest make up. I hate doing my hair. I wear women's shoes only when absolutely necessary. I dislike caring for babies. I never understood "playing house." I liked to wrestle, play catch, ride bikes, and build with blocks or Legos.

Just like my wife, actually.

Do you find that surprising?


Just let kids be kids. If all those gender essentialist theories are right, then kids will CHOOSE to obey stereotypes and you have nothing to worry about. And if they don't, you're wrong and should shut up and get out of the way. :D

Which, despite accusations to the contrary, is precisely what happened. (In my kids' case)

You've "met" me.

So either I'm not a girl...

**checks pants**

or femaleness doesn't automatically make a person "feminine."

Actually I haven't met you (even figuratively. Online forums do NOT mean diddly), and I'm not sure what you're getting at.

That is just absurdly cute.
The problem was that his toy trucks lived on the rug in his bedroom, which was one of those rugs that is dyed to look like city streets and buildings and stuff so the kid can drive the toys around the roads.

So when the trucks were "put to bed" and tucked in, they formed this absurdly cute mine field that would invariably cause my mother, my father, or myself to nearly kill ourselves when we came to say good night to Little Brother.

That's my grand strategy, you see. I make the marks so easy that any self-respecting wise-ass will feel it is beneath him to go for it. ;)

ah, screw it. So, can I check your pa.....

Damn it, I just can't!

Yah I just wrote out a story to Smunkee that is one example I've noted.

And i would echo Skaladora's concerns. Perhpas if you could provide some sort of link showing some sort of statistical correlation betwen gender blending and behavioural problems, or if not, some sort of logical explanation as to why you believe one caused the other. I ask this because yoru anecdote shows neither causation, and only implies a possible correlation.

Your question seems predicated on the idea that the internal identity is fully formed at that age. I do not think it's complete yet, so it would be hard to answer your question in the spirit in which it's asked.

Not really. I believe that we are all in a constant process of defining and creating ourselves. I don't even think it's possible to have a 'fully formed' self-image or identity. But I am aware that some of these processes stem from internal drives while others stem from social pressure. I believe that in this instance, allowing the children their choice would be to support their own internal drives rather than social pressures.

Not sure I understand what you mean here.

You were discussing how such confusion can lead to problems with socialisation. I was addressing that. Perhaps I misunderstood how such 'confusion' could lead to socialisation problems.

Well, every parent has to make a judgment call on that.

Pretty easy call for me. I think being supportive of my child's ability to make choices independently is a confidence builder. Do you think restricting their choices over trivial matters is good for their confidence?

Enjoy your weekends, y'all. Gotta go pick up my baby from daycare so I can 'impose gender roles' on her s'more. :p

Because nothing freaks out a straight guy like finding out they're hitting on a tranny.

Except maybe women who refuse to be "feminine", submissive and subservient to their patriarchal manly-man powers.

Which, despite accusations to the contrary, is precisely what happened. (In my kids' case)

Then why would you care about preventing it from happening?

*Raises hand*

Yep. And I was a very, very mild case, in the grand scheme of things.

Same here. Still struggling to overcome it.

Sometimes in defiance of my fears of what others think I will go out looking to shock people with some very revealing androgyny.

Oh the gasps.

Just like my wife, actually.

Do you find that surprising?

What, the fact that you assert that all women must innately want to be "feminine" despite that fact that you say your own wife doesn't behave that way?

Honestly, no, I don't find that surprising. It's consistent with what I know of you.


Which, despite accusations to the contrary, is precisely what happened. (In my kids' case)

From what you've posted on this thread, that's pretty obviously not true. Your own vocal disapproval of "non-traditional" gender behaviors pretty much squashes that possibility.


Actually I haven't met you (even figuratively. Online forums do NOT mean diddly), and I'm not sure what you're getting at.
I'm getting at the fact that I'm living proof that traditional gender stereotypes are NOT innately tied to physical sex. I am genetically and physiologically female, always have been, and have also always been "naturally masculine" in my preferences and behaviors.

It only takes one to disprove your theory, in this case, because if it's possible for somebody to be female and NOT innately "feminine" then femaleness cannot be the sole cause of "femininity". And so forth.

The problem was that his toy trucks lived on the rug in his bedroom, which was one of those rugs that is dyed to look like city streets and buildings and stuff so the kid can drive the toys around the roads.

So when the trucks were "put to bed" and tucked in, they formed this absurdly cute mine field that would invariably cause my mother, my father, or myself to nearly kill ourselves when we came to say good night to Little Brother.

Hehe. While I certainly pity the many stubbed toes of the Bottle family...that's still pretty darn cute. :p

Except maybe women who refuse to be "feminine", submissive and subservient to their patriarchal manly-man powers.
Or women who--in defiance of God and Nature--are HAPPY being non-feminine.

I find that the easiest way to piss off gender essentialists is to simply be myself and be happy about it. Drives them over the fucking falls.

Then maybe it would be useful to settle on what, exactly, it means to be bigoted.

For my purposes here, prejudiced against someone (or potentially something) based on an arbitrary characteristic.

Except that a refusal to discuss a subject reasonably can be viewed as imposing, since it typically carries with it demands and orders. You can see it in this thread where people demand that I answer their questions a certain way or insist that I must accept their interpretation of things.

Well, that's something you have to watch out for, of course. To discuss something reasonably is to discuss it on the basis of objective standards (rationality, and reasonable assumptions about how the world works), not on one particular person's terms.

I'll grant you that, but in return I want you to acknowledge that the word 'bigot' can also be used in exactly the same mentality and anger as 'fag.'

I won't, because to call someone a bigot, even wrongly, is just not to make the same kind of statement as to call someone a fag. They both can be indicative of close-mindedness, but they are very different kinds of attacks.

If someone called me a bigot, I would want to correct them. If someone called me a fag, I would want to punch them in the face. (I wouldn't, of course, but that's not the point.)

Further, I think it's very important that we not delegitimize a word like "bigot", not in a world that is incredibly bigoted as it stands... a world where so many people feel perfectly entitled to be obnoxiously bigoted and need to be told to stop, sometimes in the harshest terms possible.

What do you mean by 'condescending tolerance?'

Generously tolerating people whose "lifestyles" a person opposes.

The condescension is this: it's tolerance without respect, "I'll let you live your life, but I won't seriously consider that you might be right." As a matter of fact, the disrespect is often two-fold, because so often such people are not really willing to express their opinions on "right": they condemn me in their heads, but they aren't willing to say it to me.

Respect, I think, would involve being willing to engage in a dialogue of sorts: to speak and to listen.

The thing is, if you want to have an open an honest discussion with someone then one MUST be diplomatic.

Well, I don't know about "must". But it's preferable, yes.

You don't see a value in making the effort to build bridges?

No, I was pointing out that I nowhere suggested that I couldn't get along with someone like you. I can.

Alright, but know that what you view as moral behavior and what I view as moral behavior ain't even in the same freakin' Solar System ;) Would I then, be justified in aggressively going after you (or anyone) under the justification that it's for their own good?

Qualifying the "aggressively" part somewhat, yes, certainly. I wish more people would. You should feel free to voice your opinion, and make your argument. And I should feel obligated to listen, at least sometimes, when it's convenient.

Of course, this is ethically ambiguous territory, really, because while respect for my autonomy (somewhat paradoxically) requires a concern for my moral well-being, respect for my autonomy also requires a concern for my wishes: if I don't want to continually be morally condemned, you shouldn't do it.

That's why it's important to build friendships, and relationships with others more generally, that are characterized by honesty, trust, and mutual respect, such that we can pursue moral improvement together without injuring each other's pride and without trampling on each other's freedom.

My sister used to use that justification to Biblethump me for being a Mormon.

Have I mentioned that I don't mind people trying to convert me--that I in fact welcome it?

I just don't think they should object if I return the favor.

The thing is, I firmly believe that each person must be allowed to figure out their moral code on their own. We must be there to answer questions and explain things when called upon to do so, but to be aggressive in our approach is to flirt with zealotry.

We may have different understandings of "aggressive."

I think in your own way you are a Conservative thinker. (I mean that in a good way :) )

I know where you're coming from with that. But I turn my occasional ethical conservatism against conservative political and social stances.

I'm not saying you'd have to be a fan, but if you never listen, then how can you claim to be knowledgeable enough for such a position?

"Barack the Magic Negro" is rather telling, among other things.

I dunno. Some could argue that it was, as I scolded him for his intolerance. How is that fundamentally different from a hypothetical scenario in which I scold him for wearing a dress?

It's not. Well, "scold" is ambiguous, but assuming all you do is advance an argument in an attempt to convince him, there's nothing intolerant about it in either case. It would be wrong to prohibit him from wearing a dress, and it would be wrong to prohibit him from voting for discrimination against gays.

Of course, I happen to think that the moral arguments against wearing dresses are all pretty ludicrous, but anyway....

I find the wording here curious. One needs an excuse to hold a belief?

One needs a justification, yes.

I'd disagree on that. 1+1=2 is a universal truth regardless of your worldview. This is definitely not the same.

As I've said, there are definitely multiple right answers to some ethical questions, but there are absolute rational moral standards... and in any case, even if there are not I doubt any two human beings have no ethical common ground.

Cut me some slack, will ya?

Sure. Like I said, I believe in keeping at it, in part for exactly that reason.

Unfortunate. You do realize that's a form of prejudice?

No, it's a reasonable conclusion from the evidence. It is, of course, provisional: I could be convinced otherwise by the course of the argument.

Just out of curiosity, and forgive me if this has been made plain and I've misunderstood, are you gay?

Bisexual, but close enough--at this point, me living a "straight" life just isn't happening.

I find it very difficult to accept that a person who is so quick to perceive bigotry can be that objective.

It is two different kinds of judgments.

I see an argument attacking homosexuality. I think to myself, "This person is probably bigoted", from my experience of seeing how awful such arguments tend to be. But then I proceed to examine the argument closely and respond to it, as a separate thought process from my earlier conclusion.

You seem to think that just because I come to a conclusion, I stop thinking. But nothing of the sort is true: my conclusions remain open to modification.

To the first, that's the sense I got from this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13796419&postcount=183) post. To the second, I think the act of calling someone bigoted handles that rather well.

Hmm, fair enough--I did call you bigoted, but the major direction of our argument has not concerned that particular issue of gender bending. For what it's worth, broadly speaking I don't actually think you're either close-minded or intolerant. As far as tolerance goes, actually, I think you might benefit from a little less--along the lines of what I've said earlier, anyway.

You also cite this post as an example of categorical dismissal, but I don't see that. I see judgments, but no absolute, categorical ones.

But here's the thing. When you come out tossing out terms like 'bigot' that does NOT present the appearance of someone who's open to discussion on the subject.

Again, fair enough. I've never claimed to be a brilliant communicator; I have trouble a lot with people who get impressions from what I say that I didn't intend, because I choose my words with an eye toward accuracy and precision, and in the process miss elements like "how they come across."

So what sort of proof would be sufficient to prove the validity of a perspective that you don't share?

Whatever justification you yourself have. The reasons you believe something. We can discuss whether or not they are actually good reasons, but it's hard to do that abstractly.

Hypocrisy is one of my pet peeves. It rapidly unravels a good discussion because it's just a complete and total block to objectivity and communication.

But it's not. If I'm intolerant towards you or others, it doesn't stop me from expressing effectively my views on tolerance, or you from responding to them. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Not by the same reasoning at all. They're my children, therefore it is my DUTY to guide them and make judgment calls for them.

I knew you were going to say that. :)

I abbreviated my original response because I didn't want to get into a detailed argument about a political theory of the family; we have enough to deal with as it stands. So I left it as a shot in the dark, just in case it struck home; I'm not surprised it didn't.

I don't agree. When someone uses a vitriolic and nasty approach, they're not being tolerant of their target at all.

Depends on whether it's intended or not, I think.

Gay people have no souls.

Gay people have no souls.

Homophobes have neither hearts nor brains.

Gay people have no souls.

If gay people have no soul, how come they're such good dancers?

Okay, just want to take a moment to say that it actually makes a difference to me to see so many people in this thread rejecting narrow, constrictive gender stereotypes. Yes, I'm a big tool for letting an internet forum impact me, but fuckit. Reading this thread perked me up.

Gay agendas are happy agendas. Nobody wants to be sad, you know. :p
Homophobes have neither hearts nor brains.
Because Brutland and Norden and his horde of zombies ate them hearts and brains already.

Gay people have no souls.

Nor do straights.

If gay people have no soul, how come they're such good dancers?

If God hates gays, why did he make them so fabulous?

Jolt lost a rather long post I had, so this may be rather brief....or not. If I cut something important, let me know.


A little like your preconceived notions about how a parent ought to manage their kids.

Not preconceived at all.

In my case, I have rationally come to the conclusion that parents should actually let their children develop as individuals, instead of imposing arbitrary gender norms.

In the case of a parent imposing such gender norms, they're just doing it. Even if they've put some thought into it, they're still imposing things arbitrarily - as the norms themselves are arbitrary.

Please please don't let this discussion become so pedantic that I have to describe the difference between theatrical art and self identity.

So your sons really are wizards and knights and your daughter really is a princess and they were just dressing up as they would have in an imaginary "different time period". And that isn't play-acting?

I love it when you accuse me of strawman arguments while you're stuffing hay into your own army of scarecrows. Because I wouldn't let my young son dress as a princess or my young daughter dress as a man, I'm enforcing 'strict gender roles' and forcing my kids to 'be whatever think a girl or boy should be'.

How about the much simpler truth: Boys are male, girls are female. It's really that simple. If you have to over complicate the situation in order to make your point, then I suggest you re-examine the strength of your point.

Boys are male. Girls are female. That doesn't mean they will necessarily want to dress a certain way. It doesn't mean they won't idolize a character or archetype traditionally of the opposite sex and wish to play-act it.

But I was hoping you'd bring this up. There was a study done back in the mid 90s. If I can find a link to it I'll post it for you because I think it was very interesting and you probably would as well. They wanted to see of sexual identity was inborn or cultural so they took a group of kids who had been raised by people who would agree with you, raising them as if they were neither male or female and all that... and put them in a room with two toyboxes. One contained trucks, cars, airplanes, etc... all that stereotypical 'boy' toy stuff. The other box contained dolls, dollhouses, clothing, etc... all that stereotypical 'girl' clothing stuff... and let the kids play with whatever they wanted.

It might surprise you to learn that the boys, through *no* external conditioning, went for the 'boy' toybox and the girls went to the 'girl' toybox.

Not really. There are plenty of similar studies. I believe one was cited in this thread - using monkeys, so that the societally imposed gender norms wouldn't even make sense. Male monkeys tended to prefer the wheeled toys, while female monkeys overall played equally with all of the toys they provided.

Despite your insistence to the contrary, I'm not claiming that these tendencies don't exist. What I am claiming is that they are just that - tendencies. A particular girl may or may not like the "boy" toys better, and vice versa. And there's nothing at all wrong with a child who doesn't match the average.

I said I never told someone how to raise their kids. Your argument is a... what's that called? Oh yeah.. a strawman.

Well, if that's all you had said, you might have a point....

Yes, that's all the poor dear is doing, and mean ol' Smiling Frogs And Neo Bretonnia had to come in here and hurt her little feelings by pointing out the obvious.

The difference between "bashing" and "criticism" is really just a matter of tone.

I call bullshit. I do express my opinions strongly on right and wrong but I defy you to show me where I've told someone how to live their life. Do that, and I'll issue an apology right here on this thread for doing so.

Again, shifting the goalposts. You didn't say anything about not telling someone how to live their life. You asked for examples where you had told someone they should believe the same things you do.

You do that in every abortion thread, even accusing those who disagree with you of "pretending" just to cover up the truth. When there is discussion of someone who sees pregnancy in a bad light, your response is almost invariably, "Ask my wife if she sees it that way," making it clear that you think all everyone should agree with you and your wife.

That's a pretty narrow way to look at it. So now, any expression of opinion on my part is to be taken as a broad statement on how people should live?

No, just ones that don't leave room for other opinions. If you say something is, on its face, "illogical", it means that you don't think there is any rational way someone can disagree with you.

Who said anything about 'statistical average member[s] of their sex'? I don't even know what that [i]is.

Maybe you should think about it, then, since you've been consistently discussing it. Unless you're talking about actual biological sexual characteristics, any discussion of differences between boys and girls or men and women is necessarily a discussion of statistical averages. When we say that boys like X more than girls or that girls are better at Y than boys, we're speaking of statistical averages. Any given particular girl may like X better than any particular boy, or even most boys. Any given particular boy may be better at Y than a particular girl, or even most girls. And so on....

Once again, I've never had to impose anything. I know how much that gets in the way of all these accusations but do please stop. It's a strawman and it's not even a good one.

Luckily, I never said that you've had to impose anything. You, on the other hand, made it clear that you would do so if your children didn't naturally conform. That's what we're talking about.

So you're okay with labeling, then?

When "labeling" simply means "describing", as it does when you use it, who wouldn't be ok with it? We wouldn't get very far in communication without adjectives.

And yet that was the only real issue we've been discussing up to that point--clothing and facepaint, and on that basis alone you decided to start questioning the way I raise my kids. No, that's not a strawman. That's you getting caught in an unfounded assumption.

Not the way you do raise your kids. The way you would raise your kids if they were different.

Prove me wrong.

I can provide a good example. One of my cousins went through a period of time as a child where she decided she was a boy. Not that she wanted to dress up as a boy - but that she wanted to be a boy and be treated as one. She designated a male name for herself, dressed as her brothers did, and wanted to play with "boy" toys. Nobody disallowed her from doing any of it, although there was some gentle teasing regarding the name and her parents only used it when they felt like playing along.

In middle and high school, she was a popular girl whose parents' only major worry was whether or not she might get too close to her boyfriends.

These days, she's a well-adjusted adult doing well in college with a boyfriend who we expect her to be engaged to at any moment.


Of course, in the end, the onus is on you to provide evidence. One cannot prove a negative. You are claiming it would be harmful. So demonstrate the harm. Or, at the very least, back the statement up with something rational.

We could, but we're not.

Of course we are. We are, and have been, discussing a hypothetical. If your boys never asked to wear dresses and your girl never asked to dress as male, we can only discuss the possibility as a hypothetical. So we're discussing your hypothetical children - the children you might have had - not the ones that are already grown.

So I should ignore trivialities? Teach me more, O experienced one.

You do understand the word "trivial", right? If we're discussing something trivial, it means that we're discussing something that doesn't matter. And if it doesn't matter, there's no need to make rules about it.

I wouldn't let my kids cross dress and now I'm "IMPOSING GENDER NORMS" (cue thunderclap) on them... Despite the fact that in *NO* other example you've thrown my way have I adhered to that mold.

Believe it or not, gendered dress is a gender norm.

Actually it is getting old but you keep right on doing it. What makes you narrow-minded? The idea that you're so unable to see that there are other points of view on this that you're prepared to use name-calling in the most vitriolic way (Yes, I find the word 'bigot' to be vitriolic) and not even acknowledging the possibility of multiple points of view, to which you have admitted!

(a) If I didn't see that there were other points of view, there'd be nothing to discuss. I have not said you can't have another point of view. I've simply made it clear that I disagree with it.

(b) If you think simple descriptions are vitriolic, how have you made it on this forum this long. As far as similar discussions go, this one has been quite civil.

I see your point of view. I didn't need you to tell me I've known it for years. I simply disagree with it. Can you internalize that? The idea that a person can understand your point completely and still not agree with it?

I've never said otherwise. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with or refrain from criticizing said point of view.

This is for both you and Soheran: I haven't gotten into the business of defending the exact reasons for my choices precisely because the point I've been trying to get across is that my reasoning isn't the issue. The issue is that I have a separate point of view form yours. That's all.

So, you're telling me you've spent several pages "trying to get across" something that was obvious from the very start?

If you didn't have a point of view, it would have gone something like this:

Neo B: Blah blah blah
Dem: Yeah, me too
Soheren: Yeah, me too
.....
All: So, uh, what else is there to talk about?

[quote]God forbid I use my influence on my own child.

So you've never thought that a parent misused such influence?

Yes but that was a technical issue supportable by facts and realities. How do you defend (or attack, for that matter) the argument that there are multiple viewpoints on this issue?

You look at the basis for those opinions. Opinions based in facts and realities generally get more weight than ones pulled out of the ether or based in arbitrary standards.

I'm sorry but I have not seen this trait popping out in this discussion in the least.

Well, when your version of "open-minded" is "Don't criticize any of my viewpoints!"...

Nor do straights.

Exactly.

If God hates gays, why did he make them so fabulous?

Something to do with the virtues of humility, probably. Honestly, though, God might be gay. I mean, did anyone even see him go near Mary? There's a good reason she's a virgin, and it probably involves God, a donor clinic, and a firefighter calendar.

Neo Bretonnia is starting to remind me of Eut.

Something to do with the virtues of humility, probably. Honestly, though, God might be gay. I mean, did anyone even see him go near Mary? There's a good reason she's a virgin, and it probably involves God, a donor clinic, and a firefighter calendar.

Nice.

I know what a bigot is. I deal with religious bigots all the time. From what's been said on this thread, I could take your logic and call you one. I refrain from doing so out of a sense of respect for other points of view and because, quite frankly, when a debate devolves into name-calling it's no longer worth spending time on.

If someone said, "Women can't be engineers. Only men can," would that be a bigoted statement?

Would it be horrible and insulting to point out the bigotry of the statement?

I haven't:

-Categorically dismissed your opinion
-Categorically dismissed the opinions of any people who share your views

If your opinion were being "categorically dismissed", you wouldn't have been asked multiple times to back it up.

Disagreement doesn't equate to categorical dismissal.


-Insulted you personally (At least, not deliberately)

And where have you been insulted?

-Indicated an absolute refusal to acknowledge the value of someone else's view, even though it conflicts with mine.

It is possible to believe that some views aren't valuable. For instance, I don't think that racist viewpoints are valuable. Now, I'll listen to what a racist has to say and maybe, if he actually comes up with something rational to back it up, I might change my opinion. But as it currently stands, I don't see racist viewpoints as valuable.

Does that make me intolerant?

Well that's just it. People have been trying to bully me this whole thread. (Failing, mind you, because I refuse to get emotionally worked up over something stupid) "Oh, NB won't let his son dress like a princess! That bigoted, homophobic(sic), religious zealot! He's probably got insecurity issues and he's certainly a bad parent!"

Do you call that an argument that preserves the idea of respect? And if you're tempted to suggest that I'm somehow exaggerating, take a quick scan over some of Dempublicents' replies.

Of course, doing so wouldn't help in the least, since I haven't said anything like that.

Try again.

The point is that semantics or not, 'fag' and 'bigot' are two words that are universally insulting (except the context you mentioned before) regardless of whether or not someone feels they apply.

I don't see how "bigot" is any more insulting than, say, "intolerant."

Okay, just want to take a moment to say that it actually makes a difference to me to see so many people in this thread rejecting narrow, constrictive gender stereotypes. Yes, I'm a big tool for letting an internet forum impact me, but fuckit. Reading this thread perked me up.




Though it should really be the norm and you should be surprised if people didn't... Well, I'm sure that day will come too. ;)

I don't have kids, but I don't see why people say it would be hard to explain homosexuals. All I'd have to do is use gender-neutral terms when explaining relationships.

I don't have kids, but I don't see why people say it would be hard to explain homosexuals. All I'd have to do is use gender-neutral terms when explaining relationships.

But whatever will you do when your offspring become *gasp* confused? Because surely no child is intellectually able to grasp a concept such as being themselves without the strict guidance and reassuring security of our millenia-old traditions of gender stereotypes!

Please think of the children! WHY WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE POOR CHILDREN?

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/motivator9465337.jpg

In cases where I've seen kids with these 'gender neutral' efforts they're always the ones who don't quite mesh with the other kids. It's almost as if they don't know how to behave so they just sit there and try to emulate the others, and poorly. They excel at nothing wheras the children with a stronger sense of themselves are much more comfortable with themselves and have a much easier time socializing with others.

Wait....so are you suggesting that children left to determine their own gender identity, rather than having one thrust upon them, have a weaker sense of themselves than the alternative?

And that makes sense to you?

Would you also argue that a person who has religion shoved down their throat, rather than coming to it on their own, is more faithful? Given the fact that you seem to like my quote to the contrary, I'd doubt it.

There's one example I'm reminded of in particular of a kid who is the son of a former friend of mine whose wife insisted that this boy be encouraged to play with dolls as much as fire trucks.

Ah, I see your misunderstanding here. The point is not to encourage children to play with "boy" toys and "girl" toys equally. Pushing a boy who doesn't want to play with dolls to do so is no different than pushing him to play with fire trucks when he doesn't want to.

The point is to let the child choose the toys, clothing, what-have-you. If they make the same choices as most of their same-sex peers, no problem! But it is also no problem if they tend to make choices more similar to their opposite-sex peers.

Of course pushing a boy who prefers fire trucks to play with dolls could end up confusing him. He'd likely think there was something wrong with him because he didn't care for the toys his parents wanted him to play with.

But that is hardly the same as allowing him to choose his own toys - whether he tends towards dolls or fire trucks. ANd that is what a "gender neutral" means.

In much the same way that "feminism" doesn't mean "No woman can ever choose to be a homemaker," raising your child in a "gender neutral" manner does not mean that they must be an equal measure of "masculine" and "feminine" traits. It means that you are gender neutral, allowing them to determine their own preferences, and treating a boy who happens to like dolls no different from a girl who does.

o defend their choices to impose things on their children.
Impose. Great word. Very scary sounding. "We will impose a tight curfew on all citizens until the separatists have been apprehended!"

You call it 'imposing' in that typical emotional hyperbole that I've come to love whenever I see your name on a post. I call it guidance, as I've never had to use any sort of force in this area whatsoever.

Is there a particular reason that you can't take my language at face value? Is there a reason that you always feel the need to read more into it than is actually said?

You may not have needed to use force, but you've made it clear that you would.

Guiding your children implies that they would make the choice, while you would simply be a force helping them make the decision. If you would disallow something altogether, that is imposing.

Actually, that being the baseline, YOU are the one who needs to back up your assertion that somehow I'm not doing it right. The status quo is what you're seeking to change.

The baseline of parenting is that parents must enforce traditional gender roles? They actually have to take specific action to keep from doing so?

To suit me? Why do you keep trying to make this about me? You seem to be asserting an awful lot of knowledge about 4 children whom you've never even met.

I'm not saying anything about your children. I'm talking about you. YOU have a problem with people wearing clothing generally associated with the opposite sex. You say you are offended by gender bending.

I'm asking why anyone - including your children, if they wanted to do either - should change to suit your preferences. It isn't as if a boy wearing a dress is going to have a horrible illness, is it? A girl who dresses as Merlin isn't going to have an allergic reaction, right? When it comes right down to it, these are preferences, not needs. So why should they have to suit those particular preferences?

Yeah I think I'll stick with my method, thanks.

You say you've never had to apply this particular method. If that is true, you cannot use your children as an example of it being a good thing. You've never applied it to them.


Oh? Are you saying that the norm for a homosexual man is to be effeminate? Or that an effeminate man is normally homosexual?

No. I'm saying that homosexuality, by its very nature, steps outside of gender norms. A man being attracted to other men is not the "norm" for maleness.

Now, a man who is attracted to other men may or may not be outside of those gender norms in other ways - just as a man who likes to wear women's clothing may or may not be homosexual.

Any given individual may be outside gender norms in any number of ways and may be within them in any number of ways.


Correct. So why have I been labeled a homophobe in this thread, exactly?

I wasn't aware that you had been. I must have missed it.

Who said I was ok with it? I just have a pretty good idea of what I can and can't control. if my kid grows up to be a cross dresser I have no more control over it than I do his sexuality.

Would you do me a favor and base your arguments on stuff I actually said? I'd really appreciate it.

I'm sorry. I thought your comments about your brother were meant to suggest that you accept him for who he is. I apologize for misunderstanding.


If the second paragraph sounds reasonable and tolerant to you, then you really have a problem.

It doesn't. And I bet it doesn't to Soheran either. So why would you assume that's the way he'd go about trying to convince his children to change their political views?


Looked down upon? Of course not. Strawman.

Oh, you don't look down upon it. There's nothing at all wrong with it. That's why you'd forbid it...

Wait....


I've made that clear to him? Hm. must have been one of those apparently innumerable moments when I was having an out-of-body moment but luckily you were there to keep tabs on what I said. Strawman.

So you really think that making rules that a child cannot wear the costume they like because of what genitalia they possess is celebrating them for who they are?

You celebrate your son for who he is only because he never felt the need to step outside of certain gender norms. If he had wanted to wear a dress, you've made it quite clear that you would not do so. Instead, you would tell him that he was wrong and impose a rule that he could not dress as he pleased.

Where do you get this stuff? Honestly? Are you reading it off an index card or something? "How to argue against people who let boys be boys and girls be girls and don't feel ashamed of it."

It isn't "letting" if you have to impose a rule.

And before you whine that you've never imposed a rule, you have point-blank stated that you would, should the situation come up.

My record as a parent speaks for itself, and I owe neither you nor anyone else any apologies, explanations or concessions.

According to you, your "record as a parent" has not included imposing the gender roles you feel are necessary, as your children fell into them naturally. As such, your "record as a parent" is useless in this discussion.

Suppose you competed in track and field. Suppose you had done very well in many contests, but you'd never had to run in the rain. You'd never trained in the rain. Your record as a runner would mean absolutely nothing when you started talking about what changes you might make if you were running in the rain - because you wouldn't have ever used those techniques.

So basically, based on a single empirical experience, you choose to generalize and attribute a cause-and-effect phenomenon upon gender-neutrality and behavioral problems, because once in your life you've seen a kid who'd been raised without enforcing gender stereotypes that happened to behave without much self-confidence?

If you read his description, the child wasn't raised in a gender neutral manner at all. When he didn't care to play with "girl" toys, the parents pushed him to do so. They didn't let him make up his own mind any more than a parent who would tell him he can't play with dolls.


I'm honestly rather befuddled by a lot of the claims in this thread.

If gender differences are so "innate," then why do children need to be taught to adhere to them?

If a boy is "naturally" going to want to be "masculine," then why would a boy ask to wear traditionally "feminine" clothing and need to be told that he cannot do so?

Why would a girl need to be told that she is supposed to behave like a girl, or prefer girl toys, if her femaleness innately makes her want to be feminine?

And if these qualities are not innate, then why are we forcing children to adhere to them?

Precisely!

Ah, I see your misunderstanding here. The point is not to encourage children to play with "boy" toys and "girl" toys equally. Pushing a boy who doesn't want to play with dolls to do so is no different than pushing him to play with fire trucks when he doesn't want to.

The point is to let the child choose the toys, clothing, what-have-you. If they make the same choices as most of their same-sex peers, no problem! But it is also no problem if they tend to make choices more similar to their opposite-sex peers.

Of course pushing a boy who prefers fire trucks to play with dolls could end up confusing him. He'd likely think there was something wrong with him because he didn't care for the toys his parents wanted him to play with.

But that is hardly the same as allowing him to choose his own toys - whether he tends towards dolls or fire trucks. ANd that is what a "gender neutral" means.

In much the same way that "feminism" doesn't mean "No woman can ever choose to be a homemaker," raising your child in a "gender neutral" manner does not mean that they must be an equal measure of "masculine" and "feminine" traits. It means that you are gender neutral, allowing them to determine their own preferences, and treating a boy who happens to like dolls no different from a girl who does.

Beautifully put.

This is actually somewhat difficult to do, even for good feminist parents. My mother was hurt by the fact that I spoke about "girl things" with contempt. I thought frilly pink things were lame, and my mother worried that I was internalizing a lot of the negative messages about girls and women (i.e. that girl = weak, etc). So she tried to encourage me to be "girly" in the hopes that I would learn it was okay to be feminine and still be badass.

Problem was, my objections to "girly" stuff had nothing to do with that. I just didn't like that stuff.

It's a tough balance to find, particularly since parents have to deal with a world that tries to gender their kids from day 1. You have to try to counter the cultural messages, yet you don't want to swing too far the other direction.

In cases where I've seen kids with these 'gender neutral' efforts they're always the ones who don't quite mesh with the other kids. It's almost as if they don't know how to behave so they just sit there and try to emulate the others, and poorly. They excel at nothing wheras the children with a stronger sense of themselves are much more comfortable with themselves and have a much easier time socializing with others.

Wait....so are you suggesting that children left to determine their own gender identity, rather than having one thrust upon them, have a weaker sense of themselves than the alternative?

And that makes sense to you?

Would you also argue that a person who has religion shoved down their throat, rather than coming to it on their own, is more faithful? Given the fact that you seem to like my quote to the contrary, I'd doubt it.

There's one example I'm reminded of in particular of a kid who is the son of a former friend of mine whose wife insisted that this boy be encouraged to play with dolls as much as fire trucks.

Ah, I see your misunderstanding here. The point is not to encourage children to play with "boy" toys and "girl" toys equally. Pushing a boy who doesn't want to play with dolls to do so is no different than pushing him to play with fire trucks when he doesn't want to.

The point is to let the child choose the toys, clothing, what-have-you. If they make the same choices as most of their same-sex peers, no problem! But it is also no problem if they tend to make choices more similar to their opposite-sex peers.

Of course pushing a boy who prefers fire trucks to play with dolls could end up confusing him. He'd likely think there was something wrong with him because he didn't care for the toys his parents wanted him to play with.

But that is hardly the same as allowing him to choose his own toys - whether he tends towards dolls or fire trucks. ANd that is what a "gender neutral" means.

In much the same way that "feminism" doesn't mean "No woman can ever choose to be a homemaker," raising your child in a "gender neutral" manner does not mean that they must be an equal measure of "masculine" and "feminine" traits. It means that you are gender neutral, allowing them to determine their own preferences, and treating a boy who happens to like dolls no different from a girl who does.

o defend their choices to impose things on their children.
Impose. Great word. Very scary sounding. "We will impose a tight curfew on all citizens until the separatists have been apprehended!"

You call it 'imposing' in that typical emotional hyperbole that I've come to love whenever I see your name on a post. I call it guidance, as I've never had to use any sort of force in this area whatsoever.

Is there a particular reason that you can't take my language at face value? Is there a reason that you always feel the need to read more into it than is actually said?

You may not have needed to use force, but you've made it clear that you would.

Guiding your children implies that they would make the choice, while you would simply help them to do so. If you would disallow something altogether, that is imposing. The word itself isn't evil, nor does it necessarily invoke any kind of emotional reaction. There are certainly some areas in which a parent must impose her will over her child's - where she must exert her authority over the child. There are situations in which I would criticize a parent who didn't do so, just as there are situations in which I will criticize a parent who does.

Actually, that being the baseline, YOU are the one who needs to back up your assertion that somehow I'm not doing it right. The status quo is what you're seeking to change.

The baseline of parenting is that parents must enforce traditional gender roles? They actually have to take specific action to keep from doing so?

To suit me? Why do you keep trying to make this about me? You seem to be asserting an awful lot of knowledge about 4 children whom you've never even met.

I'm not saying anything about your children. I'm talking about you. YOU have a problem with people wearing clothing generally associated with the opposite sex. You say you are offended by gender bending.

I'm asking why anyone - including your children, if they wanted to do either - should change to suit your preferences. It isn't as if a boy wearing a dress is going to have a horrible illness, is it? A girl who dresses as Merlin isn't going to have an allergic reaction, right? When it comes right down to it, these are preferences, not needs. So why should they have to suit those particular preferences?

Yeah I think I'll stick with my method, thanks.

You say you've never had to apply this particular method. If that is true, you cannot use your children as an example of it being a good thing. You've never applied it to them.


Oh? Are you saying that the norm for a homosexual man is to be effeminate? Or that an effeminate man is normally homosexual?

No. I'm saying that homosexuality, by its very nature, steps outside of gender norms. A man being attracted to other men is not the "norm" for maleness.

Now, a man who is attracted to other men may or may not be outside of those gender norms in other ways - just as a man who likes to wear women's clothing may or may not be homosexual.

Any given individual may be outside gender norms in any number of ways and may be within them in any number of ways.


Correct. So why have I been labeled a homophobe in this thread, exactly?

I wasn't aware that you had been. I must have missed it.

Who said I was ok with it? I just have a pretty good idea of what I can and can't control. if my kid grows up to be a cross dresser I have no more control over it than I do his sexuality.

Would you do me a favor and base your arguments on stuff I actually said? I'd really appreciate it.

I'm sorry. I thought your comments about your brother were meant to suggest that you accept him for who he is. I apologize for misunderstanding.


If the second paragraph sounds reasonable and tolerant to you, then you really have a problem.

It doesn't. And I bet it doesn't to Soheran either. So why would you assume that's the way he'd go about trying to convince his children to change their political views?


Looked down upon? Of course not. Strawman.

Oh, you don't look down upon it. There's nothing at all wrong with it. That's why you'd forbid it...

Wait....


I've made that clear to him? Hm. must have been one of those apparently innumerable moments when I was having an out-of-body moment but luckily you were there to keep tabs on what I said. Strawman.

So you really think that making rules that a child cannot wear the costume they like because of what genitalia they possess is celebrating them for who they are?

You celebrate your son for who he is only because he never felt the need to step outside of certain gender norms. If he had wanted to wear a dress, you've made it quite clear that you would not do so. Instead, you would tell him that he was wrong and impose a rule that he could not dress as he pleased.

Where do you get this stuff? Honestly? Are you reading it off an index card or something? "How to argue against people who let boys be boys and girls be girls and don't feel ashamed of it."

It isn't "letting" if you have to impose a rule.

And before you whine that you've never imposed a rule, you have point-blank stated that you would, should the situation come up.

My record as a parent speaks for itself, and I owe neither you nor anyone else any apologies, explanations or concessions.

According to you, your "record as a parent" has not included imposing the gender roles you feel are necessary, as your children fell into them naturally. As such, your "record as a parent" is useless in this discussion.

Suppose you competed in track and field. Suppose you had done very well in many contests, but you'd never had to run in the rain. You'd never trained in the rain. Your record as a runner would mean absolutely nothing when you started talking about what changes you might make if you were running in the rain - because you wouldn't have ever used those techniques.

So basically, based on a single empirical experience, you choose to generalize and attribute a cause-and-effect phenomenon upon gender-neutrality and behavioral problems, because once in your life you've seen a kid who'd been raised without enforcing gender stereotypes that happened to behave without much self-confidence?

If you read his description, the child wasn't raised in a gender neutral manner at all. When he didn't care to play with "girl" toys, the parents pushed him to do so. They didn't let him make up his own mind any more than a parent who would tell him he can't play with dolls.


I'm honestly rather befuddled by a lot of the claims in this thread.

If gender differences are so "innate," then why do children need to be taught to adhere to them?

If a boy is "naturally" going to want to be "masculine," then why would a boy ask to wear traditionally "feminine" clothing and need to be told that he cannot do so?

Why would a girl need to be told that she is supposed to behave like a girl, or prefer girl toys, if her femaleness innately makes her want to be feminine?

And if these qualities are not innate, then why are we forcing children to adhere to them?

Precisely!


Which, despite accusations to the contrary, is precisely what happened. (In my kids' case)

Maybe if you weren't imagining the accusations.....?

You said your children chose their own costumes, etc. and we took you at your word.

However, you did say that, had they chosen differently, you would have disallowed their choice. If one of your sons had decided he wanted to dress as a princess, you would have disallowed it. If your daughter had decided she wanted to dress as a male knight or wizard, you would have disallowed it.

The only reason you didn't - according to you, not us - is that it never came up. It was a rule you never had to apply.

I won't, because to call someone a bigot, even wrongly, is just not to make the same kind of statement as to call someone a fag. They both can be indicative of close-mindedness, but they are very different kinds of attacks.

If someone called me a bigot, I would want to correct them. If someone called me a fag, I would want to punch them in the face. (I wouldn't, of course, but that's not the point.)

Further, I think it's very important that we not delegitimize a word like "bigot", not in a world that is incredibly bigoted as it stands... a world where so many people feel perfectly entitled to be obnoxiously bigoted and need to be told to stop, sometimes in the harshest terms possible.

I want to add something to this and, I think, disagree with you a bit here. I see a difference between calling someone a bigot and pointing out that a viewpoint is bigoted. A person may be generally tolerant and open-minded, but hold a very bigoted opinion about one thing in particular.

In truth, I think that just about everyone probably harbors some bigoted viewpoints. As bigoted as our society is and has- as far as I can tell - always been, I'd say it's pretty difficult to grow up without at least some such viewpoints sinking in.

But, given that belief, I'd have to call everyone (including myself) a bigot. So, unless I'm actually angry (which isn't an excuse, but it happens) or the person consistently displays bigoted views, I'm generally not going to call them a bigot.

What I will do is point out the bigotry in the particular belief they're putting forth. If they want to contest that it isn't bigoted, that's fine. I may or may not be convinced. If not, I hope to convince them that it is bigoted and that they should reexamine it.

I would hope that others would do the same for me. If I hold a bigoted viewpoint, it is most likely because I simply haven't challenged it enough. I would welcome someone pointing out the bigotry and challenging me to back up such an opinion.

*snip*

I agree with most of what you've said, but want to qualify it somewhat.

True, most of us probably harbor viewpoints and engage in behaviors that are bigoted. That's a fact of living in this kind of society. There is a difference between being bigoted and having a bigoted viewpoint, but I'm not sure it's a matter of "consistency."

I'd suggest two different standards instead. First, directness: when a person makes an ignorant or stereotypical remark about race or gender or sexual orientation, my instinct is to correct them and not to judge them as bigoted, but when a person says something along the lines of "gays are evil", I'm much less inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. Second, unwillingness to change: when someone challenges a particular bigoted viewpoint, and the person whose viewpoint is being challenged shows no willingness to think seriously about it or to respond in anything but an obnoxious manner, I'm inclined to think them a bigot (or at the very least immature.)

Just to reiterate it again, though, I don't think the accusation of "bigot" should be a conversation-stopper on either end. That's not my intention when I use it, and that's not how I treat it when it's used against me.

I have a gaydar.

So Kid A makes fun of Kid B, and our response should be to make Kid B change his behavior?

Do you also suggest that if my wallet is stolen, the solution is to tell me to stop carrying a wallet, rather than, say, catching the person who stole my wallet and punishing them?

That is one possible solution, if you are walking down a dark alley with a gold necklace and rings showing them off and they are stolen, you should change your behaviour for your own well being i.e you wouldn't walk down there or if you have to make it seem like you have nothing on you of any value.

My ultimate agenda is Christ's agenda. Anything beyond that should either be something that glorifies my ultimate agenda or something I need to detach myself from.

The way I see it, the "gay" agenda proclaimed here is just one to draw attention to the supposed "open-mindedness" of the viewpoint and the "closed minds" of the opposite viewpoints. The fact that this person decides to put out an attack against anyone who leans their child to one gender doesn't communicate an open mind but a disagreement against people whose opinions are opposite of them.

To have a completely open mind is to have no real effect but to simply observe, considering every viewpoint without siding with one or the other. Obviously, that's not represented here.

So don't bombard me with this idea of an "open mind."

The way I see it, if you flag me for enforcing any sort of gender stereotype on anyone, you have just closed your mind to my way of thinking and have stepped inside a box.

If this is about imposition, how can you even try and counter gender enforcement? Once you flag it, you've just imposed upon my opinion. If you're against imposition of gender decisions, then how do you qualify your own imposition?

By the very folk and the offspring of the ones who would force them to comply. Don't do it or the assholes will make fun of you is a shitty reason.

Yeah lets open our kids up to ridicule and embarrassment to prove our point then we can all have fun and pay for the psychological trauma that we inflicted upon our children.

To have a completely open mind is to have no real effect but to simply observe, considering every viewpoint without siding with one or the other. Obviously, that's not represented here.

That's not what "open-minded" means. You are not Humpty Dumpty. You do not get to redefine words for your own purposes.

Yeah lets open our kids up to ridicule and embarrassment to prove our point then we can all have fun and pay for the psychological trauma that we inflicted upon our children.

Being someone who has actually gone through ridicule and embarrassment as a child, I have to say that your viewpoint that one should conform to avoid that is utterly disgusting.

Being someone who has actually gone through ridicule and embarrassment as a child, I have to say that your viewpoint that one should conform to avoid that is utterly disgusting.

And are you saying that I haven't.

And are you saying that I haven't.

Well, since so far every single person here who has said they have hold the exact opposite viewpoint as you, I'd say that odds are slim.

The way I see it, the "gay" agenda proclaimed here is just one to draw attention to the supposed "open-mindedness" of the viewpoint and the "closed minds" of the opposite viewpoints. The fact that this person decides to put out an attack against anyone who leans their child to one gender doesn't communicate an open mind but a disagreement against people whose opinions are opposite of them.

Where does "open-mindedness" come in? The merits of respecting the autonomy of children have nothing to do with open-mindedness; that's not really at issue.

To have a completely open mind is to have no real effect but to simply observe, considering every viewpoint without siding with one or the other.

Nonsense. To have an open mind is not to have an empty mind. To have an open mind is to continually be willing to change its contents.

The way I see it, if you flag me for enforcing any sort of gender stereotype on anyone, you have just closed your mind to my way of thinking and have stepped inside a box.

Again, nonsense. Making a judgment is not "clos your mind", it's making a judgment. It would only be close-minded if you are unwilling to justify it, defend it, listen to arguments against it.

If this is about imposition, how can you even try and counter gender enforcement? Once you flag it, you've just imposed upon my opinion.

Well, first, opposing something is not imposing upon it.

Second, even if it were, there is no moral equivalence between impositions in defense of freedom (like ones seeking to counter "gender enforcement", or murder for that matter) and other impositions. When I defend myself, or someone else, against a person imposing her will on others, I'm not denying that person's right to freedom--I'm not concerned with it. I'm concerned with [I]protecting the rights to freedom of her victims. But when I impose my gender conceptions on someone else, I'm not doing it in defense of anyone's freedom: I'm doing it to pursue my own particular ends.

Well, since so far every single person here who has said they have hold the exact opposite viewpoint as you, I'd say that odds are slim.

Well you are making an incorrect assumption, should I tell you about some of the ridicule I faced over the years?

Well you are making an incorrect assumption, should I tell you about some of the ridicule I faced over the years?

And your response to all that ridicule was "Oh, I should have conformed more"? Seriously?

Well you are making an incorrect assumption, should I tell you about some of the ridicule I faced over the years?

Somehow I doubt it will top the people who were beaten half to death, but go ahead.

'I'm a Girl' -- Understanding Transgender Children (http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=5261464&page=1)

Insofar as this is relevant.

And your response to all that ridicule was "Oh, I should have conformed more"? Seriously?

No, it was I shouldn't put myself in situations that will open me to this, that or fight depending on the situation.

But hey if you want to put your children into situations that will open them to ridicule and embarrassment be my guest, I won't have to put up with them.

That is one possible solution, if you are walking down a dark alley with a gold necklace and rings showing them off and they are stolen, you should change your behaviour for your own well being i.e you wouldn't walk down there or if you have to make it seem like you have nothing on you of any value.

Victims of crime are no longer victims?

I have to say I'm becoming more and more confused with all the talk of "socialization" first they told me it meant that you knew how to communicate and had manners, then they told me it only means having some kind of contact with your peer group, now it's that you have to homogenize into the exact same personalitiy and preferences as others around you? I don't want my kids to be socialized. I want them to be themselves, and I don't want them to be abused or to change their very being to try to escape abuse.

Somehow I doubt it will top the people who were beaten half to death, but go ahead.

I missed those posts who were they? Also while I may not have been beaten 'half to death' I was still beaten.

But let us see now I think it can go back to year 2 a few of the kids found out I was Catholic and was ridiculed and got lynched a couple of time as they were Anglicans. While I did not suddenly stop becoming Catholic I just didn't go around telling people and kept it to myself.

Clothes I was wearing weren't the right brand or something, this was later on in life i think it started around year 5 and continued til about year 11.

I was picked on because I was apparently poor, I think that was because I didn't have the latest game boy and still played on a computer rather than being 'povo' I was subject to ridicule

I once in year 8 inadvertently agreed with somebody that a guy looked cute, well that made it around the school pretty quick, for a few months I had to put up with jeers and the fact that a lot of guys also would target me during sports and when no one in authority was around, I managed to get a green stick fracture during one of these 'innocent' tackles. While the ridicule subsided as people found something else to do, for the next five years every now and then someone would make a snide comment about something along the lines of "Bum's on the ground when Bloumans around, hey John* don't bend over to pick that book up Blouman will do you up the arse first chance he gets" While I couldn't deny that fact that I said (not that it would have changed anything) I would be careful with everything that I said on any topic, see not conforming but not opening myself up to ridicule.

Victims of crime are no longer victims?

They are still victims but it would be pretty stupid of me to jump into a Hell's angels clubhouse and say that they are all fags and fuck each other up the arse.

While it was wrong of them to kill me and I and others are a victim of that crime I shouldn't have allowed myself to get into that situation.

They are still victims but it would be pretty stupid of me to jump into a Hell's angels clubhouse and say that they are all fags and fuck each other up the arse.

While it was wrong of them to kill me and I and others are a victim of that crime I shouldn't have allowed myself to get into that situation.

Playing with a doll while having a penis is hardly the same as inciting violence in a biker bar.

I suppose women should all get sex changes though, I mean walking around with a vagina puts you at very high risk for rape, domestic abuse and other horrible things. Best all be getting penises, I mean otherwise, we totally put ourselves in a "bad situation".

I missed those posts who were they?
I don't believe he's posted here yet, but I do know his opinion on this matter.

Playing with a doll while having a penis is hardly the same as inciting violence in a biker bar.

I suppose women should all get sex changes though, I mean walking around with a vagina puts you at very high risk for rape, domestic abuse and other horrible things. Best all be getting penises, I mean otherwise, we totally put ourselves in a "bad situation".

Would you recommend a women walks through parklands where rapes, and muggings are know to happen frequently at 2 in the morning? That is a bad situation I am talking about, while they should be allowed to walk down there, the fact of the matter is that by doing so they have a large chance of being raped, and people should face reality and relise that this is hapening so maybe I shouldn't walk down there untill it is fixed.

I don't believe he's posted here yet, but I do know his opinion on this matter.

And?

Did you know that I'm not a monkey?

No! Ugh, if I had known that I NEVER would have had sex with you.

The way I see it, if you flag me for enforcing any sort of gender stereotype on anyone, you have just closed your mind to my way of thinking and have stepped inside a box.

So, in your mind, pushing people into boxes means having an open mind.

Thinking that people shouldn't be pushed into boxes means having a closed mind.

Glad we got that worked out.

If this is about imposition, how can you even try and counter gender enforcement?

By telling people that they shouldn't enforce gender roles on others. By making sure that people recognize the fact that it is their individual preferences and personalities, rather than their genitalia, that matter.

Once you flag it, you've just imposed upon my opinion. If you're against imposition of gender decisions, then how do you qualify your own imposition?

Apparently, you don't understand the term "imposition". Maybe you should look it up. Telling you that we think you're wrong? That isn't an imposition.

An imposition would be keeping you from living as you feel you should. If you think people of a certain sex should live by certain gender roles, you do so.


But hey if you want to put your children into situations that will open them to ridicule and embarrassment be my guest, I won't have to put up with them.

Again, we aren't talking about putting children into any given situation. No one is talking about telling a little boy he has to wear princess face paint. All we're saying is that we wouldn't deny it to him if he asked.

And if other children abused him for it, we'd see to it that they were punished, since they were the ones doing something wrong. We wouldn't punish the boy simply because he didn't fit into gender norms.

Again, we aren't talking about putting children into any given situation. No one is talking about telling a little boy he has to wear princess face paint. All we're saying is that we wouldn't deny it to him if he asked.

And if other children abused him for it, we'd see to it that they were punished, since they were the ones doing something wrong. We wouldn't punish the boy simply because he didn't fit into gender norms.

Yes they might be punished, there is only so much a parent can do with uncooperative parents, schools and other authorities.

I may have deduced incorrectly some peoples posts, but it seemed like they were going to force them not to fit into a gender role, and encourage them not to adhere that boys play with trucks, girls play with barbie.

Yes they might be punished, there is only so much a parent can do with uncooperative parents, schools and other authorities.

So the better action is clearly to punish the little boy for daring to play with the toys he wants to or wanting to dress a certain way.

I may have deduced incorrectly some peoples posts, but it seemed like they were going to force them not to fit into a gender role, and encourage them not to adhere that boys play with trucks, girls play with barbie.

You deduced incorrectly.

What they did say was that, if a little boy wanted to play with Barbie, they wouldn't tell him he was wrong or try and force him to play with trucks. Same thing for a girl who preferred trucks over Barbie.

What they did say was that, instead of telling little Johny that he must play with "boy" toys and little Sally that she must play with "girl" toys, they would let the child choose his/her own toys and make it clear to them that no given choice was wrong.

So the better action is clearly to punish the little boy for daring to play with the toys he wants to or wanting to dress a certain way.

Did I say that? I said don't allow your child to be open to situations where he may be ridiculed for it, nothing to do with punishment.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1;13797765]You deduced incorrectly.

What they did say was that, if a little boy wanted to play with Barbie, they wouldn't tell him he was wrong or try and force him to play with trucks. Same thing for a girl who preferred trucks over Barbie.

What they did say was that, instead of telling little Johny that he must play with "boy" toys and little Sally that she must play with "girl" toys, they would let the child choose his/her own toys and make it clear to them that no given choice was wrong.

Ok then which is what I would say also yes I did deduce incorrectly, I would be against encouragement of kids to get them to break gender roles simply to prove your point.

Playing with a doll while having a penis is hardly the same as inciting violence in a biker bar.

I suppose women should all get sex changes though, I mean walking around with a vagina puts you at very high risk for rape, domestic abuse and other horrible things. Best all be getting penises, I mean otherwise, we totally put ourselves in a "bad situation".

Pure gold, but disturbingly close to the rhetoric many bigots use to downplay violence made to women.

"But the dirty slut was dressed like a dirty slut, so she had what was coming to her!"

Allow me to roll my eyes in shame. :rolleyes:

Pure gold, but disturbingly close to the rhetoric many bigots use to downplay violence made to women.

"But the dirty slut was dressed like a dirty slut, so she had what was coming to her!"

Allow me to roll my eyes in shame. :rolleyes:

Hey, he's the one that said a boy shouldn't play with a Barbie because if he gets bullied it's his fault by putting himself in a "bad situation". I was just carrying that logic along to see if he was still in agreement. I mean my daughter likes to play with bugs......surely that's innate because I didn't teach her to do that.

Did I say that? I said don't allow your child to be open to situations where he may be ridiculed for it, nothing to do with punishment.

The child may be ridiculed for anything and everything he enjoys. Should force him to conform to every norm so that he won't be made fun of? Should we tell him that anything he likes that others might ridicule him for is wrong?

In my book, doing either of those things is punishment.

A child who isn't open to situations where he may be ridiculed is a child who is terrified to be himself. I don't think that's a good thing.

Ok then which is what I would say also yes I did deduce incorrectly, I would be against encouragement of kids to get them to break gender roles simply to prove your point.

As would I. Anything you do to push gender roles on your child, in my mind, is a problem.

Pure gold, but disturbingly close to the rhetoric many bigots use to downplay violence made to women.

"But the dirty slut was dressed like a dirty slut, so she had what was coming to her!"

Allow me to roll my eyes in shame. :rolleyes:

Yeah see it's not my fault I decided to start a fight with a bikie gand, and it's not my fault that I walked down back alleys in Sao Paulo with gold rings and a big expensive camera. Because why I should be allowed to be able to do these things without being killed or mugged I shouldn't take any responsibility and be careful of myself. If I want to run across a highway, it is up to the drivers to stop and let me pass, it has nothing to do with me if I get run over I shouldn't have any responsibility for my own actions even though I willingly let myself get into a situation where I had a high chance of being run over. While we should be attempting to fix these problems and are attempting to fix them I will continue to act as if they are fixed.

I am not exaggerating when I say that for a while I considered the possibility that I was a transsexual.
(massive snip of your post, sorry)

This is something I've wondered for a while about your opinions. Not specifically about you, but your viewpoint has always made me want to ask just how you think transgender/transexual people fit in. I've been about NSG long enough to know your views on gender etc., but I think this is the first time I've seen you include in a post an idea that includes the prospect that someone who's so ouside their societal norm for gender that they may end up being transexual.

How exactly do you reconcile transexuals with your very well publicised, on this forum at least, thoughts on gender?

The child may be ridiculed for anything and everything he enjoys. Should force him to conform to every norm so that he won't be made fun of? Should we tell him that anything he likes that others might ridicule him for is wrong?

In my book, doing either of those things is punishment.

A child who isn't open to situations where he may be ridiculed is a child who is terrified to be himself. I don't think that's a good thing.

No we wouldn't tell him it is wrong, but we might tell a child that people might make fun of you for doing it and so perhaps shouldn't do it in front of these people to prevent him from being teased, you would also tell the child that the other kids are wrong for doing it but (and I think most parents would agree with me) it is hard to change the ideas and behaviours of other kids.

Or women who--in defiance of God and Nature--are HAPPY being non-feminine.

I find that the easiest way to piss off gender essentialists is to simply be myself and be happy about it. Drives them over the fucking falls.

Marry me? It's legal in California for the next five months!

Okay, just want to take a moment to say that it actually makes a difference to me to see so many people in this thread rejecting narrow, constrictive gender stereotypes. Yes, I'm a big tool for letting an internet forum impact me, but fuckit. Reading this thread perked me up.

I don't think that's anything to feel silly about. When you are constantly bombarded with messages that there is something wrong with you, what you feel and how you think, it is an incredible thing to find that there are people out there who reject those imposed judgments and norms as much as you do. It gives one hope for humanity.

That is one possible solution, if you are walking down a dark alley with a gold necklace and rings showing them off and they are stolen, you should change your behaviour for your own well being i.e you wouldn't walk down there or if you have to make it seem like you have nothing on you of any value.

Or if you're walking down a dark alley wearing nothing flashy, but it's not a good neighborhood.

Or if it's an okay neighborhood, but it's really late and you're a single woman wearing a short skirt.

Or if it's kind of late and you're a single woman.

Or---

Yeah lets open our kids up to ridicule and embarrassment to prove our point then we can all have fun and pay for the psychological trauma that we inflicted upon our children.

Letting children be who they want to be is what inflicts trauma on them, not making them conform to someone else's idea of what they should be. Uh-huh. You know, my first boyfriend broke up with me because I wouldn't sleep with him and I got kicked out of the "cool kids" club. High school probably would have been easier if I'd just had sex with him... if only my parents had raised me to give into peer pressure! Damn them for this trauma.

No we wouldn't tell him it is wrong, but we might tell a child that people might make fun of you for doing it and so perhaps shouldn't do it in front of these people to prevent him from being teased, you would also tell the child that the other kids are wrong for doing it but (and I think most parents would agree with me) it is hard to change the ideas and behaviours of other kids.

In my mind, by telling him that he should avoid doing it because of teasers, you're legitimizing their viewpoint. You're teaching a child that the opinion of others should mean more to him than his own likes and dislikes.

I just can't get behind that. I'd rather make it clear to my child that those kids' opinions don't matter, that they're just being mean-spirited and that their teasing reveals their own deficiencies, rather than his.

In my mind, by telling him that he should avoid doing it because of teasers, you're legitimizing their viewpoint. You're teaching a child that the opinion of others should mean more to him than his own likes and dislikes.

I just can't get behind that. I'd rather make it clear to my child that those kids' opinions don't matter, that they're just being mean-spirited and that their teasing reveals their own deficiencies, rather than his.

No no, you're missing his point. He can still do those things, just in secret. Then he won't get beat up, or upset anyone. Just like if you have to be gay, you should be gay behind closed doors and never "act" gay or talk about it because people are so intolerant, you know, but someday when the world magically changes on its own we won't have to hide these things.

Or if you're walking down a dark alley wearing nothing flashy, but it's not a good neighborhood.

Or if it's an okay neighborhood, but it's really late and you're a single woman wearing a short skirt.

Or if it's kind of late and you're a single woman.

Or---.

Or maybe if you knew what could very well happen if you do do that, while it isn't right that you were targeted and this happened, if you took a bit more responsibility for you own actions and attempted to avoid finding yourself in this situation then it wouldn't matter.

Letting children be who they want to be is what inflicts trauma on them, not making them conform to someone else's idea of what they should be. Uh-huh.

Which is not what I said at all but whatever.

In my mind, by telling him that he should avoid doing it because of teasers, you're legitimizing their viewpoint. You're teaching a child that the opinion of others should mean more to him than his own likes and dislikes.

I just can't get behind that. I'd rather make it clear to my child that those kids' opinions don't matter, that they're just being mean-spirited and that their teasing reveals their own deficiencies, rather than his.

Yes make it clear that they don't matter and are wrong for doing it which is what I said but the fact of the matter is, that your child will still be teased because of it and may not be happy when having to listen to these barbs.

Yes make it clear that they don't matter and are wrong for doing it which is what I said but the fact of the matter is, that your child will still be teased because of it and may not be happy when having to listen to these barbs.

And he'll be happier if I tell him to hide his own personality to avoid them? He'll be happier if, instead of learning that the teasing isn't important, he instead lives in fear of taking a wrong step and getting teased?

We can't protect our children from everything that might make them unhappy. But we can keep from adding to their burdens.

And he'll be happier if I tell him to hide his own personality to avoid them? He'll be happier if, instead of learning that the teasing isn't important, he instead lives in fear of taking a wrong step and getting teased?

We can't protect our children from everything that might make them unhappy. But we can keep from adding to their burdens.

Which would include not subjecting them to ridicule because your son is going to wear a frock to school.

Teasing might be important to a six year old especially if everyone at school is going to tease him and he sits in misery at lunch times alone in the corner, while everyone else is out there having fun. While both you and I know that this isn't important after all how many people from primary school do you still know and care about? It may be of concern to them at the time.

Which would include not subjecting them to ridicule because your son is going to wear a frock to school.

Not if he really wants to wear a frock. In that case, telling him can't will be me personally causing the unhappiness. Telling him that he must conform to avoid teasing, whether he wants to or not, would be personally causing the unhappiness.

And it would be legitimizing the idea that it is wrong for him to want to dress that way.

I'm not going to dress a young boy in a dress if he doesn't want to wear one. I'm also not going to keep him from wearing one if he does want to. I will explain to him that others might not understand and that they may ridicule him. I'll also explain to him that the opinion that matters is his own, teasing or not. The decision on what to wear would be up to him.

Or maybe if you knew what could very well happen if you do do that, while it isn't right that you were targeted and this happened, if you took a bit more responsibility for you own actions and attempted to avoid finding yourself in this situation then it wouldn't matter.

I can't get over this. It stuns me. Seriously. I'm not responsible for other's actions. I'm not. I don't see how I should be held responsible for someone else victimizing me.

Yes make it clear that they don't matter and are wrong for doing it which is what I said but the fact of the matter is, that your child will still be teased because of it and may not be happy when having to listen to these barbs.
Kids are often unhappy. I was unhappy as a kid like 90% of the time because girls are vicious (stereotypically). I am happier now that I learned to ignore all that (mostly) and do what I want. I don't think I would be happy if I were constantly trying to avoid bitchiness. It's rampant, even today, I just don't care often anymore.

Not if he really wants to wear a frock. In that case, telling him can't will be me personally causing the unhappiness. Telling him that he must conform to avoid teasing, whether he wants to or not, would be personally causing the unhappiness.

And it would be legitimizing the idea that it is wrong for him to want to dress that way.

I'm not going to dress a young boy in a dress if he doesn't want to wear one. I'm also not going to keep him from wearing one if he does want to. I will explain to him that others might not understand and that they may ridicule him. I'll also explain to him that the opinion that matters is his own, teasing or not. The decision on what to wear would be up to him.

So damned if you do and damned if you don't

So damned if you do and damned if you don't

Life sucks. In other news water is wet.

The choice though seems to be having a child who is in conflict with his peers (normal) and having a child who is in conflict with himself (heartbreaking).

One of these seems preferable to the other.

I can't get over this. It stuns me. Seriously. I'm not responsible for other's actions. I'm not. I don't see how I should be held responsible for someone else victimizing me.

I am not saying you are, what I am saying is people should try and stop and think, is this really the best option for me, do I go cut through these parklands at 2 in the morning knowing that people are raped and mugged and savagely beaten during the night or do I get in a taxi and pay an $5 knowing that I will be safer. While you are not responsible for other peoples actions you can be responsible for preventing these actions having an impact on you.

Life sucks. In other news water is wet.

The choice though seems to be having a child who is in conflict with his peers (normal) and having a child who is in conflict with himself (heartbreaking).

One of these seems preferable to the other.

So because it is normal we shouldn't try to prevent it from happening?

While you are not responsible for other peoples actions you can be responsible for preventing these actions having an impact on you.

But, see, there are two ways to prevent other people's bad behavior from messing up your life. There's your way - conform, hide, give in to peer pressure, do whatever it takes to get people to leave you alone. And then there's the way the rest of us have been supporting - ignore the idiots and live your own life as best you can. One of those sounds a lot more pleasant than the other, don't you think?

But, see, there are two ways to prevent other people's bad behavior from messing up your life. There's your way - conform, hide, give in to peer pressure, do whatever it takes to get people to leave you alone. And then there's the way the rest of us have been supporting - ignore the idiots and live your own life as best you can. One of those sounds a lot more pleasant than the other, don't you think?

I think it would depend on the situation as to how you would react.

So because it is normal we shouldn't try to prevent it from happening?

Of course we should try to prevent it, but at the actual source of the problem. If Child A is punching Child B, one should say, "Child A, stop that. You are not allowed to hit people," not, "Child B, stop doing whatever it is you were doing or being whatever it is you were being that made Child A punch you."

So because it is normal we shouldn't try to prevent it from happening?

You couldn't possibly prevent all peer to peer conflict. It's easier to raise a healthy child (and that ain't easy!).

Conflict isn't always bad. My husband and I get into conflicts daily, about religion, politics, whose socks those are on the floor... we learn new things, we become better people, we become more sure of ourselves.

As my mother said 100,000,000 times "If all your friends jumped off a bridge would you jump too?"

More to the point, as I tell my children (repeatedly) "everyone has their own adversity".

My agenda is also gay. He'll only date other agendas, no vagendas.

Of course we should try to prevent it, but at the actual source of the problem. If Child A is punching Child B, one should say, "Child A, stop that. You are not allowed to hit people," not, "Child B, stop doing whatever it is you were doing or being whatever it is you were being that made Child A punch you."

Why not both, but bear in mind what I have already said which would not be saying to child be you don't do this, it would be "Look these idoits aren't going to continue to hound you as you do this, what they are doing is wrong and we will punish them when they attack you, but you could try and not make it so obvious which will prevent them from doing hitting you, try to ignore it"

You couldn't possibly prevent all peer to peer conflict. It's easier to raise a healthy child (and that ain't easy!).

Conflict isn't always bad. My husband and I get into conflicts daily, about religion, politics, whose socks those are on the floor... we learn new things, we become better people, we become more sure of ourselves.

As my mother said 100,000,000 times "If all your friends jumped off a bridge would you jump too?"

More to the point, as I tell my children (repeatedly) "everyone has their own adversity".

Unfortunately not every parent says that to their child and the schools don't really encourage it either. But we aren't just talking about having an argument, I am talking about a child being targeted by a group of other children because of what they have done or have said, and this will range from verbal abuse to beatings.

Why not both, but bear in mind what I have already said which would not be saying to child be you don't do this, it would be "Look these idoits aren't going to continue to hound you as you do this, what they are doing is wrong and we will punish them when they attack you, but you could try and not make it so obvious which will prevent them from doing hitting you, try to ignore it"

Why not both? Well, because one child is at fault and the other one isn't, and I'm not in the habit of discouraging behaviors unless there's something wrong with them. I got beaten up regularly in elementary school for being a "nerd," so I tried not being a nerd for a while - pretending not to know answers, not reading books at recess like I wanted to, deliberately getting questions wrong on tests - and it was a hundred times more miserable than any beating. I felt like a liar and an impostor, and I hated it desperately. Why on earth would I suggest any child put themselves through that, when instead I could teach them to be proud of who they were?

Why not both? Well, because one child is at fault and the other one isn't, and I'm not in the habit of discouraging behaviors unless there's something wrong with them.

Something wrong with that behaviour? Now there might be a good argument for people who say they will force the sons not to play with dolls, after all they see that behaviour as wrong, thus they can discourage it. Behaviour and what we see as right or wrong is only a matter of opinion, what might be considered good behaviour in one culture may be considred bad behaviour in another.

As my mother said 100,000,000 times "If all your friends jumped off a bridge would you jump too?"

My response: "If they survive, yes!"

I aged her greatly. :p

Unfortunately not every parent says that to their child and the schools don't really encourage it either. But we aren't just talking about having an argument, I am talking about a child being targeted by a group of other children because of what they have done or have said, and this will range from verbal abuse to beatings.

If your child is being verbally abused and physically assaulted your job as a parent is to get them out of the situation and press charges and avenge! It is NOT to tell your kid "quit being so fun to kick!".

Do you have children?

If your child is being verbally abused and physically assaulted your job as a parent is to get them out of the situation and press charges and avenge! It is NOT to tell your kid "quit being so fun to kick!"

Yes that is right and what I have done before, I can tell you of a time I threatened the school by getting workplace inspectors if they didn't change their lack of action towards bullying as they were breaking workplace safety laws, but at the same time I wouldn't allow my son to go to school with a nappy on because he felt like it, because other kids will torment him about it. Now if he needed a nappy because he had a problem I would attempt to disguise the fact that he is wearing one so he won't get picked on even though being picked on is wrong does not stop people from doing it, which is why I believe they now sell those toddler nappies that look a lot like underwear.

Do you have children?

Yes Smunkee I do, and I think you have asked me this question before, I have a six year old son.

My response: "If they survive, yes!"

I aged her greatly. :p

My response was usually "Of course not mom! I'm not a follower, I'm a leader, I'd jump first!"

You couldn't possibly prevent all peer to peer conflict.
Indeed. It's much better to raise a child who knows how to deal with conflicts properly, and learns how to be him/herself despite peer pressure, than to teach a child to conform to the norm at all costs in order to avoid social reprobation.

There's a reason children raised in the 50's didn't end up being happy little bundles of joy. And that reason is that none of them could really be themselves due to the enormous conformism of the time.

If a child gets picked on for being special, you support him or her and show that being different is not a big deal. You don't tell the child to be "more like the other kids" and repress his/her personality. That is unhealthy.

Yeah. right. :confused:You stated that being male or female was a bigger deal than hair color or race, and when I asked, you said that it was due to bras and jockstraps. What other conclusion do you want me to draw?

My daughter's favourite meal is a dish of blended lentils and rice. It looks like brown goop, but she absolutely adores it. She begged me to pack it for her school lunch. That day, she came home crying, saying that kids were making fun of her lunch.

Now, were I Neo B, I would tell her that she shouldn't take the lentils for lunch anymore, because it would only lead to more teasing.

But being me, I asked her a question. I asked her if she still liked the food. She said yes, it's delicious, but that the other kids said it was gross. I asked if they'd tried it...of course they hadn't. I then reminded her of the book Green Eggs and Ham...you never know if you like something until you try.

And then, amazingly, and to my joy, she perked up and said, 'I like it! They don't know it's good, and it doesn't matter because I eat it not them!'

So now, when kids bug her about her lunch she says, 'I don't care what you say, I like this food.'



So what...we're going to teach our kids to give up and give in because others might 'tease them'? What parenting planet do you come from Neo B?

My daughter's favourite meal is a dish of blended lentils and rice. It looks like brown goop, but she absolutely adores it. She begged me to pack it for her school lunch. That day, she came home crying, saying that kids were making fun of her lunch.

I'd have told them, "That's ok -- you're not old enough/cool enough/good enough to eat this anyway." :D

I'd have told them, "That's ok -- you're not old enough/cool enough/good enough to eat this anyway." :D

Well true enough, but I don't really want to encourage her to be a jerk either.

Another thing I saw her do yesterday that made me proud...this little boy was trying to punch her in the face. Nice coping skills there, kid. So my daughter told him to stop it, and backed away, and when he kept coming towards her she kicked out at him to make him back up. He ran off, crying, but she didn't follow him, or make fun of him or take it beyond that. She defended herself, and that was it.

My 'gay' agenda is always trying to provide a safe space for people to express themselves in. Some here take that as some sort of persecution. Once again, I don't tolerate the intolerant. A safe space means not allowing bigots free rein to shit on others with impunity.

I think the above creates confusion because there is this misguided belief that what it means is quieting dissent and enforcing some sort of 'liberal party line'. Far from it. I can get along quite well with even hardcore Conservatives as long as they are willing to consider other points of view. It doesn't mean that they must accept those views.

What I haven't seen in this thread yet is a compelling argument to enforce gender norms. I'd like someone to finally try, please, if this is something you actually support.

This is for both you and Soheran: I haven't gotten into the business of defending the exact reasons for my choices precisely because the point I've been trying to get across is that my reasoning isn't the issue. The issue is that I have a separate point of view form yours. That's all.

Okay, well if that's your stance...we've heard your point of view. We only needed it once if you aren't willing to discuss it any further. You blabbing on and on without end makes no sense then, unless you just want to engage in conflict for the sake of engaging in conflict.

Because you see, in debates, it's not the obvious existence of other points of view that actually is the point. It's what those points of view are based upon. We attempt to challenge the reasoning behind those points of view...on all sides.

You've stated clearly that you refuse to play.

Well then, go away. You refuse to debate...why are you in a forum that revolves around debate?

Rather trollish, really.

What I haven't seen in this thread yet is a compelling argument to enforce gender norms. I'd like someone to finally try, please, if this is something you actually support.

Why bother? Why can't people of both genders be able to pursue their own legal hobbies/talents/interests without interference?

What I haven't seen in this thread yet is a compelling argument to enforce gender norms. I'd like someone to finally try, please, if this is something you actually support.

But whatever will you do when your offspring become *gasp* confused? Because surely no child is intellectually able to grasp a concept such as being themselves without the strict guidance and reassuring security of our millenia-old traditions of gender stereotypes!

Please think of the children! WHY WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE POOR CHILDREN?

I though I was rather compelling there.

My daughter's favourite meal is a dish of blended lentils and rice. It looks like brown goop, but she absolutely adores it.

Your daughter has not only remarkable powers of critical thinking, but also an excellent palate. Lentils and rice are heaven.

Re: your daughter's interaction with the little boy trying to punch her: I got into many such scrapes in elementary school, though I admit my temper was much shorter and I would have probably run after the boy and tackled him. I was "a weird girl" in elementary school and got sent to the office quite a few times for fighting, but I never started it, I only defended myself (with the exception of the time this boy I had a crush on threw my soda, which was a delicious Grape Crush, and when we got back in the classroom I grabbed his hair and slammed his head into the desk. But really, Grape Crush!)

Whenever my mother was called to meet me in the principal's office she would ask one thing: "Did she start it?" She taught me to be kind and respectful to others, but to a point--and that point came when they stopped being kind and respectful to me and violated my rights to safety. I was never to strike someone physically who teased or yelled at me, but when fists got involved, I also knew that I did not have to take it laying down and wait to be saved. The whole "the right to swing my fist ends at the other person's nose" idea.

So because it is normal we shouldn't try to prevent it from happening?

Of course we should try and prevent it from happening - by working to make the children who are actually doing wrong (the teasers) change their behavior.

There's no reason to ask someone who isn't doing anything wrong to change his behavior - especially when that change will make him unhappy.

Something wrong with that behaviour? Now there might be a good argument for people who say they will force the sons not to play with dolls, after all they see that behaviour as wrong, thus they can discourage it. Behaviour and what we see as right or wrong is only a matter of opinion, what might be considered good behaviour in one culture may be considred bad behaviour in another.

They can certainly see it as wrong, but unless they think all children playing with dolls is wrong, it is a bigoted belief. Specifically, it is sexist.

Unless they can show me the biological difference between boys and girls that makes a boy playing with dolls harmful while a girl doing it isn't?


Now, were I Neo B, I would tell her that she shouldn't take the lentils for lunch anymore, because it would only lead to more teasing.

Actually, Blouman is the one making that argument. But, yeah.

What I haven't seen in this thread yet is a compelling argument to enforce gender norms. I'd like someone to finally try, please, if this is something you actually support.

What? You haven't read Neo B's posts!?! Don't you realize that you have to pick certain gender norms to enforce and that failure to do so will shake the very foundation of the person your children will become? And he's the authority on it, since he's never been in a situation where he's felt the need to do it?

What I haven't seen in this thread yet is a compelling argument to enforce gender norms. I'd like someone to finally try, please, if this is something you actually support.

Enforce gender norms or I will stab you in the face!

I'm not very good at convincing people to do things. http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/God_of_the_Bloody_Tongue/emotes/emot-smith.gif

I'd have told them, "That's ok -- you're not old enough/cool enough/good enough to eat this anyway." :D

My youngest is an asparagus addict, kids and adults alike make fun of her... she says "have you tried it?" and most say "no" or "I did when I was a kid" and she always replies "well, it's really good now, so I'm sorry you don't want to try it".

I often eat "out of the norm" food and when people question me I say "yeah, it's healthy and it tastes good, so it's okay"

fucking adamantium

Isn't that the answer to the riddle "How does Superman masturbate?"

Yeah okay well hmmm, I'm somewhat okay at that last part as long as I haven't been drinking, or I'm not madly in love.

Since I'm wildly infatuated, and completely sober, I think I might be okay.

Insanity is a gradual process...don't rush it. ;)

I have a human agenda.

I treat other people like people and don't judge what they do in private so long as everyone is a consenting adult.

Exactly.

I've got a "You've got a brain, so please think for yourself" agenda.

My sub-agendas are "Don't reach a conclusion until you've seen all the facts you can get your hands on" and "Thinking and evaluating is good, believing is bad".

The underlying concept is "There is no absolute truth, it always depends on the context, so don't waste time looking for it, or defending it. Be mentally flexible." And when in doubt, "Cui bono"?

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- you are terrific.

Now that Ireland's in a recession, I can't afford to have an agenda.

I got through half of this thread before I stopped reading on the grounds of tautology.

I think I'll sum up my position using the words of Jimmy Durante:

"Why can't everybody leave everybody else the hell alone?"

Of course we should try and prevent it from happening - by working to make the children who are actually doing wrong (the teasers) change their behavior.

Yes but what if this fails, then what? Last year my son and a group of his classmates were being bullied by some older kids, now my first instinct wasn't to say well it is your fault (as some of you have claimed is what I am saying) I went to stop it, after I found out that it wasn't just my son being picked on but a large group I continued to attempt to get the school and the teachers to be be much more aggressive in their actions as the current punishments were simply not working. Fortunately the school did come down a lot harder on these older students, after the principal had a large group of angry parents burst in demanding they do something about it, reciting workplace safety laws and threatening to call the police in on him.

Now had something not been done to my satisfaction I would have moved my son into another school, yes that is correct another school, and that would be preventing him from having to be put into the danger he currently was. This prevention option which I had considered and would have carried out is something members of NSG criticise me for and say I should not be doing, and I would like to know why that would be a wrong option to consider and carry out if need be.

I was "a weird girl" in elementary school and got sent to the office quite a few times for fighting, but I never started it, I only defended myself (with the exception of the time this boy I had a crush on threw my soda, which was a delicious Grape Crush, and when we got back in the classroom I grabbed his hair and slammed his head into the desk. But really, Grape Crush!)

*takes mental note do not antagonise Ryadn*

They can certainly see it as wrong, but unless they think all children playing with dolls is wrong, it is a bigoted belief. Specifically, it is sexist.

Ok so if they see that there is something wrong with their childrens behaviour they should be allowed to stop it.

My youngest is an asparagus addict, kids and adults alike make fun of her... she says "have you tried it?" and most say "no" or "I did when I was a kid" and she always replies "well, it's really good now, so I'm sorry you don't want to try it".

I often eat "out of the norm" food and when people question me I say "yeah, it's healthy and it tastes good, so it's okay"

What's wrong with asparagus?

Eating 'out of the norm' food which I do on a constant basis whenever the need arises as I like to try new things is a bit different than me walking down the street in a mini skirt.

Yes but what if this fails, then what?

Then your child will at least have learned what matters from your example.

If other children are actually physically endangering your child or causing a great deal of distress, you should find a way to get the child out of the situation - away from the children who mistreat him.

Now had something not been done to my satisfaction I would have moved my son into another school, yes that is correct another school, and that would be preventing him from having to be put into the danger he currently was. This prevention option which I had considered and would have carried out is something members of NSG criticise me for and say I should not be doing, and I would like to know why that would be a wrong option to consider and carry out if need be.

Moving your child to another school isn't a bad option if other children are bullying him and the school in question won't stop it.

But that isn't what we've been talking about. We've been talking about your statements that you should tell a child just to stop doing whatever it is he's being teased/bullied for and/or disallow it.

Ok so if they see that there is something wrong with their childrens behaviour they should be allowed to stop it.

Of course. Whether I like it or not, those with bigoted views have the right to pass on those views to their children. They have the right to enforce such views on their children.

It is rather unfortunate for the children, for a number of reasons, but that's the way it is.

What's wrong with asparagus?

Nothing! It's yummy! =)

Eating 'out of the norm' food which I do on a constant basis whenever the need arises as I like to try new things is a bit different than me walking down the street in a mini skirt.

And yet it is something that a child could be ridiculed for. Two examples have already been given in this thread. According to your earlier statements, this means that a child should only eat "out of the norm" food at home, where teasers can't see it.

*takes mental note do not antagonise Ryadn*

And do not screw with my grape soda.

I haven't gotten into a real physical altercation since I was 13. I just got too old for fistfights.

That is one possible solution, if you are walking down a dark alley with a gold necklace and rings showing them off and they are stolen, you should change your behaviour for your own well being i.e you wouldn't walk down there or if you have to make it seem like you have nothing on you of any value.
Oh, boring, just more rape-apologist rhetoric.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're ignorant rather than intentionally sadistic, so let's just be clear about something:

The person at fault is the attacker, or the bully, or the thief, or the rapist, or whoever the fuck actually DID SOMETHING WRONG.

It is not my responsibility to tailor my appearance, my behavior, or my gender-presentation to best accommodate the feelings of people who want to bully me, steal my stuff, or rape me.

Being straight, white, Christian, conventionally attractive, and in every other way a member of the majority culture doesn't stop kids from being bullied. Just like being covered head to toe and staying in the home doesn't protect women from being raped. This is because the problem is not what the victim was doing, it's what the ATTACKER was doing.

There are tons of times when I walked home through dark streets alone, somewhat intoxicated, wearing party clothes, and nobody attacked me or tried to steal my wallet or tried to rape me. On the other hand, one night while I was in my own place wearing sweats and sober as a judge, somebody tried to rape me. The one time I had something stolen from me in college was when my roommate stole my credit card. The only difference that matters is the presence of the thief/rapist/whatever.

Similarly, there were plenty of times I went to school presenting as a male when I was a kid. I dressed like a boy, even down to my hair cut, and I sure as hell acted like a boy. Sometimes I got teased and bullied, sometimes I didn't. The only difference between those times was the presence of bullies.

Victim blaming is for cowards.

Unfortunately not every parent says that to their child and the schools don't really encourage it either. But we aren't just talking about having an argument, I am talking about a child being targeted by a group of other children because of what they have done or have said, and this will range from verbal abuse to beatings.

Likewise, kids who don't do drugs should be encouraged to go along with their peers and do drugs, lest they be teased for being a square.

Smart children should be encouraged to appear as stupid as possible, to escape being labeled as 'nerds.'

The most important lesson a parent can teach a child is to always make sure you conform so you avoid being picked on!

The most important lesson a parent can teach a child is to always make sure you conform so you avoid being picked on!

The parents of Harrison Bergeron agree.

My agenda is simple. I am superior to everyone who disagrees with me.


;)

The So What part is that when, despite our best efforts to be modern, tolerant, educated people, the little tykes fall into the classic patterns, we have to remind ourselves that it's not a failing, not society "forcing" them into the roles, it is merely the wonder of Evolution in action, which has produced a species that combines tried and true instinctive behavior with an occassional drive to deviate, just in case.

Basics of Gender roles and Sexuality:

In "Western" Society, there are only two gender roles, one for males one for females. This is not true in all societies, as some view three, four, or fourteen genders(This is true, some native american groups had as many as fourteen distinct genders).

Now then, in "western" society, with only two genders, those with a male accuented brain(Or sexuality, at times) will tend to start falling into the male gender role naturally, so to speak, or forcibly at other times, and the same is true for females. This is entirely due to how our society views what is "male" and what is "female".

If, for instance, our society felt that males should wear dresses(Which is what most ancient socieities pretty much did), and females wear pants(Just using the classic gender role hear), then males would thus tend towards wearing dresses, and females wearing pants because it is what society deems is right for males and females.

The point I'm getting at is that gender roles are not biological constructs, but instead cultural ones. However, due to biology, those are are centered more towards being "male" in a sense will tend to migrate towards those gender roles which society deems "male"(Females can have a male orientated brain, as well as males have a female orientated brain).

So basically, due to biology the individual will tend to migrate towards the gender role set forth for said biology. However, the biology does not determine the gender roles.

There are tons of times when I walked home through dark streets alone, somewhat intoxicated, wearing party clothes, and nobody attacked me or tried to steal my wallet or tried to rape me. On the other hand, one night while I was in my own place wearing sweats and sober as a judge, somebody tried to rape me. The one time I had something stolen from me in college was when my roommate stole my credit card. The only difference that matters is the presence of the thief/rapist/whatever.

Of course you realize that the only course of action you should take after such an experience is to stop spending time being sober at your own place! You need to change your ways so it doesn't happen again! You should rather drunkenly roam the streets. *nod*

*sigh*

Blaming the victim is always wrong. Of course people have to take care of themselves, and you have a responsibility to yourself to try to avoid dangerous situation - it's not wise to take the shortcut through the notorious dark alley when you're alone and you're so drunk that you can hardly stand - but it's never the fault of the victim.

My agenda, though I do not have children, would be thus:

1. Teach them that school, the government, me, and your friends are not always right.

2. Teach them to see through politically correct language and euphamisms.

3. Teach them that there is no universal right or wrong, but that Christianity and traditional European-American society have certain standards of morality.

4. Teach them to think for themselves, and to educate themselves through reading and personal experience, rather than the often biased and distorted perspectives taught in schools.

5. Teach them to always be respectful of the beliefs of others, but also to stand up for their own.

Basics of Gender roles and Sexuality:

In "Western" Society, there are only two gender roles, one for males one for females. This is not true in all societies, as some view three, four, or fourteen genders(This is true, some native american groups had as many as fourteen distinct genders).

Now then, in "western" society, with only two genders, those with a male accuented brain(Or sexuality, at times) will tend to start falling into the male gender role naturally, so to speak, or forcibly at other times, and the same is true for females. This is entirely due to how our society views what is "male" and what is "female".

If, for instance, our society felt that males should wear dresses(Which is what most ancient socieities pretty much did), and females wear pants(Just using the classic gender role hear), then males would thus tend towards wearing dresses, and females wearing pants because it is what society deems is right for males and females.

The point I'm getting at is that gender roles are not biological constructs, but instead cultural ones. However, due to biology, those are are centered more towards being "male" in a sense will tend to migrate towards those gender roles which society deems "male"(Females can have a male orientated brain, as well as males have a female orientated brain).

So basically, due to biology the individual will tend to migrate towards the gender role set forth for said biology. However, the biology does not determine the gender roles.

I knew a single mom when I was living in the hills of Western Mass. Her name was Coyote, her home was almost a commune (closer to a cooperative though) She chose to home school her son, but because of the local laws, he had to go to public school in I think it was 4th or 5th grade...He was the most down to earth kid I have ever met, and he was raised with no sexual orientation whatsoever. Many of the men in his life were "spinners" and found it much more comfortable to "spin" in skirts. Well, when the boy went to school the first day, he was unable to determine which picture represented his bathroom (rectangle with head...boys...triangle with head girls). Last I heard he was in counseling due to the merciless teasing. Personally, having known this wonderful child, I am thinking it is the other children who could use counseling. I don't really have that much of a point to this story , but I thought it appropriate for this thread.

Moving your child to another school isn't a bad option if other children are bullying him and the school in question won't stop it.

But that isn't what we've been talking about. We've been talking about your statements that you should tell a child just to stop doing whatever it is he's being teased/bullied for and/or disallow it.

But I was talking about not opening yourself up to this sort of treament and preventing yourself or your child to be allowed to this. Yet people have said by doing this to prevent this from happening such as moving the kid away is wrong.

Bottle would have me believe that by placing my son in another school is the cowards way out, but I would rather be safe than sorry, and as I have posted numerous occasions I have always said the wrongdoer is in the wrong but if you know that by going down a certain street will see you attacked why do it?

My agenda is simple. I am superior to everyone who disagrees with me.

Now why doesn't this surprise me?

Blaming the victim is always wrong. Of course people have to take care of themselves, and you have a responsibility to yourself to try to avoid dangerous situation - it's not wise to take the shortcut through the notorious dark alley when you're alone and you're so drunk that you can hardly stand - but it's never the fault of the victim.

Watch out Gravelen, this is what I have being saying but Bottle likes to attack me for it. While it is wrong that someone did something wrong to you and not your fault that it was done, you should still look out for yourself and prevent yourself from getting in these situations. If I left a $100 note on my desk in an open floor plan office, for a few hours and it had been stolen while it was wrong of that person to take it I should have taken more responsibility to make sure it was safe from being stolen because I know that by leaving it out there it had a high chance of being stolen.

But I was talking about not opening yourself up to this sort of treament and preventing yourself or your child to be allowed to this. Yet people have said by doing this to prevent this from happening such as moving the kid away is wrong.

Moving the kid away and telling the kid to behave differently are two very different things.

It is the latter that people have a problem with.

I knew a single mom when I was living in the hills of Western Mass. Her name was Coyote, her home was almost a commune (closer to a cooperative though) She chose to home school her son, but because of the local laws, he had to go to public school in I think it was 4th or 5th grade...He was the most down to earth kid I have ever met, and he was raised with no sexual orientation whatsoever. Many of the men in his life were "spinners" and found it much more comfortable to "spin" in skirts. Well, when the boy went to school the first day, he was unable to determine which picture represented his bathroom (rectangle with head...boys...triangle with head girls). Last I heard he was in counseling due to the merciless teasing. Personally, having known this wonderful child, I am thinking it is the other children who could use counseling. I don't really have that much of a point to this story , but I thought it appropriate for this thread.

Actually, this is a very good pretense for a very good point.

The point being not necessarily that gender roles are idiotic, but western gender roles are idiotic. The problem arises in the fact that we have only two genders: Male and female. If you are sexually male, your gender is, culturally, *supposed* to be male. If female, you are *supposed* to fall under the "female" gender.

The problem arises in culture clashes, as you pointed out, but also in one very undeniable, obvious fact: Not everybody of a given sex is the same. So, when there are those who defy "traditional"(Which is actually not very traditional, when you break it down) gender roles do come along, they quite honestly have no gender role to fit into. They are thus singled out for being "different" and not accepting the gender roles that our modern and western society set forth for them, causing all sorts of problems.

To give you an idea, some genders in other cultures include(But are not limited to):

Males who dress like females but are heterosexual.
Males who dress like male but are homosexual.
Males who dress like females but are homosexual.
Males who dress like males but are heterosexual.

Same for the females, but to a lesser extent(For a number of reasons, mostly to do with the importance of child-rearing in most cultures, but this is not always the case).

The thing is, in those societies with more gender role than just two, and people who are "different" than what our society deems have a place to fall into, those "other" genders than male/female gender are concidered just as important to society as we concider male/female in our, and in some cases, a particular gender may be *extremely* important for various reasons, and downright vital.

The problem with our society is that there is just nowhere for those who are "different" than what is defined by our culture's gender roles to fall into. Which is idiotic, to say the least.

Moving the kid away and telling the kid to behave differently are two very different things.

It is the latter that people have a problem with.

It is two solutions to the same problem. I have said to not let yourself be opened up to a dangerous situation. One way may be to change to the way people would expect you to, one would be to remove yourself from the situation or not allow yourself to get into that situation such as not walking through dark parklands where rapes and muggings are known to occur frequently (this is something that I have been attacked for suggesting as well maybe not by you Dems but some posters).

Now it depends on the situation as to how you will react conforming does not include to start acting a certain way or doing something a certain way ok it does but what I mean is you don't have to change your ways entirely to prevent yourself you may just not draw attention to it, for example if someone was harassed because they were a greenie amongst non greenies, while you might not suddenly become a non greenie and dismiss your environmental beliefs you may just not go around trying to tell these people otherwise and just remain less vocal (after all they are hardly going to change their non greenie attitude)

It is two solutions to the same problem. I have said to not let yourself be opened up to a dangerous situation. One way may be to change to the way people would expect you to, one would be to remove yourself from the situation or not allow yourself to get into that situation such as not walking through dark parklands where rapes and muggings are known to occur frequently (this is something that I have been attacked for suggesting as well maybe not by you Dems but some posters).

Now it depends on the situation as to how you will react conforming does not include to start acting a certain way or doing something a certain way ok it does but what I mean is you don't have to change your ways entirely to prevent yourself you may just not draw attention to it, for example if someone was harassed because they were a greenie amongst non greenies, while you might not suddenly become a non greenie and dismiss your environmental beliefs you may just not go around trying to tell these people otherwise and just remain less vocal (after all they are hardly going to change their non greenie attitude)
Basically, you're encouraging everyone to be complicit about their own repression. This is tyranny of the majority at its best; don't be yourself openly because other people might feel the need to repress you.

That's not how it works, or at least not how it SHOULD work.

If you're a nerd, or gay, or unconventional in any other way, the best answer for your well-being is not to just shut up and repress your personality for fear of reprisal. Your best bet is to be yourself anyway, and challenge the bigotry of the world around you, changing it for the best towards acceptance and away from head-stuck-up-your-ass-conformism.

Living a lie to avoid prejudice does not for a happy life make. I'd rather fight for my (and all the other's) right to be different and free from the tyranny of the majority rather than giving up and suffering silently because I'm too afraid of other people disapproving. I have the right to live my fucking life however the hell I choose to, and I'd want my children to understand that not only do they have the right to themselves, but that I will back them up unquestioningly for anything that does not cause harm to themselves or others.

And that's where the fun part about living in a western democracy comes in; the laws and constitution back you up on this. I might agree with you if I was living in a place where "you conform or you die in state jail for being a troublemaker", but I thankfully live in a place where "you are free and if your freedoms are trampled on, tribunals will uphold them".

When people do something wrong, be it raping people in dark parklands or bully children who are different, you fucking stop them. Period. If it's criminals you sic the police and judges on their asses until they're locked up. If it's misbehaving children you tell their parents, punish them somehow if you're their teacher or just give them a damn good spanking if they're yours and deserved it.

We live in a society that was built on the basis of everyone being free. I am not ready to relinquish my freedom, or anybody else's for that matter, simply because it might bring unwanted and unwarranted consequences from people who cannot play by the rules.

Hmm? I don't have an agenda. I did play with porcelain dolls when I was younger and my mother didn't heckle me about it.

Well, no agenda outside of shrinking governments around the world :D

I had a Sailor Moon doll when I was younger. And I'd like to add I'm a bloke.

When people do something wrong, be it raping people in dark parklands or bully children who are different, you fucking stop them. Period. If it's criminals you sic the police and judges on their asses until they're locked up. If it's misbehaving children you tell their parents, punish them somehow if you're their teacher or just give them a damn good spanking if they're yours and deserved it.

Have you ever had to deal with kids who may be misbehaving who aren't your own? You seem to think that by punishing them especially some of the lame punishments that the schools have to give is always going to stop them, yeah right. It is all very well to say we will stop them it is a different matter from actually stopping them until you know it is safe to go through the park lands at night and have a good chance of coming out the other side the same way you went in why go in there?

We live in a society that was built on the basis of everyone being free. I am not ready to relinquish my freedom, or anybody else's for that matter, simply because it might bring unwanted and unwarranted consequences from people who cannot play by the rules.

First of all that is a laugh we are not truly free but that is neither here nor there and for another discussion for another time

Fuck the agenda. One person's "talking points" are another's "laughing stock."

Acts are judged by their consequences. Why should words be different?

Oops. Frickin' long thread. Reading first few pages does not suffice.

Someone care to summarize it for me?

Blouman and his opposers are actually both right.

For some people it's easier to hide and conform. For them the scars of conflict are worse than scars of living a lie.

For some people it's easier to challenge the norm. For them the scars of living a lie are worse than scars of conflict.

While I loathe to make any excuse for the bullies, it's not always that they do what they do out of malice. Many of the bullies do what they do to be part of the majority, to conform to the views of the majority and to not get picked on themselves. It was quite interesting to see how the behauviour of some people changed depending who/how many were near them.

Of course, there are also people who are just malicious, selfish and spiteful and simply enjoy making others miserable.

And i would echo Skaladora's concerns. Perhpas if you could provide some sort of link showing some sort of statistical correlation betwen gender blending and behavioural problems, or if not, some sort of logical explanation as to why you believe one caused the other. I ask this because yoru anecdote shows neither causation, and only implies a possible correlation.

I can't give you a link to my observations, personal experiences and the myriad of articles I've read over the years. The way I see it, anybody who's really interested in this stuff can find all that easily on their own, and so there's not much advantage in my Googling random articles to provide a link when you'd do exactly the same.


Not really. I believe that we are all in a constant process of defining and creating ourselves. I don't even think it's possible to have a 'fully formed' self-image or identity. But I am aware that some of these processes stem from internal drives while others stem from social pressure. I believe that in this instance, allowing the children their choice would be to support their own internal drives rather than social pressures.


Let me ask you this question, for the sake of argument. Are social pressures ALWAYS bad? ALWAYS good?


You were discussing how such confusion can lead to problems with socialisation. I was addressing that. Perhaps I misunderstood how such 'confusion' could lead to socialisation problems.


Can you imagine how a child with vague notions of male and female would have a difficult time integrating into a group of kids who behave as typical boys and girls do?


Pretty easy call for me. I think being supportive of my child's ability to make choices independently is a confidence builder. Do you think restricting their choices over trivial matters is good for their confidence?

Yes, although when you use the word 'restricting' you paint a picture that isn't really a genuine portrayal of what's going on here. There's a difference between 'restriction' and 'guidance.'

Then why would you care about preventing it from happening?

For the same reason you'd guide your child around stepping on dog poop when you're walking with them along the sidewalk. It's trivial, but hardly an unworthy waste of your energies.

What I find curious is the amount of time people are spending trying to ram their ideas down my throat through sheer repetition.

What, the fact that you assert that all women must innately want to be "feminine" despite that fact that you say your own wife doesn't behave that way?

Honestly, no, I don't find that surprising. It's consistent with what I think I know of you.

Fixed.

Maybe you should spend more effort trying to understand rather than sit in that comfort zone.


From what you've posted on this thread, that's pretty obviously not true. Your own vocal disapproval of "non-traditional" gender behaviors pretty much squashes that possibility.

I'm getting at the fact that I'm living proof that traditional gender stereotypes are NOT innately tied to physical sex. I am genetically and physiologically female, always have been, and have also always been "naturally masculine" in my preferences and behaviors.


So? You're taking my remarks and applying them too broadly.


It only takes one to disprove your theory, in this case, because if it's possible for somebody to be female and NOT innately "feminine" then femaleness cannot be the sole cause of "femininity". And so forth.

What does femininity level in females have to do with a boy dressing as a princess? :confused:

For my purposes here, prejudiced against someone (or potentially something) based on an arbitrary characteristic.


Not a bad definition. Maybe we'll need to tweak it as we go but for now let me ask you this: Whom have I showed prejudice against, by acknowledging that I would discourage a son from wearing a princess costume? What arbitrary characteristic is this based upon?


Well, that's something you have to watch out for, of course. To discuss something reasonably is to discuss it on the basis of objective standards (rationality, and reasonable assumptions about how the world works), not on one particular person's terms.


Agreed 100% and generally when you see me object to someone trying to lead the discussion around by the nose, it's precisely because I'm perceiving them as trying to dictate all of the terms and definitions, especially when they're clearly skewered toward that person's advantage.

This may be an extreme example but it's like in a recent thread when GnI tried to force me to accept the definition of a 'lie' as being a falsehood even when not intentional, like when someone makes an honest mistake. He was doing so to justify calling me a liar, even though he acknowledged that I'd never deliberately tried to mislead.

Not many agreed with him, but this incident effectively put an end to the conversation.


I won't, because to call someone a bigot, even wrongly, is just not to make the same kind of statement as to call someone a fag. They both can be indicative of close-mindedness, but they are very different kinds of attacks.

If someone called me a bigot, I would want to correct them. If someone called me a fag, I would want to punch them in the face. (I wouldn't, of course, but that's not the point.)

Further, I think it's very important that we not delegitimize a word like "bigot", not in a world that is incredibly bigoted as it stands... a world where so many people feel perfectly entitled to be obnoxiously bigoted and need to be told to stop, sometimes in the harshest terms possible.


2 Thoughts here:

1)Where I come from, being called a 'bigot' is a grievous insult. I don't think anyone likes to be called one but you can see where it CAN be used with every bit as much hate and vitriol as 'fag.'
2)Overuse of a word like that strips it of its meaning. Especially before any kind of discussion has even taken place.


Generously tolerating people whose "lifestyles" a person opposes.

The condescension is this: it's tolerance without respect, "I'll let you live your life, but I won't seriously consider that you might be right." As a matter of fact, the disrespect is often two-fold, because so often such people are not really willing to express their opinions on "right": they condemn me in their heads, but they aren't willing to say it to me.

Respect, I think, would involve being willing to engage in a dialogue of sorts: to speak and to listen.


I have a very different view on this. I think it's a mark of my respect for my brother that I don't make a point of haranguing him over his lifestyle. I think it WOULD be condescending if I were hiding my beliefs and opinions from him, but I've never done so. He knows what my position is. We've talked about it. There's no need to rehash it unless and until some new element arises.

But here's the thing. I don't condemn him. It isn't my place to do so. Like I said before one of the tenets of the Mormon faith is that everybody has the right to make their own choices (freewill) and nobody gets to force themselves on them. My ability to accept my brother for who he is is entirely consistent with that faith.


Well, I don't know about "must". But it's preferable, yes.


I dunno I think without diplomacy it goes form a debate to a pissing match.


No, I was pointing out that I nowhere suggested that I couldn't get along with someone like you. I can.


Maybe I'm misinterpreting the tone of this but "someone like you" comes across a bit imperiously.


Qualifying the "aggressively" part somewhat, yes, certainly. I wish more people would. You should feel free to voice your opinion, and make your argument. And I should feel obligated to listen, at least sometimes, when it's convenient.

Of course, this is ethically ambiguous territory, really, because while respect for my autonomy (somewhat paradoxically) requires a concern for my moral well-being, respect for my autonomy also requires a concern for my wishes: if I don't want to continually be morally condemned, you shouldn't do it.

That's why it's important to build friendships, and relationships with others more generally, that are characterized by honesty, trust, and mutual respect, such that we can pursue moral improvement together without injuring each other's pride and without trampling on each other's freedom.


I think the balance is struck when you discuss each other's opinions, talk it out, and then let it be. Repeating the same thing over and over is generally not constructive. I mean, if I have a moral objection to how you live and you have a moral objection to how I do, how many times to we need to remind each other of it? Unless some new item comes up it ceases to be sharing ideas and becomes nagging.


Have I mentioned that I don't mind people trying to convert me--that I in fact welcome it?

I just don't think they should object if I return the favor.


Fair enough.


We may have different understandings of "aggressive."


Maybe. IMHO the most aggressive and least constructive form of rhetoric is repetition ad nauseam.



I know where you're coming from with that. But I turn my occasional ethical conservatism against conservative political and social stances.


Kinda how I l ike to turn liberalism against liberals.


"Barack the Magic Negro" is rather telling, among other things.


Meh. This is an example of media demonization. Rush didn't invent that phrase. He was repeating it to satirize the guy who did.


It's not. Well, "scold" is ambiguous, but assuming all you do is advance an argument in an attempt to convince him, there's nothing intolerant about it in either case. It would be wrong to prohibit him from wearing a dress, and it would be wrong to prohibit him from voting for discrimination against gays.

Of course, I happen to think that the moral arguments against wearing dresses are all pretty ludicrous, but anyway....


Here's the thing, I don't 'advance arguments' with my children when they're that young. This is not a debate among equals. A parent is responsible for the well being and growth of the child which means that in those early years, they are in charge completely. My judgment prevails. Period.

Now if my 15-year-old came to me indicating he wanted to wear a dress, that would be an ENTIRELY different scenario from if he'd done that when he was 6.


One needs a justification, yes.


To exercise a right? I disagree. That's the definition of a right... The freedom to do something without having to justify it.

On a practical note I do think that blind adherence to a religion or any philosophy for no reason is unhealthy, but it's important to make that distinction.


As I've said, there are definitely multiple right answers to some ethical questions, but there are absolute rational moral standards... and in any case, even if there are not I doubt any two human beings have no ethical common ground.


Agreed.


Sure. Like I said, I believe in keeping at it, in part for exactly that reason.


Appreciated.


No, it's a reasonable conclusion from the evidence. It is, of course, provisional: I could be convinced otherwise by the course of the argument.


I guess we'll see


Bisexual, but close enough--at this point, me living a "straight" life just isn't happening.


Gotcha.


It is two different kinds of judgments.

I see an argument attacking homosexuality. I think to myself, "This person is probably bigoted", from my experience of seeing how awful such arguments tend to be. But then I proceed to examine the argument closely and respond to it, as a separate thought process from my earlier conclusion.

You seem to think that just because I come to a conclusion, I stop thinking. But nothing of the sort is true: my conclusions remain open to modification.


If that's the case then you are a step above the vast majority of folks here. Most people do stop thinking upon reaching a conclusion. (Or liking a conclusion reached by someone else.)


Hmm, fair enough--I did call you bigoted, but the major direction of our argument has not concerned that particular issue of gender bending. For what it's worth, broadly speaking I don't actually think you're either close-minded or intolerant. As far as tolerance goes, actually, I think you might benefit from a little less--along the lines of what I've said earlier, anyway.


I appreciate that.


You also cite this post as an example of categorical dismissal, but I don't see that. I see judgments, but no absolute, categorical ones.


Fair enough


Again, fair enough. I've never claimed to be a brilliant communicator; I have trouble a lot with people who get impressions from what I say that I didn't intend, because I choose my words with an eye toward accuracy and precision, and in the process miss elements like "how they come across."


I feel your pain. I bet you can also relate to the frustration where you do spend that l evel of effort to be very precise and then someone takes what you said and heads off into left field with it... WTF?


Whatever justification you yourself have. The reasons you believe something. We can discuss whether or not they are actually good reasons, but it's hard to do that abstractly.


Alright


But it's not. If I'm intolerant towards you or others, it doesn't stop me from expressing effectively my views on tolerance, or you from responding to them. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.


Just that I prefer to start any given discussion with the benefit of the doubt.


I knew you were going to say that. :)


Hehe


I abbreviated my original response because I didn't want to get into a detailed argument about a political theory of the family; we have enough to deal with as it stands. So I left it as a shot in the dark, just in case it struck home; I'm not surprised it didn't.


I think I'm confused...


Depends on whether it's intended or not, I think.

Intent is important but so is perception.



<snip>


Okie doke Dem here's the thing. You're doing the semantic sidestep again and I'm just not gonna play along. Sorry. When you do stuff like this:


And where have you been insulted?


When you know perfectly damn well where, whether you knew it on your own or the times I've explicitly pointed it out.

That's the thing. Playing dumb is just not a useful way to conduct a debate. I won't waste my time on it. You do this kind of thing a lot, and when you get called on it you start spinning it to try and make it mean something else. I dunno for sure if you do this on purpose or if it's some kind of reflex thing with you, but I'm not gonna play along.

Most of the other stuff you posted is repetition of the same arguments over and over. I get it. I understand what you're saying. I have very serious doubts about whether you understand me with all these game you're playing but maybe you do and are pretending not to. I dunno. You want to look down on me and all that because of how I parent my kids or, how I WOULD parent my kids, go ahead. I think it's interesting how many times you fell back on the excuse "Well, we WERE just talking hypothetically" as a way to justify the silliness of telling me how to raise kids when you've never had any, and yet suggest that my kids are only the way they are because of some insidious subconscious controlling tendency of mine that has already locked them into their 'gender roles' (Cue thunderclap.)

So you flipflop between hypothetical and reality, depending on whether you need to go on the attack or dodge a counterpoint.

It isn't cute. And ultimately it makes you come off rather snobbish. (Not being snarky. Just sayin') You want to judge me? Go ahead. I really don't care because as I said my results speak for themselves. I'd like to see you do better.

This one was particularly noteworthy because it made me laugh:


Is there a particular reason that you can't take my language at face value? Is there a reason that you always feel the need to read more into it than is actually said?

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, my gawd...

My ultimate agenda is Christ's agenda. Anything beyond that should either be something that glorifies my ultimate agenda or something I need to detach myself from.

The way I see it, the "gay" agenda proclaimed here is just one to draw attention to the supposed "open-mindedness" of the viewpoint and the "closed minds" of the opposite viewpoints. The fact that this person decides to put out an attack against anyone who leans their child to one gender doesn't communicate an open mind but a disagreement against people whose opinions are opposite of them.

To have a completely open mind is to have no real effect but to simply observe, considering every viewpoint without siding with one or the other. Obviously, that's not represented here.

So don't bombard me with this idea of an "open mind."

The way I see it, if you flag me for enforcing any sort of gender stereotype on anyone, you have just closed your mind to my way of thinking and have stepped inside a box.

If this is about imposition, how can you even try and counter gender enforcement? Once you flag it, you've just imposed upon my opinion. If you're against imposition of gender decisions, then how do you qualify your own imposition?

QFT

I can't give you a link to my observations, personal experiences and the myriad of articles I've read over the years. The way I see it, anybody who's really interested in this stuff can find all that easily on their own, and so there's not much advantage in my Googling random articles to provide a link when you'd do exactly the same.
That's rather a copout when people are telling you that THEIR observations, experiences, and readings over the years have taught them the opposite of what you are saying. If you have experiences to share, by all means share them.

Whom have I showed prejudice against, by acknowledging that I would discourage a son from wearing a princess costume?
Against children who are like that; and it would be particularly sad if you had a son like that, although perhaps if it came down to it, you would turn out to be more accepting than you now think that you would be.

Oops. Frickin' long thread. Reading first few pages does not suffice.

Someone care to summarize it for me?
Neo B said that we wouldn't allow his son to dress as a princess.

5 pages or so of Blouman Empire and Neo B vs. Everyone else over gender roles, protecting your kids and being yourself, or letting kids be them self.

That's rather a copout when people are telling you that THEIR observations, experiences, and readings over the years have taught them the opposite of what you are saying. If you have experiences to share, by all means share them.

Yes it's always a copout when I say it, yet I don't see a volume of evidence coming from all those observations you appear to put so much faith in. At least I'm operating from SOME kind of source, as opposed to regurgitating talking points.

Besides, I HAVE been sharing experiences. RTFF. I'm not gonna hold your hand.


Against children who are like that; and it would be particularly sad if you had a son like that, although perhaps if it came down to it, you would turn out to be more accepting than you now think that you would be.

"Like that?" Like what? I'm getting criticized over the idea that *any* child should be able to cross dress in a costume if they want. I wasn't aware we were pigeonholing kids who were "like that"...

whatever that means

Have you ever had to deal with kids who may be misbehaving who aren't your own? You seem to think that by punishing them especially some of the lame punishments that the schools have to give is always going to stop them, yeah right. It is all very well to say we will stop them it is a different matter from actually stopping them until you know it is safe to go through the park lands at night and have a good chance of coming out the other side the same way you went in why go in there?

I have never met a situation where I could not either stop someone from behaving wrongly, or having the authorities stop that person from engaging in his/her wrong behavior. That includes both children and adults.

Methinks you haven't tried all that seriously to hold the position you have taken.

When you stand up for yourself and your convictions, and have the law on your side because the other party is behaving in such a way that it wrongs you, you succeed. It's that simple.

If I ever see kids bullying my own child, and getting them punished by the school does not work, I will god damn well get in touch with their parents and have a serious chat about it. And if their parents do nothing because they do not care, I will god damn well get a complaint filed with the police. If I need to get a restraining order, I will get a fucking restraining order. And all the while I will get a clear message through those kid's heads; if you do something wrong to my child, you don't get away with it without facing the consequences of your actions.

Besides, I HAVE been sharing experiences. RTFF. I'm not gonna hold your hand.
Experiences that back up your claim that boys who like cross-dressing will exhibit severe behavioral problems?
"Like that?" Like what? I'm getting criticized over the idea that *any* child should be able to cross dress in a costume if they want. I wasn't aware we were pigeonholing kids who were "like that"...
Claiming that they're all going to start showing "behavioral problems" (turn into criminals? or what do you mean?) was a very broad-brush statement. If you offer zero substantiation, it can only sound like a severe prejudice. You claim that a minute's Googling will turn up a bunch of articles backing up what you say, but this is not the case.

Experiences that back up your claim that boys who like cross-dressing will exhibit severe behavioral problems?

Claiming that they're all going to start showing "behavioral problems" (turn into criminals? or what do you mean?) was a very broad-brush statement. If you offer zero substantiation, it can only sound like a severe prejudice. You claim that a minute's Googling will turn up a bunch of articles backing up what you say, but this is not the case.

You STILL haven't RTFF but are demanding explanations.

Either that or you're distorting what you did read. I'm really not inclined to analyze it.

Most of the other stuff you posted is repetition of the same arguments over and over. I get it. I understand what you're saying. I have very serious doubts about whether you understand me with all these game you're playing but maybe you do and are pretending not to. I dunno. You want to look down on me and all that because of how I parent my kids or, how I WOULD parent my kids, go ahead. I think it's interesting how many times you fell back on the excuse "Well, we WERE just talking hypothetically" as a way to justify the silliness of telling me how to raise kids when you've never had any, and yet suggest that my kids are only the way they are because of some insidious subconscious controlling tendency of mine that has already locked them into their 'gender roles' (Cue thunderclap.)

I have not, anywhere in this thread, suggested that your kids are the way they are because of a controlling tendency in you - insidious or otherwise. You said that they naturally fell into certain gender norms, and I took you completely at your word on that. Many people do, so I see no reason to believe that your children in particular didn't.

Hence the reason that I have been speaking of the hypothetical situation in which you had a child that did not naturally conform to those norms.

So you flipflop between hypothetical and reality, depending on whether you need to go on the attack or dodge a counterpoint.

It isn't cute. And ultimately it makes you come off rather snobbish. (Not being snarky. Just sayin') You want to judge me? Go ahead. I really don't care because as I said my results speak for themselves. I'd like to see you do better.

Your constant accusations to the contrary, I have said nothing about your actual grown children, other than to ask what you would have done if they had been different. They weren't different, so this is clearly and has been - the entire time - clearly in the realm of the hypothetical. I'm not sure why you feel such a strong need to make it about your actual children, when you've personally made it clear that the discussion doesn't apply to them.

It's like the following;
Me: Suppose your brother had X trait, how would you react?
You: He doesn't.
Me: Ok, but what if he did?
You: I'd do blah blah blah.
Me: I don't think that would be a good idea. I think it would be harmful to him.
You: Why are you saying I harmed my brother? I never did!
Me: Um...I'm not. I'm talking about what you say you would have done under different circumstances.
You: Stop saying I harmed my brother! How dare you say I harmed my brother?
Me: I'm not, and I didn't.
You: Yes you are and you're being snobby.
Me: ???

If you need it to be otherwise so that you can accuse me of being snobbish or whatever, I'm sorry that reality doesn't match your needs. The truth of the matter is that I have said nothing about the way you raised your grown children. I have not accused you of being a bad parent. I have not said anything about the emotional health of your actual children or how they turned out. You have clearly read all of that into what I have said, but that is hardly my fault.

This one was particularly noteworthy because it made me laugh:

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, my gawd...


Whether you realize it or not, you do consistently accuse me of saying far, far more than I have by assigning emotional values to words that I don't assign such values to. And when I point out the actual definition of the words, you continue to accuse.

This is different from something that I do - which is to assign emotional value that you may or may not assign to actions. If we disagree on the merits of a particular action, it makes sense that we will also have different emotional reactions to it. I do have an emotional reaction to things I view as sexist. You may disagree with me that they are sexist, and I'm willing to have that discussion, but it isn't the same as refusing to take plain English sentences at face value. We don't disagree on the action under discussion - just on its advisability and effects.

You, on the other hand, pick out random words or phrases, for instance "impose" and tell me that I mean something more emotional by them, despite the fact that there is nothing in their definition to require such emotion. I never know what words or phrases you're going to do it with, and you derail the discussion by going on and on about emotional baggage that you assign to my words.

Who doesnt have an agenda these days?

Homophobes/fear mongers/war hawks/blind sheep...all the same people, and I also consider myself better than them...

But, I had Action Figures, Army Men, and Dolls and Barbies, cause me and my sister prettymuch pooled all our toys when we were little...

We had some pretty creative Hero/Heroine stories i think, lol...

That was before she hated my guts of course, join the sheep she did :( lol...or maybe i just left the sheep? thats a toughy philosophical question that is, lol

I have not, anywhere in this thread, suggested that your kids are the way they are because of a controlling tendency in you - insidious or otherwise. You said that they naturally fell into certain gender norms, and I took you completely at your word on that. Many people do, so I see no reason to believe that your children in particular didn't.

Really? Nowhere?


Homophobia isn't the only form of bigotry. In this case, I'd say that sexism is a more appropriate label. You fear that your children might not fit into whatever molds you have decided are right for boys or girls, respectively. They might *gasp* be individuals with their own preferences that may or may not match your preconceived notions! And if your children don't happen to fit that mold, you'll just try and shove them into it. None of this nonsense about your children actually being themselves.

Go ahead. Tell me how this is one of those hypotheticals. It kinda starts out that way, but by the end you're all but accusing me of lobotomizing them.


Hence the reason that I have been speaking of the hypothetical situation in which you had a child that did not naturally conform to those norms.


Sometimes.


Your constant accusations to the contrary, I have said nothing about your actual grown children, other than to ask what you would have done if they had been different. They weren't different, so this is clearly and has been - the entire time - clearly in the realm of the hypothetical. I'm not sure why you feel such a strong need to make it about your actual children, when you've personally made it clear that the discussion doesn't apply to them.

Aha but as you've made clear, not only in the above quote but others like it, you've accused me of being controlling, power tripping, dominant, etc. So how can that NOT be about my kids as they ARE and not hypothetically?


It's like the following;
Me: Suppose your brother had X trait, how would you react?
You: He doesn't.
Me: Ok, but what if he did?
You: I'd do blah blah blah.
Me: I don't think that would be a good idea. I think it would be harmful to him.
You: Why are you saying I harmed my brother? I never did!
Me: Um...I'm not. I'm talking about what you say you would have done under different circumstances.
You: Stop saying I harmed my brother! How dare you say I harmed my brother?
Me: I'm not, and I didn't.
You: Yes you are and you're being snobby.
Me: ???

Yeah that's real nice but since we're writing scripts I prefer something a little more honest.

You: Suppose your brother had X trait, how would you react?
Me: He doesn't.
You: Ok, but what if he did?
Me: I'd do blah blah blah.
You: I don't think that would be a good idea. I think it would be harmful to him.
Me: I disagree.
You: You can disagree if you want but you're still wrong and a bigot
Me: No... I simply have a different point of view.
You: Well that point of view is of a control freak who won't let your kids be who they are
Me: My kids grew up fine, thank you.
You: Well I was just being hypothetical...
Me: Not when you accused me of being a control freak and a bigot.
You: But I was always being hypothetical!!!!!
Me: *cough*bullshit*cough*


You know, there was a time when I'd have been willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on that but all too often I've seen you move the goalposts when you get painted into a corner. I've NEVER seen you admit making a mistake however blatantly one was made, and before you try the "I'm rubber you're glue" argument, I DO admit it when I mess up.


If you need it to be otherwise so that you can accuse me of being snobbish or whatever, I'm sorry that reality doesn't match your needs. The truth of the matter is that I have said nothing about the way you raised your grown children. I have not accused you of being a bad parent. I have not said anything about the emotional health of your actual children or how they turned out. You have clearly read all of that into what I have said, but that is hardly my fault.

Izzat so?


Meanwhile, you claimed above that you don't do what Neesika was talking about. Your answer here demonstrates that the only reason you don't do it is that your children haven't pushed your boundaries. If they happened to fall outside of your preconceived gender norms, you would do exactly what Neesika is talking about.



Homophobia isn't the only form of bigotry. In this case, I'd say that sexism is a more appropriate label. You fear that your children might not fit into whatever molds you have decided are right for boys or girls, respectively. They might *gasp* be individuals with their own preferences that may or may not match your preconceived notions! And if your children don't happen to fit that mold, you'll just try and shove them into it. None of this nonsense about your children actually being themselves.


So you think the world is a better place when people are looked down upon and asked to change when they are simply expressing their own identities in a way that harms no one?

You think it is better to make it clear to your child that you will not accept him for who he is and that he must change to please yo, rather than to celebrate him as he is?

You think the best situation is to arbitrarily pick "male" and "female" things and then enforce that standard just because you need a standard to enforce?

Before you respond, I ask you to think carefully about how those would sound directed toward YOU. I'd suggest reading them from their original context too, and I did paste the link in the quote tag so it'll be easy.


Whether you realize it or not, you do consistently accuse me of saying far, far more than I have by assigning emotional values to words that I don't assign such values to. And when I point out the actual definition of the words, you continue to accuse.

Know why that is? Because when you respond it's not in the form of "I think we have a misunderstanding here, let me clarify." It sound smore like "Well this is how I mean it so I can't think of any earthy reason why you'd think I meant something else..." This is what you did when I called you out for accusing me of bigotry. That's a nasty word and rather than take an open and neutral approach when I reacted, you started to justify it, almost sounding like I'm supposed to apologize for not thanking you for calling me a bigot.


This is different from something that I do - which is to assign emotional value that you may or may not assign to actions. If we disagree on the merits of a particular action, it makes sense that we will also have different emotional reactions to it. I do have an emotional reaction to things I view as sexist. You may disagree with me that they are sexist, and I'm willing to have that discussion, but it isn't the same as refusing to take plain English sentences at face value. We don't disagree on the action under discussion - just on its advisability and effects.


I agree with the sentiment of this paragraph, but I wonder if you realize that I could just as easily say the same thing back to you word for word, because there are a number of occasions where I've said something to you in a plain English sentence and somehow it doesn't get through.


You, on the other hand, pick out random words or phrases, for instance "impose" and tell me that I mean something more emotional by them, despite the fact that there is nothing in their definition to require such emotion. I never know what words or phrases you're going to do it with, and you derail the discussion by going on and on about emotional baggage that you assign to my words.

That would be a valid argument IF you acknowledged that whole issue of emotional meaning at the time it happens. To wait this long is to look like damage control. If you said 'impose' once, then no problem. When you say 'impose gender norms' like 5 times in the same post in the exact same way each time, it starts to sound like a mantra, and repetition is a rhetorical strategy. If you say something to a person, and they react strongly, then why not just make the correction right away instead of waiting a few pages? This way, it looks like spin.

And frankly, I'm not sure I'd believe it isn't.

I admit it. It's completely true.

It thrills me to no end when a little boy asks to have his face painted like a princess. "I'll make you the prettiest princess evah!" I say, only to hear his mom cajoling him to get soldier face paint, or perhaps a tiger.

I teach my girls that "boys kiss girls, girls kiss girls and boys kiss boys". That's right, I indoctrinate them the same way pretty much everyone does to their kids...I simply think my indoctrination is better.

It's not merely a gay agenda mind you. I encourage gender blending, I encourage the natural disinterest with gender roles that children seem to be born with, before being stuffed into a pretty pink or blue box for life.

I'm clear about my biases. I think homophobes are ugly, small-minded fools. I think people who force gender roles onto their kids 'no Tommy, dolls are for GIRLS!' are ugly, small-minded fools. Yes. I think I'm better than them.

So what's your agenda?

Yet it has been proven gender roles are inbuilt rather than indoctrinated as you put it.
You belive your opinon is stronget then years of research and hard proof.
Whos small minded now?

Yet it has been proven gender roles are inbuilt rather than indoctrinated as you put it.
You belive your opinon is stronget then years of research and hard proof.
Whos small minded now?Sources?
(If it's proven, you should be able to find more than one.)

Sources?
(If it's proven, you should be able to find more than one.)

And the number of sources required will always be (n+1) where n is the number you actually post. :p

And the number of sources required will always be (n+1) where n is the number you actually post. :pHeh. Nah, 2 or 3 would be fine. If the poster had said "it's been suggested that..." only once source would be needed for a suggestion. But "proven" is a stronger word than "suggested", so more information would be needed. Do you not agree?

Heh. Nah, 2 or 3 would be fine. If the poster had said "it's been suggested that..." only once source would be needed for a suggestion. But "proven" is a stronger word than "suggested", so more information would be needed. Do you not agree?

Yes I do. I just couldn't resist.

I can't give you a link to my observations, personal experiences and the myriad of articles I've read over the years. The way I see it, anybody who's really interested in this stuff can find all that easily on their own, and so there's not much advantage in my Googling random articles to provide a link when you'd do exactly the same.

So that would be simply no sources to back up your implied argument that gender blending causes behavioral disorders? Nothing except your anecdotes which seem to focus solely on boys who act effeminate. I find it interesting that your anecdotal evidence completely misses hypermasculinity in boys, or any problems with girls at all. Is it because boys who act like caricatures of boys, with all the aggresiveness and violence implied, are not seen as having behavioural problems?

The fact that you only focus on one aspect of gender bending and behavioural disorders implies a certain bias in interpreting data. In other words, I get the feeling that you see what you want to see, which is why you don't see a problem with hypermasculinity, hyperfeminity, or girls acting like boys.

Let me ask you this question, for the sake of argument. Are social pressures ALWAYS bad? ALWAYS good?

Not at all. Socialisation is how we teach children not to hit each other, how to live in cooperation with other, and how to function in society. That is why we call it socialisation. Now, since gender identity is an individual choice and doesn't affect anyone except the individual, I see no reason why socialisation should trump individual expression in this regard. Do you have any evidence to suggest that allowing my children to decide their own gender identity would negatively impact society?

Can you imagine how a child with vague notions of male and female would have a difficult time integrating into a group of kids who behave as typical boys and girls do?

I like the way you phrased it as 'typical' boys and girls. I spend a lot of time among kids aged 2 to 9. Every one of them behaves 'atypically' in one way or another. Many of them grew up with a minimum of traditional gender socialisation. They should be at each other's throats constantly, if your hypothesis is correct. Since they are not, one can only surmise that your hypothesis is either wholly incorrect or in need of revision.

Yes, although when you use the word 'restricting' you paint a picture that isn't really a genuine portrayal of what's going on here. There's a difference between 'restriction' and 'guidance.'

Rather than get into a semantic debate with you, I would rather know why you think restricting or guiding your kid's choices over issues that do not affect their well-being or anyone else's would actually be good for their confidence.

So that would be simply no sources to back up your implied argument that gender blending causes behavioral disorders? Nothing except your anecdotes which seem to focus solely on boys who act effeminate. I find it interesting that your anecdotal evidence completely misses hypermasculinity in boys, or any problems with girls at all. Is it because boys who act like caricatures of boys, with all the aggresiveness and violence implied, are not seen as having behavioural problems?



I can't give you a link to my observations, personal experiences and the myriad of articles I've read over the years. The way I see it, anybody who's really interested in this stuff can find all that easily on their own, and so there's not much advantage in my Googling random articles to provide a link when you'd do exactly the same.

See, this is why I get frustrated with these debates. You say "no sources" when I told you what my sources were. So I didn't post links. BFD. The Internet wasn't my original source in the first place. I said if you want links then you'd be just as good at finding some as I would be. Again, I had none off the top of my head because that's not where it came from. If you want to criticize me over not supplying links then just say "you have no links." Just be intellectually honest. What are you afraid of?

Yet it has been proven gender roles are inbuilt rather than indoctrinated as you put it.
You belive your opinon is stronget then years of research and hard proof.
Whos small minded now?

Still the parents, really.
If gender roles are inbuilt, no amount of telling a boy not to dress as a princess will ever change his gender identity to "more manly". It would only confuse the child.
You might as well do as Neeskia does and let them have the sparkly face paint.

See, this is why I get frustrated with these debates. You say "no sources" when I told you what my sources were. So I didn't post links. BFD. The Internet wasn't my original source in the first place. I said if you want links then you'd be just as good at finding some as I would be. Again, I had none off the top of my head because that's not where it came from. If you want to criticize me over not supplying links then just say "you have no links." Just be intellectually honest. What are you afraid of?

You want me to accept your anecdotes as true, i.e that they provide evidence that allowing gender bending in childhood activities will lead to behavioural disorders.

You provided one story. One. That anecdote of yours did not even show the sort of causal relationship that you claims exists. I even explained how your 'sources' may be suspect because of a possible bias in your interpretation.

Let me put it this way: you seem to have no objective support for your claim that gender bending in childhood causes behavioural disorders. So it's not just a question of you having no links. It's a question of you having no evidence.

You want me to accept your anecdotes as true, i.e that they provide evidence that allowing gender bending in childhood activities will lead to behavioural disorders.

You provided one story. One. That anecdote of yours did not even show the sort of causal relationship that you claims exists. I even explained how your 'sources' may be suspect because of a possible bias in your interpretation.

Let me put it this way: you seem to have no objective support for your claim that gender bending in childhood causes behavioural disorders. So it's not just a question of you having no links. It's a question of you having no evidence.

Here's what's being missed. I said I had resources x, y and z and your response was to suggest I had *NO* basis whatsoever.

Let's be realistic here. I wrote out one anecdote. So what? Do you honestly think I expected to change anybody's mind with it? I offered it as an example to illustrate a point I was making, not to prove anything.

This is why I generally don't post links or go into those kinds of details. This is an Internet forum for opinionated people. This is recreation. Nobody's being graded, nobody's getting paid. I believe in what I believe in for reasons that aren't always possible to clarify in this environment. I'm perfectly comfortable with that. On some level in any debate we have to extend some level of benefit of the doubt. Some people do so generously, some not at all. At the end of the day the only result of taking this crap too seriously is a bad mood and a headache.

You want to disbelieve the veracity of my experiences and study? Go ahead. It's truly not worth my time (and I hope yours) to go into some kind of bibliographical orgasm beyond the link that was provided at the beginning of the thread. If I happen to find a link that refers to the study I read about those years ago I'll post it for the curious, but do I expect to change anybody's mind with it? Of course not.

So what does that leave us with? Opinions. Observations. Credibility. If I don't have any cred with you then don't criticize me for being unable to convince you of anything. (Frankly none of us should have too much cred for any other whom we don't know personally. At the end of the day every one of us is just a screen name and a profile.)

Bottom Line: My personal study and observations lead me to conclude that failing to provide guidance to children in 'gender bending' related issues can and generally does lead to problems with self identity and esteem later on. I raise my children accordingly.

And to be honest, I don't even care how Neesika or you or anybody else raises their kids. It's not my business. I think at the end of the day we're all vindicated or condemned by the results we produce. I have a problem with people presuming to tell me I'm a bad parent or that I am some kind of bigot or whatever for the simple crime of daring to think for myself and as a result, drawing conclusions that differ from theirs. I think to make such criticism is arrogant and frankly I think it demonstrates a lack of conviction on the part of the criticizer. (Is that a word?)

Deal with that as you will. We can either reach an understanding on this or we won't. Either way a bunch of links to a bunch of websites of varying degrees of validity isn't going to have an impact one way or the other.

...You want to disbelieve the veracity of my experiences and study? Go ahead. It's truly not worth my time (and I hope yours) to go into some kind of bibliographical orgasm beyond the link that was provided at the beginning of the thread. If I happen to find a link that refers to the study I read about those years ago I'll post it for the curious, but do I expect to change anybody's mind with it? Of course not.

So what does that leave us with? Opinions. Observations. Credibility. If I don't have any cred with you then don't criticize me for being unable to convince you of anything. (Frankly none of us should have too much cred for any other whom we don't know personally. At the end of the day every one of us is just a screen name and a profile.)......Either way a bunch of links to a bunch of websites of varying degrees of validity isn't going to have an impact one way or the other.

To be honest, I do expect you to change your mind.

Before this thread, you thought that you actually had objective evidence and reasons for believing what you do about gender bending and behaviour problems. When I asked you to provide examples of such, you were unable to. Doesn't this seem odd to you? Doesn't this make you question your beliefs even a little bit?

I looked for sources too. There was alot of information on how psychiatrists view gender bending as a behavioural disorder, but none showing a causative link between one and the other.

http://www.brighttots.com/Behavioral_disorders.html
http://www.cureresearch.com/b/behavioral_disorders/causes.htm
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/b/behavioral_disorders/child-causes.htm
http://mhawestchester.org/diagnosechild/cbehavior.asp
http://www.adhd.com.au/conduct.html

All of those discuss causes of behavioural disorders. None mention gender identity issues.

I wouldn't say that I disbelieve the veracity of your claims. I think you honestly believe that you saw what you thought you saw. But I think you saw what you wanted to see. The reason I believe this is because I can find no independent corroboration of your claims.

Now, I'm claiming that allowing a child to explore non-traditional gender roles is a perfectly normal and healthy thing. I never believed I had any objective evidence for such a stance, but now that we're on the subject...

As part of the process of normal gender identity in the family, young children will often try out a variety of sex role behaviors as they learn to make the fine distinctions between masculine and feminine roles. Some young boys occasionally perform behaviors that our culture traditionally has recognized as feminine, such as wearing a dress, using cosmetics or play acting the roles of bearing and nursing infants. Similarly, many young girls will occasionally assume a masculine role- pretending to be "daddy" while playing house, or temporarily adopting a cluster of masculine behaviors which leads to the social designation of "tomboy." This type of temporary and episodic exploration of cross-sex- typed behaviors is typical of many boys and girls and usually constitutes a learning experience in the process of normal sex role socialization (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974, Mischel, 1970; Serbin, 1980).

http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/rekers.html

So, it looks like medical science agrees with me. So I'm glad we discussed this NB. It gave me the opportunity to objectively analyse the information available about gender identity and behavioural disorders, and I also was able to confirm my own beliefs with independent corroboration.

Unless you know something that would cause me to change my mind?

To be honest, I do expect you to change your mind.

Before this thread, you thought that you actually had objective evidence and reasons for believing what you do about gender bending and behaviour problems. When I asked you to provide examples of such, you were unable to. Doesn't this seem odd to you? Doesn't this make you question your beliefs even a little bit?

I must have missed something... At what point do you think I ceased to have objective reasons?


I looked for sources too. There was alot of information on how psychiatrists view gender bending as a behavioural disorder, but none showing a causative link between one and the other.

http://www.brighttots.com/Behavioral_disorders.html
http://www.cureresearch.com/b/behavioral_disorders/causes.htm
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/b/behavioral_disorders/child-causes.htm
http://mhawestchester.org/diagnosechild/cbehavior.asp
http://www.adhd.com.au/conduct.html

All of those discuss causes of behavioural disorders. None mention gender identity issues.

And?


I wouldn't say that I disbelieve the veracity of your claims. I think you honestly believe that you saw what you thought you saw. But I think you saw what you wanted to see. The reason I believe this is because I can find no independent corroboration of your claims.


Okay. And this would matter to me if I had been trying to change your mind. As I wasn't, it doesn't.


Now, I'm claiming that allowing a child to explore non-traditional gender roles is a perfectly normal and healthy thing. I never believed I had any objective evidence for such a stance, but now that we're on the subject...


I noticed in your quote that it talks about exploring gender roles. For the sake of consistency I wonder if any of those people who were bashing over me because of my apparent draconian idea that gender roles exist will swoop in and point this out.

But I won't be holding my breath.


So, it looks like medical science agrees with me. So I'm glad we discussed this NB. It gave me the opportunity to objectively analyse the information available about gender identity and behavioural disorders, and I also was able to confirm my own beliefs with independent corroboration.

Unless you know something that would cause me to change my mind?

Good for you. You have a source that says what you wanted it to say. It doesn't override the information and research I've read, so I hope you're not waiting for me to change my mind.

Oh but wait, you probably want to insist that these sources I refer to don't exist, don't you?

I must have missed something... At what point do you think I ceased to have objective reasons?

And?

Okay. And this would matter to me if I had been trying to change your mind. As I wasn't, it doesn't.

I noticed in your quote that it talks about exploring gender roles. For the sake of consistency I wonder if any of those people who were bashing over me because of my apparent draconian idea that gender roles exist will swoop in and point this out.

But I won't be holding my breath.

Good for you. You have a source that says what you wanted it to say. It doesn't override the information and research I've read, so I hope you're not waiting for me to change my mind.

Oh but wait, you probably want to insist that these sources I refer to don't exist, don't you?

You don't have any objective reasons for believing what you do, as far as I can tell. Perhpas I misunderstood. Could you clarify what they are?

I thought at first that you had read studies that linked gender bending and behaviour problems. I was unable to find any. I thought you had witnessed experiences that showed such a relationship. You have not recounted any. Thsese sources may exist, but I don't know what they are. I cannot judge their veracity.

Let's try a different approach, shall we? It is my belief that allowing children to experiment with nontraditional gender roles is beneficial to them. Do you have any indication that I would be wrong?

Good for you. You have a source that says what you wanted it to say. It doesn't override the information and research I've read, so I hope you're not waiting for me to change my mind.

Oh but wait, you probably want to insist that these sources I refer to don't exist, don't you?
Since you haven't shown anything, yes indeed, the default assumption would be that the sources refer to don't actually exist.

Since you haven't shown anything, yes indeed, the default assumption would be that the sources refer to don't actually exist.

Yes, yes of course. I'm lying! Isn't that much easier than the alternative? There, now you can snuggle back down in your comfort zone.

Yes, yes of course. I'm lying! Isn't that much easier than the alternative? There, now you can snuggle back down in your comfort zone.

Would you prefer it if people just accepted everything they were told without being able to examine the source ? That someone saying "I have a source" would be enough to convince everyone ?

Remember that I have a source that says your mother was a hamster and that your father smelled of elderberries.

You don't have any objective reasons for believing what you do, as far as I can tell. Perhpas I misunderstood. Could you clarify what they are?

Sure, this is only the third time, man... But somehow it just never gets old.

I can't give you a link to my observations, personal experiences and the myriad of articles I've read over the years.

Maybe it's my faulty assumption at work here. You seem to keep ignoring what I've said my sources were and demand a link so obviously, there's a way I can find a link to some paper magazine articles I've read. There's clearly a link that leads to the whole of some of the college coursework I've done. I guess it's just one of the buttons in the control panel I'm missing... The link button still expects a URL. Hm. Maybe you can help me by showing me how to do a link to a few of the observations I've made. Yeah.


I thought at first that you had read studies that linked gender bending and behaviour problems. I was unable to find any.

So... *ALL* studies have websites?


I thought you had witnessed experiences that showed such a relationship. You have not recounted any.


Buh???
Are you serious? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13796938&postcount=242)



Thsese sources may exist, but I don't know what they are. I cannot judge their veracity.

Oh but you seem to have judged them quite thoroughly. You've said repeatedly that they don't exist simply because I can't link them, so how can you say you're not judging?



Let's try a different approach, shall we? It is my belief that allowing children to experiment with nontraditional gender roles is beneficial to them. Do you have any indication that I would be wrong?

How is rephrasing the point of contention a different approach?

Would you prefer it if people just accepted everything they were told without being able to examine the source ?

Remember that I have a source that says your mother was a hamster and that your father smelled of elderberries.

There's a difference between saying "Well, I can't really put much stock in that since you can't source it."

and

"You refuse to link it thus you're lying/stupid/self-delusional and I refuse to allow for even the possibility that there might be something worth discussing."

There's a difference between saying "Well, I can't really put much stock in that since you can't source it."

and

"You refuse to link it thus you're lying/stupid/self-delusional and I refuse to allow for even the possibility that there might be something worth discussing."

Aside from the fact that one is polite and one isn't, the argument boils down to the same thing. If one cannot or refuses to show the source, it must be assumed to not exist.

Maybe it's my faulty assumption at work here. You seem to keep ignoring what I've said my sources were and demand a link so obviously, there's a way I can find a link to some paper magazine articles I've read. There's clearly a link that leads to the whole of some of the college coursework I've done. I guess it's just one of the buttons in the control panel I'm missing... The link button still expects a URL. Hm. Maybe you can help me by showing me how to do a link to a few of the observations I've made. Yeah.

Okay, so don't provide links, then. Provide titles. What books did you read in your college coursework that supported your assertions? What magazines were the articles in?

Aside from the fact that one is polite and one isn't, the argument boils down to the same thing. If one cannot or refuses to show the source, it must be assumed to not exist.

If this were some kind of formal academic research collaboration or if we were being graded on the result, I'd agree with you. But it's like I said before, this is all just fluff. Sure, you can refuse to discuss something on the grounds that it's unsourced, but more often than not I find people using a demand for a source as a mechanism to shut down their opponent.

I mean, think about it. How many of us are experts in the fields we talk about. Are you a child psychologist? I'm not. At the end of the day we're all just a bunch of armchair quarterbacks pretending to know a helluvalot more than we do. That's the reality nobody seems to have the balls to admit. That's why sourcing doesn't work even when people do it. How often do you see someone provide a link that actually gets read and makes an impact? Not very. I can't even think of an example.

And even when sources start flying, they don't matter because almost everybody seems to have an exit strategy. "Well if they link to some kind of religious group study I can dismiss it on the grounds that I'll just assume it can't be objective" Or "I'll ignore the results of their link because it was probably just done by some groupthink atheist scientists anyway."

Please. Maybe I sound a little jaded, and if so I apologize, but it just strikes me as silly how often people want to be taken seriously when they're not prepared to take anyone else (who doesn't agree with them) seriously.

Okay, so don't provide links, then. Provide titles. What books did you read in your college coursework that supported your assertions? What magazines were the articles in?

How many magazines and books that you read 10 or more years ago are still in easy reach for you?

If this were some kind of formal academic research collaboration or if we were being graded on the result, I'd agree with you. But it's like I said before, this is all just fluff. Sure, you can refuse to discuss something on the grounds that it's unsourced, but more often than not I find people using a demand for a source as a mechanism to shut down their opponent.

And you can respond by offering those sources. That your oppponent will probably not bother to go to the library is not your problem - you can in fact use that to shut *them* up.

How many magazines and books that you read 10 or more years ago are still in easy reach for you?

I don't believe I suggested you find an actual physical copy of the books and mail them to us, so I'm not sure how it's being in "easy reach" is relevant. You apparently remember your sources well enough to consider them authorities, so I would presume that you also remember something to substantiate their existence.

Yes, yes of course. I'm lying!
More likely is that the articles you read did not actually say anything like what you have talked yourself into remembering that they said.
Isn't that much easier than the alternative?
The alternative is that people who actually do quote their sources are lying or misconstruing, but we see that this is not so. Your claim was that anyone who did a literature search would easily find articles confirming your point, but the fact is, everyone who actually does the literature search easily finds articles pointing in the opposite direction.

[responding to Gift of God] I thought you had witnessed experiences that showed such a relationship. You have not recounted any.

Buh???
Are you serious?
You link to a post talking about a boy who is forced to play with dolls although he doesn't want to. This, from our point of view, is obviously just as bad as, in fact essentially the same as, forcing a boy to play with trucks when he doesn't want to.
Your claim is that letting unusual kids be as they are is harmful to them. This seems so obviously the direct opposite of truth that we would all like some substantiation for such a claim, if you have any. Strong claims require strong evidence.

there's a way I can find a link to some paper magazine articles I've read
In the case of printed materials, the proper way to cite is to give the title of the article, name of the author (or first name and "et al." if by a lengthy list of authors), volume number or date of issue, and page number. If it is a proper peer-reviewed journal, anyone who is interested should be able to find it in an adequate university library.

Sure, this is only the third time, man... But somehow it just never gets old....How is rephrasing the point of contention a different approach?

It's a different approach because we are no longer debating your opinion. I tried to find support for your idea, as you seemed unwilling to present any. I was unable to find any. I have pointed out the flaws in your logic, and why your anecdote doesn't say what you think it says. There is nothing left to discuss, as far as I can see.

Now we're going to talk about mine. I let my kids do what they want in terms of gender roles. I don't guide them in any way. I believe this causes them to be more independent and confident in terms of defining themselves. If I am correct, then I should be able to find independent corroboration of such a belief.

So I google it, I do the research, and what do I find?

While there may be some benefit to adhering to strict gender role stereotypes (i.e., providing a sense of security, facilitating decision making), there are also costs involved in the maintenance of gender role stereotypes. These costs include limiting opportunities for both boys and girls, ignoring talent, and perpetuating unfairness in our society (Beal, 1994). Parents who espouse an egalitarian attitude regarding gender roles are more likely to foster this attitude in their children. Androgynous individuals have been found to have higher self esteem (Lundy & Rosenberg, 1987; Shaw, 1983, Heilbrun, 1981), higher levels of identity achievement (Orlofsky, 1977), and more flexibility in dating and love relationships (DeLucia, 1987).

Children who have parents with strong egalitarian values tend to be more knowledgeable about nonsex-typed objects and occupations than other children (Weisner & Wilson-Mitchell, 1990). Children whose mothers work outside the home are not as traditional in sex role orientation as children whose mothers stay home (Weinraub, Jaeger, & Hoffman, 1988). In fact, preschool children whose mothers work outside the home experience the world with a sense that everyone in the family gets to become a member of the outside world, and their sense of self includes the knowledge that they have the ability to make choices which are not hindered by gender (Davies & Banks, 1992).

Families with one or more androgynous parent (i.e., a mom who repairs the family car or a dad who bakes cookies for the PTA meeting) have been found to be highest on scores of parental warmth and support. These androgynous parents are found to be highly encouraging regarding achievement and developing a sense of self worth in sons and daughters (Sedney, 1987; Spence & Helmreich, 1980). Because of the strong influence of parents on gender role socialization, those parents who wish to be gender fair and encourage the best in both their sons and their daughters would do well to adopt an androgynous gender role orientation and encourage the same in their children.

http://gozips.uakron.edu/~susan8/parinf.htm

Scientific method as applied to parenting FTW.

And you can respond by offering those sources. That your oppponent will probably not bother to go to the library is not your problem - you can in fact use that to shut *them* up.

That's the thing. I don't WANT to shut anybody up. I want to talk. I want to discuss. I want to learn from people. Wanting to shut people up is what happens in a pissing match which, admittedly I allow myself to be drawn into frequently, is not my purpose for being here.

Why is everybody on an ego trip?

I don't believe I suggested you find an actual physical copy of the books and mail them to us, so I'm not sure how it's being in "easy reach" is relevant. You apparently remember your sources well enough to consider them authorities, so I would presume that you also remember something to substantiate their existence.

If I say "I read it in an issue of Time somewhere around 2003" Someone will say "well you need to source the exact issue"

Screw that. I have an eidetic memory for music but not for magazine titles and issue numbers. Sue me.

More likely is that the articles you read did not actually say anything like what you have talked yourself into remembering that they said.

Really? And what do you base that on, other than your personal gripe with me?


The alternative is that people who actually do quote their sources are lying or misconstruing, but we see that this is not so. Your claim was that anyone who did a literature search would easily find articles confirming your point, but the fact is, everyone who actually does the literature search easily finds articles pointing in the opposite direction.

Ah yes, and those people are really quite objective, aren't they?


You link to a post talking about a boy who is forced to play with dolls although he doesn't want to. This, from our point of view, is obviously just as bad as, in fact essentially the same as, forcing a boy to play with trucks when he doesn't want to.

"Forced to play with dolls although he doesn't want to", huh? I didn't write that. There's a handy link back to that post in my last reply to GoG. Go take a look.

I said he was encouraged to play with toys of both sexes.


Your claim is that letting unusual kids be as they are is harmful to them. This seems so obviously the direct opposite of truth that we would all like some substantiation for such a claim, if you have any. Strong claims require strong evidence.


That's actually not my claim, but since you've just proven a lack of reading comprehension I find it unsurprising that you got this wrong too.


In the case of printed materials, the proper way to cite is to give the title of the article, name of the author (or first name and "et al." if by a lengthy list of authors), volume number or date of issue, and page number. If it is a proper peer-reviewed journal, anyone who is interested should be able to find it in an adequate university library.

Like you'd look it up. But I'm supposed to waste my time digging through old magazines to satisfy you, whom I couldn't possibly care less about satisfying, knowing that nothing I do WOULD satisfy you, and you don't seem to read very well anyway.

Yeah, I'll get right on that.

It's a different approach because we are no longer debating your opinion. I tried to find support for your idea, as you seemed unwilling to present any. I was unable to find any. I have pointed out the flaws in your logic, and why your anecdote doesn't say what you think it says. There is nothing left to discuss, as far as I can see.


There's barely been a discussion about the issue you're enamored with here. 2 reasons:

1)It's mostly been about sourcing, which, if my reasoning on that is still unclear to you, then the chances of making it any clearer are prettymuch hopeless.

2)That was never my original point, as I've repeated ad nauseam in the thread and frankly, I'm pretty much sick of it.


Now we're going to talk about mine. I let my kids do what they want in terms of gender roles. I don't guide them in any way. I believe this causes them to be more independent and confident in terms of defining themselves. If I am correct, then I should be able to find independent corroboration of such a belief.

So I google it, I do the research, and what do I find?



http://gozips.uakron.edu/~susan8/parinf.htm

Scientific method as applied to parenting FTW.

No we're not, because I'm pretty satisfied with the results of my own experience and that's what I'll be relying on, thanks.

That's the thing. I don't WANT to shut anybody up. I want to talk. I want to discuss. I want to learn from people. Wanting to shut people up is what happens in a pissing match which, admittedly I allow myself to be drawn into frequently, is not my purpose for being here.

The persons with actual arguments will not be stumped by sources. Just the whiney little brats that contributed nothing worth reading anyway. No great loss in shutting them up.

Really? Nowhere?

Indeed. Nowhere.

Go ahead. Tell me how this is one of those hypotheticals. It kinda starts out that way, but by the end you're all but accusing me of lobotomizing them.

It was based in a discussion of enforcing gender norms - particularly in mode of dress - something you said you never did, because it didn't come up.

So, again, if you never actually had to enforce such rules, discussion of doing so can only be in the realm of the hypothetical.

Note the relevant portion here:

if your children don't happen to fit that mold

If. In other words, we're talking about what you would do if something else were true. That something was not true with your children. As such, we cannot be discussing them.

Suppose I said, "If your children were deaf....."

If your children are not deaf, then we clearly are not discussing them. We're discussing a hypothetical situation in which you did have a deaf child.

Aha but as you've made clear, not only in the above quote but others like it, you've accused me of being controlling, power tripping, dominant, etc. So how can that NOT be about my kids as they ARE and not hypothetically?

No, I've accused what you said you would do in a given situation as being controlling. There is a difference.

Suppose someone said, "If my neighbor put a political sign on his yard for , I would take it and burn it."

I might answer. "If you did that, it would be stealing and destruction of private property. And why the hell do you think you should bother with it anyways? He has the right to support whatever candidate he wants."

Would I be accusing the person of having stolen from his neighbors?

Yeah that's real nice but since we're writing scripts I prefer something a little more honest.

If it actually were honest, it might be useful. For instance:

You: You can disagree if you want but you're still wrong and a bigot

Perhaps you missed my post about the difference between pointing out that a viewpoint is bigoted and calling someone a bigot?

You: Well that point of view is of a control freak who won't let your kids be who they are
Me: My kids grew up fine, thank you.
You: Well I was just being hypothetical...
Me: Not when you accused me of being a control freak and a bigot.
You: But I was [I]always being hypothetical!!!!!
Me: *cough*bullshit*cough*

And here you demonstrate the fact that you aren't actually willing to have a discussion with me. You want me to be saying something different, so you're going to assume that I'm saying something different despite repeated clarifications.

You know, there was a time when I'd have been willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on that but all too often I've seen you move the goalposts when you get painted into a corner. I've NEVER seen you admit making a mistake however blatantly one was made, and before you try the "I'm rubber you're glue" argument, I DO admit it when I mess up.

As do I.

And while I might sometimes get caught up in the moment and fail to do so, I also generally take someone at their word when they clarify their meaning on something.

Before you respond, I ask you to think carefully about how those would sound directed toward YOU. I'd suggest reading them from their original context too, and I did paste the link in the quote tag so it'll be easy.

You have to take them out of the context of the discussion and ignore the "if" statements within them to come to the conclusion you are clinging to so tightly.

Know why that is? Because when you respond it's not in the form of "I think we have a misunderstanding here, let me clarify." It sound smore like "Well this is how I mean it so I can't think of any earthy reason why you'd think I meant something else..." This is what you did when I called you out for accusing me of bigotry. That's a nasty word and rather than take an open and neutral approach when I reacted, you started to justify it, almost sounding like I'm supposed to apologize for not thanking you for calling me a bigot.

Again, I never called you a bigot. I did point out that you hold a bigoted viewpoint, and I don't think that is some evil statement.

As I said earlier, I think everyone likely holds some bigoted viewpoints. I'm not going to apologize for pointing them out where I see them, because I don't see anything wrong with doing so.

I suppose I could say something like "You're treating people differently based on their sex without a biological basis for such treatment," just as I could respond to someone who would not hire a black man because of his ethnicity with "You're treating him differently based on his ethnicity without a biological basis for such treatment."

But let's be honest, my posts are already long enough and we have single words to describe such things. Why not use them?

I agree with the sentiment of this paragraph, but I wonder if you realize that I could just as easily say the same thing back to you word for word, because there are a number of occasions where I've said something to you in a plain English sentence and somehow it doesn't get through.

That particular paragraph wasn't about plain English statements. It was about emotional values applied to actions. You may describe an action that you have an emotionally positive or neutral reaction to, but that I have an emotionally negative reaction to. It doesn't mean that I've misunderstood the action you're describing. It means that I have a different viewpoint of the action itself.

That would be a valid argument IF you acknowledged that whole issue of emotional meaning at the time it happens. To wait this long is to look like damage control.

To wait how long? I addressed it in the very next post after you complained.

Now, going back and looking at it, I did apparently delete the statement where I pointed out that I think a parent must impose his will on a child in some situations. It may have better clarified the statement, so I'm sorry that I took it out. I tend to have such long posts that I go back and try and shorten them before posting (yes, that's right, these posts are often shortened before being posted :eek:). That's one piece that probably should have been left in.

If you said 'impose' once, then no problem. When you say 'impose gender norms' like 5 times in the same post in the exact same way each time, it starts to sound like a mantra, and repetition is a rhetorical strategy.

Or, you know, just a product of replying to a long post about a given topic. If we were talking about, say, stream of consciousness writing, I'd use the phrase "stream of consciousness" a lot (although, with that one, I'd probably abbreviate it, since it's a pain to type).

If you say something to a person, and they react strongly, then why not just make the correction right away instead of waiting a few pages? This way, it looks like spin.

I made the correction in the very next post after you complained about it. It was made in a frustrated manner, but it was there.

And frankly, I'm not sure I'd believe it isn't.

That doesn't surprise me. You've made it fairly clear that you aren't willing to accept anything other than the imaginary Dem in your head and the imaginary motives you've come up with.


Yet it has been proven gender roles are inbuilt rather than indoctrinated as you put it.

....except it hasn't. It has been shown that tendencies towards some gender roles occur without social conditioning.

Let's be realistic here. I wrote out one anecdote. So what? Do you honestly think I expected to change anybody's mind with it? I offered it as an example to illustrate a point I was making, not to prove anything.

The problem was that even your anecdote wasn't a relevant one. You told us of a boy who was pushed to play with traditionally feminine toys, not one who wanted to and was simply allowed to choose his own. As such, its relevance to what we are discussing was, at best, to demonstrate that such pushing causes problems - which is what we have been arguing, albeit about pushing in the opposite direction.

I noticed in your quote that it talks about exploring gender roles. For the sake of consistency I wonder if any of those people who were bashing over me because of my apparent draconian idea that gender roles exist will swoop in and point this out.

Well, if anyone was arguing that gender roles don't exist....

But even the person with the most extreme viewpoints on the nature of gender roles isn't going to argue that they don't exist. It is clear that they do. The questions are not "Do gender roles exist?" They are:

To what extent do gender roles come from social pressure, rather than anything innate?

If such roles truly are innate and tied to sex, why would enforcement ever be necessary? Wouldn't all children just naturally fall into them?

If all children do not naturally fall into such gender roles, is that a problem? Should we seek to correct it? Would doing so actually be a problem?

If I say "I read it in an issue of Time somewhere around 2003" Someone will say "well you need to source the exact issue"

Screw that. I have an eidetic memory for music but not for magazine titles and issue numbers. Sue me.


NB, I find it more than a little offensive when you tell me what my actions would be in hypothetical situations. You've done this several times in this discussion alone, and it's extraordinarily rude. Rather than pretending to have psychic powers that allow you to know exactly what other people will do in advance, how about you try actually addressing things that people have already said and done (like, you know, reasonably asking you for any information at all on your sources of information)? (And, as a matter of fact, I didn't expect you to be able to remember what particular issue of a given magazine you saw your articles in. "An article discussing studies of gender roles and child development in an issue of Time from somewhere around 2003" is enough for me to go search Time's archive. So, was there such an article in Time sometime around 2003?)

There's barely been a discussion about the issue you're enamored with here. 2 reasons:

1)It's mostly been about sourcing, which, if my reasoning on that is still unclear to you, then the chances of making it any clearer are prettymuch hopeless.

2)That was never my original point, as I've repeated ad nauseam in the thread and frankly, I'm pretty much sick of it.

If you have any further information beyond what you have already brought into this thread, then I'll look at it. But I,ve already looked at all your claims, anecdotes, explanations, etc., and I found nothing that supports your idea that children need to be guided in terms of gender socialisation.

No we're not, because I'm pretty satisfied with the results of my own experience and that's what I'll be relying on, thanks

Okay, so you don't want to show me your sources, and you don't want to discuss my opposite approach. So then why do you say things like this:

That's the thing. I don't WANT to shut anybody up. I want to talk. I want to discuss. I want to learn from people

So, what do you want to talk about?

I encourage the natural disinterest with gender roles that children seem to be born with...

This isn't accurate. Children *DO* naturally gravitate towards a particular gender. Little boys and little girls instinctively interact and socialize in different manners that fit within their developing gender roles. It doesn't have to be influenced by an outside source, either. Boys aren’t taught to play with trucks, and girls aren't taught to play with dolls. It just happens.

The persons with actual arguments will not be stumped by sources. Just the whiney little brats that contributed nothing worth reading anyway. No great loss in shutting them up.

That's true, but implicit in that is an acknowledgment of exactly my point.

"The persons with actual arguments will not be stumped by sources."

That being the case, they're of limited value.

So Dem, I originally went through to reply and when I got to the apology part I decided to go back through and re-write my post in a less aggressive manner as a way to both acknowledge that as well as see if it's not too late to build some kind of a bridge here.

Indeed. Nowhere.
It was based in a discussion of enforcing gender norms - particularly in mode of dress - something you said you never did, because it didn't come up.
So, again, if you never actually had to enforce such rules, discussion of doing so can only be in the realm of they hypothetical.
Note the relevant portion here:
If. In other words, we're talking about what you would do if something else were true. That something was not true with your children. As such, we cannot be discussing them.
Suppose I said, "If your children were deaf....."
If your children are not deaf, then we clearly are not discussing them. We're discussing a hypothetical situation in which you did have a deaf child.


Some of what you said back then was clearly hypothetical, some of it was not. My own arguments alternated between the hypothetical and the real by necessity. I can't say much about what my kids MIGHT have done the way I can conjecture what I would, but I can tell you all about what they DID do.


No, I've accused what you said you would do in a given situation as being controlling. There is a difference.
Suppose someone said, "If my neighbor put a political sign on his yard for , I would take it and burn it."
I might answer. "If you did that, it would be stealing and destruction of private property. And why the hell do you think you should bother with it anyways? He has the right to support whatever candidate he wants."
Would I be accusing the person of having stolen from his neighbors?


You evaluated me as needing to be in control, independently of any hypothetical scenario. That, I believe, was in conjunction with others who made character judgments against me based on what I said I would do, as opposed to what I have done.


If it actually were honest, it might be useful. For instance:


Do you really believe I'm being dishonest? Because if so, then let's just put this to rest here.


Perhaps you missed my post about the difference between pointing out that a viewpoint is bigoted and calling someone a bigot?


That doesn't work. Here's what that sounds like:
"The KKK isn't made up of bigots.... They just have bigoted opinions."


And here you demonstrate the fact that you aren't actually willing to have a discussion with me. You want me to be saying something different, so you're going to assume that I'm saying something different despite repeated clarifications.


Why is it that when *I* try to make clarifications people accuse me of moving the goalposts? Quid pro quo if you want me to accept that, then it's got to go both ways.


And while I might sometimes get caught up in the moment and fail to do so, I also generally take someone at their word when they clarify their meaning on something.

Not with me you don't.

There was a time when I would try to approach you in a conciliatory way because I could see your intelligence and I respected it. I knew we wouldn't see eye to eye but I figured it was still possible to at least maintain a polite if not friendly relationship. My hope for that is all but dead now. I've noticed you seem to have a very personal problem with me and I've said so before. (You denied it of course, and I didn't bring it up again so I could observe and see if I was, in fact, mistaken. That's the courtesy of more benefit of the doubt than you've ever shown me, I might add. All this time later, I do not think that I as wrong in the first place.)

In fact, when I've tried to clarify you've accused me of moving the goalposts. (hell, you did that in this very thread!) So at this point I feel I am showing you EXACTLY the same level of courtesy you've shown me.


You have to take them [i]out of the context of the discussion and ignore the "if" statements within them to come to the conclusion you are clinging to so tightly.


Here's how that comes across to me:

"If you plan to vote for Obama it's because you're a Tax&Spend Democrat"
"Hey! You can't call me that!"
"Well I said 'if'...."

Doesn't really help, does it?


Again, I never called you a bigot. I did point out that you hold a bigoted viewpoint, and I don't think that is some evil statement.


See above.


As I said earlier, I think everyone likely holds some bigoted viewpoints. I'm not going to apologize for pointing them out where I see them, because I don't see anything wrong with doing so.


Have you ever seen the movie "Only the Lonely" starring John Candy?


That particular paragraph wasn't about plain English statements. It was about emotional values applied to actions. You may describe an action that you have an emotionally positive or neutral reaction to, but that I have an emotionally negative reaction to. It doesn't mean that I've misunderstood the action you're describing. It means that I have a different viewpoint of the action itself.

I see. And you don't think that can cloud your objectivity?


To wait how long? I addressed it in the very next post after you complained.

Now, going back and looking at it, I did apparently delete the statement where I pointed out that I think a parent must impose his will on a child in some situations. It may have better clarified the statement, so I'm sorry that I took it out. I tend to have such long posts that I go back and try and shorten them before posting (yes, that's right, these posts are often shortened before being posted :eek:). That's one piece that probably should have been left in.

Alright fair enough. And I do appreciate that you're acknowledging this and I credit that... But please understand, this is the first time I've seen you do so.


Or, you know, just a product of replying to a long post about a given topic. If we were talking about, say, stream of consciousness writing, I'd use the phrase "stream of consciousness" a lot (although, with that one, I'd probably abbreviate it, since it's a pain to type).

Alright, but can you understand where if it's a phrase that comes across as inflammatory, repetition only makes it worse?

I'll give an example for the sake of being constructive. When you said earlier that I was "imposing gender norms" I took offense to the phrasing of it, and said so. 'Imposing' is just one of those words that's never nice, especially in a debate context. I don't see what I do in that way at all, but by the repeated use of the word, it comes across like when the mean kid on the school playground keeps coming up and poking you in the ribs. Does it do damage? No, not really. Is it annoying as hell? Yes.


I made the correction in the very next post after you complained about it. It was made in a frustrated manner, but it was there.


I think perhaps you and I both can use a cooldown period between answering each other's posts.


That doesn't surprise me. You've made it fairly clear that you aren't willing to accept anything other than the imaginary Dem in your head and the imaginary motives you've come up with.


I can see where you'd come to that conclusion. In fairness, can you see where I'm sitting here wondering where you got the devastatingly handsome yet totally assholish version of Neo B in yours?

NB, I find it more than a little offensive when you tell me what my actions would be in hypothetical situations. You've done this several times in this discussion alone, and it's extraordinarily rude. Rather than pretending to have psychic powers that allow you to know exactly what other people will do in advance, how about you try actually addressing things that people have already said and done (like, you know, reasonably asking you for any information at all on your sources of information)? (And, as a matter of fact, I didn't expect you to be able to remember what particular issue of a given magazine you saw your articles in. "An article discussing studies of gender roles and child development in an issue of Time from somewhere around 2003" is enough for me to go search Time's archive. So, was there such an article in Time sometime around 2003?)

I said "someone." I don't know what you'd do but you've surely been on this forum long enough to know that somebody will come along and say that.

Really? And what do you base that on, other than your personal gripe with me?
1) on your frequently demonstrated talent for reading what people write and re-imagining it into something the writer cannot recognize at all, and
2) the examples provided by others on this thread of what articles in the field actually read like

Ah yes, and those people are really quite objective, aren't they?
That's the whole point: we don't have to rely on their objectivity; since they have provided the research, we can look at it for ourselves and see what the research really says, and if that is not the same as what it is claimed that the research says, we can point that out.

In your case, we have no idea what articles you read, or what they actually said.

"Forced to play with dolls although he doesn't want to", huh? I didn't write that.
I did not put it in quote marks. You did say that his parents required him to play with toys from both genders. You did not say anything about the boy himself wanting to do so.

There's a handy link back to that post in my last reply to GoG. Go take a look.
I did.

I said he was encouraged to play with toys of both sexes.
And our side has been telling you that it is not right for the parents to be telling a kid what toys to play with. Leave that up to the kid.
That's actually not my claim, but since you've just proven a lack of reading comprehension I find it unsurprising that you got this wrong too.
Then what in God's name IS your claim???
Like you'd look it up.
Yes, in fact I would. I am hyper-nerdly that way.
But I'm supposed to waste my time digging through old magazines to satisfy you, whom I couldn't possibly care less about satisfying, knowing that nothing I do WOULD satisfy you, and you don't seem to read very well anyway.
Stop pretending you know anything about what I would or would not do.

This isn't accurate. Children *DO* naturally gravitate towards a particular gender.
Many do. Some don't. The question here is how to deal with those who do not.
Boys aren’t taught to play with trucks, and girls aren't taught to play with dolls. It just happens.
Sometimes. Sometimes not.

I said "someone." I don't know what you'd do but you've surely been on this forum long enough to know that somebody will come along and say that.

Perhaps "someone" will say that. So what? Why should that prevent you from answering me?

If you have any further information beyond what you have already brought into this thread, then I'll look at it. But I,ve already looked at all your claims, anecdotes, explanations, etc., and I found nothing that supports your idea that children need to be guided in terms of gender socialisation.


That's actually not what I said. In fact, if I'd said children NEED to be guided that would be an implicit acknowledgment that children have no instinctive sexual identity, which I do not hold to be true.


Okay, so you don't want to show me your sources, and you don't want to discuss my opposite approach. So then why do you say things like this:
So, what do you want to talk about?

Here's the thing, and I'm gonna say it again because I love to repeat myself. I must, because I keep doing it. All I want from you and from others on this thread is an acknowledgment that my point of view needn't be the same as theirs without automatically being labeled a bigot or homophobe. I'd REALLY like an acknowledgment that it can be valid, even though it disagrees. The coup de grace would be an acknowledgment that it's equally valid, but I'm not holding my breath.

And what's my point of view? Since it seems to have gotten lost on the shuffle:

People like Neesika are hypocritical in the sense that they think their own set of values is superior to everybody else's and will unashamedly seek to encourage other people's children in accordance with it, while at the same time gleefully assaulting more conservative people's values and getting all hot and bothered at the merest suggestion of someone talking to her kids about religion.

The example was face painting. Imagine, if you will, Neesika or one of her ilk sitting there in a face painting booth, gleefully painting some little boy's face with some sort of stereotypically girly design, not giving a wet fart what this child's parents will think of it. Now imagine her reaction if one of her kids wandered over to some Bible focused booth and asked "Who is Jesus" and somebody had the temerity to answer...

That's what I find distasteful and wrong.

1) on your frequently demonstrated talent for reading what people write and re-imagining it into something the writer cannot recognize at all, and
2) the examples provided by others on this thread of what articles in the field actually read like

1)Talk about the pot calling the kettle black... read on.
2)huh?


That's the whole point: we don't have to rely on their objectivity; since they have provided the research, we can look at it for ourselves and see what the research really says, and if that is not the same as what it is claimed that the research says, we can point that out.

In your case, we have no idea what articles you read, or what they actually said.


Except that in the case of just about any issue discussed on these forums, webpages can be found to support virtually any argument. Do you deny this?


I did not put it in quote marks. You did say that his parents required him to play with toys from both genders.

LOL No I didn't!


You did not say anything about the boy himself wanting to do so.


Then why did you accuse me of saying it? Do I need to re-quote you or can you find it on your own?


I did.


Apparently not.


And our side has been telling you that it is not right for the parents to be telling a kid what toys to play with. Leave that up to the kid.


So...?


Then what in God's name IS your claim???


Read my reply to GoG


Yes, in fact I would. I am hyper-nerdly that way.


Bullshit.


Stop pretending you know anything about what I would or would not do.

I will if you'll show me the same courtesy.

Now imagine her reaction if one of her kids wandered over to some Bible focused booth and asked "Who is Jesus" and somebody had the temerity to answer...

That's what I find distasteful and wrong.
I would imagine that her reaction would be to let her kid inquire freely about whatever the kid is curious about. Is that what you find distasteful and wrong?

This isn't accurate. Children *DO* naturally gravitate towards a particular gender. Little boys and little girls instinctively interact and socialize in different manners that fit within their developing gender roles. It doesn't have to be influenced by an outside source, either. Boys aren’t taught to play with trucks, and girls aren't taught to play with dolls. It just happens.

In some cases - probably even most cases, that is true. In others, little boys want to play with dolls and are often scolded for it and handed trucks instead. Same goes for little girls who want to play with trucks.

Believe it or not, there are children whose interests lie outside of gender norms.

I would imagine that her reaction would be to let her kid inquire freely about whatever the kid is curious about. Is that what you find distasteful and wrong?

Now THAT was funny. I knew you had a sense of humor!

Maybe you missed all the times she railed and complained at the idea of ANY religious person talking to her kids about religion EVER.

Many do. Some don't. The question here is how to deal with those who do not.

Completely agree. Children "generally" gravitate towards a particular gender. Neesika's comment was written as if there is no natural distinction.

In some cases - probably even most cases, that is true. In others, little boys want to play with dolls and are often scolded for it and handed trucks instead. Same goes for little girls who want to play with trucks.

Believe it or not, there are children whose interests lie outside of gender norms.

Absolutely. However,Neesika's comment was written as if there is no natural distinction. There is... albiet generally.

2)huh?
In previous posts, Gift-of-God and others provided actual links to actual articles. I am not sure what your "huh?" is asking about: I was saying that if you point your mouse at those underlined URL's, you can go to the articles and see what they read like. You are claiming that it is tremendously easy to find articles which say quite different, indeed contrary, things. It does not in fact appear to be easy at all to locate any such articles.
Except that in the case of just about any issue discussed on these forums, webpages can be found to support virtually any argument. Do you deny this?
And you can look at such webpages, and distinguish whether they are solid research, or conspiraloon ravings, or something in between-- do you deny this?

LOL No I didn't!
The plain reading of your post is that the doll-playing was the MOTHER's initiative, and not the KID's.

[Tmut]You did not say anything about the boy himself wanting to do so.

Then why did you accuse me of saying it? Do I need to re-quote you or can you find it on your own?
WTF???
I repeat, your posting indicates that it was the MOTHER who wanted the boy playing with dolls. I did not "accuse" you (and why would you consider it an "accusation"???) of saying that the boy himself wanted to do this; quite the contrary, I interpreted what you wrote as saying rather clearly that this did not come from the boy's own initiative.

[Tmut]Yes, in fact I would. I am hyper-nerdly that way.
Bullshit.
Do you not understand how utterly insane it is for YOU to tell ME what my habits are and are not? Yes, in fact, I do spend a lot of time looking up strange articles from leads I get from the message boards I bomb around on. I have been a totally nerdly kid from the beginning of my life: I was reading at the age of three, reading the New York Times every morning when I was five; never had any interest in dolls or girly clothes, to be sure, but never the slightest interest in trucks or any form of sports either. That is how I am.

[Tmut]Stop pretending you know anything about what I would or would not do.
I will if you'll show me the same courtesy.
At what point have I (or anybody else on this thread, for that matter) presumed to tell you what your conduct would be? We have, to be sure, attempted (not with much success) to decipher your assertions about what you would do in hypothetical situations. But your presumptuousness in telling me I wouldn't go to libraries, or in telling Neesika she would react in a "distasteful" way if her kid were curious about Christianity, is way over the line.

Maybe you missed all the times she railed and complained at the idea of ANY religious person talking to her kids about religion EVER.
Apparently so. I would have to see HER words.
There is of course a major distinction between the child expressing curiosity about religion, and an adult talking to the child about a subject the child expressed no prior interest in; just as there is a difference between a boy who wants to play with dolls, and a boy whose mother tells him to play with dolls.

In previous posts, Gift-of-God and others provided actual links to actual articles. I am not sure what your "huh?" is asking about: I was saying that if you point your mouse at those underlined URL's, you can go to the articles and see what they read like. You are claiming that it is tremendously easy to find articles which say quite different, indeed contrary, things. It does not in fact appear to be easy at all to locate any such articles.

Assuming an objective search.


And you can look at such webpages, and distinguish whether they are solid research, or conspiraloon ravings, or something in between-- do you deny this?

Of course not, but that leaves an awful lot of wiggle room for someone who's looking to find an excuse to dismiss the source.


The plain reading of your post is that the doll-playing was the MOTHER's initiative, and not the KID's.

WTF???
I repeat, your posting indicates that it was the MOTHER who wanted the boy playing with dolls. I did not "accuse" you (and why would you consider it an "accusation"???) of saying that the boy himself wanted to do this; quite the contrary, I interpreted what you wrote as saying rather clearly that this did not come from the boy's own initiative.

Alright now we're just talking past each other. My original anecdote said that the child was encouraged to play with toys of both sexes. (At the insistence of the mother.) That was it. I imply no force, I imply to argument form the child.

Now, if when I say "At the insistence of the mother" I can see where that may have been where you got the idea of force. This is not the case. I say her insistence over the objections of her husband. The boy had no strong feelings one way or the other.

Does that make sense?


Do you not understand how utterly insane it is for YOU to tell ME what my habits are and are not? Yes, in fact, I do spend a lot of time looking up strange articles from leads I get from the message boards I bomb around on. I have been a totally nerdly kid from the beginning of my life: I was reading at the age of three, reading the New York Times every morning when I was five; never had any interest in dolls or girly clothes, to be sure, but never the slightest interest in trucks or any form of sports either. That is how I am.


You'll have to forgive me if I find it difficult to accept this or any other assertion on your part given the abrupt hostility and personal attacks with which this exchange began.

It goes both ways, you know.


At what point have I (or anybody else on this thread, for that matter) presumed to tell you what your conduct would be? We have, to be sure, attempted (not with much success) to decipher your assertions about what you would do in hypothetical situations. But your presumptuousness in telling me I wouldn't go to libraries, or in telling Neesika she would react in a "distasteful" way if her kid were curious about Christianity, is way over the line.

I don't know whether you'd go to the library or not but as I have no reason to trust you, I don't think I'll take your word for it. As for Neesika, I'm not being presumptuous at all, since I'm going off of what she herself has said in the past (and someone else even commented on it in this thread before I did.)

And yes, people have been telling me all about my conduct without knowing a tenth of what they think they do. Evidently they get a pass.

Assuming an objective search.
Then give me some instruction on how to search. Your assertion was that if I, or anyone else, looked, we would find articles like yours. That isn't so.
Of course not, but that leaves an awful lot of wiggle room for someone who's looking to find an excuse to dismiss the source.
Of course. And then it is possible to have a substantive discussion about the merits of the research and how much factual content is in it. Without any source, what is there to discuss?
Alright now we're just talking past each other. My original anecdote said that the child was encouraged to play with toys of both sexes. (At the insistence of the mother.)
Yes. And that is what I said that your anecdote said. Then you shrieked at me for misinterpreting the anecdote.

That was it. I imply no force, I imply to argument form the child.
Neither did I imply that you implied any such thing. The point is, the story is about the MOTHER initiating this, which is an entirely different (indeed, in the relevant respect quite opposite) situation from a case in which the BOY initiates it.

You'll have to forgive me if I find it difficult to accept this or any other assertion on your part given the abrupt hostility and personal attacks with which this exchange began.
You'll have to forgive me if I see zero relationship between the unfriendliness of our relationship and any supposed justification for you claiming omniscience about my personal habits.
In any case, I do not understand what it is in what *I* have been saying to *you* that you consider a personal attack. You have been making broad, vague, and utterly unsubstantiated claims about gender-noncomformist children, a class of people that I happened to belong to. I think you have a lot of nerve to think that *I* am the one guilty of "personal attack" here, for thinking that you ought to have some basis before you start saying such things.
And yes, people have been telling me all about my conduct without knowing a tenth of what they think they do.
This is where you should give an example of what you are talking about.

So Dem, I originally went through to reply and when I got to the apology part I decided to go back through and re-write my post in a less aggressive manner as a way to both acknowledge that as well as see if it's not too late to build some kind of a bridge here.

=)

My own arguments alternated between the hypothetical and the real by necessity. I can't say much about what my kids MIGHT have done the way I can conjecture what I would, but I can tell you all about what they DID do.

But you don't seem to realize that what they did do is relevant only in that it means you've never been in the hypothetical situation under discussion.

You evaluated me as needing to be in control, independently of any hypothetical scenario.

Not exactly. None of this discussion has been independent of the hypothetical scenario.

You were asked what you would do in such a scenario. You responded. Everything else in the discussion stemmed from that response. As such, everything in this discussion was dependent upon that hypothetical.

You claimed that it is your job as a parent to exert such control if the situation came up. Thus, we both evaluated you as needing to be in control. The disagreement was over the necessity and advisability of such control.

Do you really believe I'm being dishonest? Because if so, then let's just put this to rest here.

I'm not certain. I hope that you're simply mistaken.

Do you really believe that I am?

That doesn't work. Here's what that sounds like:
"The KKK isn't made up of bigots.... They just have bigoted opinions."

Not really. The KKK is a group formed specifically based in bigotry, so I would call it a bigoted organization.

But I'm talking about interactions with individuals. Individuals, if you dig deep enough, all tend to hold some sort of bigoted viewpoint. If we called them all bigots because of it, we'd have to label the entire human race as bigots and the word would lose all meaning.

As such, I find it is more useful to discuss the particular bigoted viewpoints than the person in question. From what I can tell, most bigoted viewpoints are held simply because people have never thought to question them. They think something is "just the way it is". I'm sure this is true of some people within the KKK as well.

Why is it that when *I* try to make clarifications people accuse me of moving the goalposts? Quid pro quo if you want me to accept that, then it's got to go both ways.

Moving the goalposts is a different thing. In clarification, you're saying, 'You misunderstood what I was saying. I actually meant....."

In moving the goalposts, you say something, get a response, and then ask for something different from the original statement.

One can be mistaken for the other if the language was originally unclear, but there is a difference.

Not with me you don't.

There was a time when I would try to approach you in a conciliatory way because I could see your intelligence and I respected it. I knew we wouldn't see eye to eye but I figured it was still possible to at least maintain a polite if not friendly relationship. My hope for that is all but dead now. I've noticed you seem to have a very personal problem with me and I've said so before. (You denied it of course, and I didn't bring it up again so I could observe and see if I was, in fact, mistaken. That's the courtesy of more benefit of the doubt than you've ever shown me, I might add. All this time later, I do not think that I as wrong in the first place.)

If I had a personal problem with you, why is it that we have perfectly civil discussions in other threads?

I don't have a personal problem with you. I've wondered, in fact, if the opposite is true. But the threads in which this doesn't happen seem to dispute that.

In fact, when I've tried to clarify you've accused me of moving the goalposts. (hell, you did that in this very thread!) So at this point I feel I am showing you EXACTLY the same level of courtesy you've shown me.

At what point?

I can think of twice in this thread where I did accuse you of shifting the goalposts.

An example was something like this:
You: Can you think of any point at which I told people what they should believe?
Me: Yes.
You: When I have I ever told people how to live their lives?
Me: That's something different.

But you didn't claim that I had misunderstood you in either case. If that was the case, please point it out.

Here's how that comes across to me:

"If you plan to vote for Obama it's because you're a Tax&Spend Democrat"
"Hey! You can't call me that!"
"Well I said 'if'...."

I think you've jumped to a different discussion. This seems to relate more to your problem with my use of the word "bigotry" than your sense that I've been discussing the way you actually parented your children.

Have you ever seen the movie "Only the Lonely" starring John Candy?

Not that I recall.

I see. And you don't think that can cloud your objectivity?

Of course it can. It can cloud everyone's objectivity.

Alright, but can you understand where if it's a phrase that comes across as inflammatory, repetition only makes it worse?

Indeed. I just don't see why it comes across as inflammatory. You want to attribute ulterior motives to me quite often - but I generally don't understand why you're so up in arms about a given phrase.

And when I point out that it wasn't mean to be inflammatory, you argue with me about my own motives.

I'll give an example for the sake of being constructive. When you said earlier that I was "imposing gender norms" I took offense to the phrasing of it, and said so. 'Imposing' is just one of those words that's never nice, especially in a debate context.

And see, I don't see that. Imposing is just a word to me, as is enforcing. Any emotional or moral value comes, not from the word itself, but instead from the particular thing being imposed or enforced.

A parent who is imposing, for instance, a healthy diet on her child is, in my mind, just doing her job. Nothing bad about it.

So can you see how you deciding that I was using the word because it is "scary" or "nasty" or whatever is frustrating?

I think perhaps you and I both can use a cooldown period between answering each other's posts.

Possibly. =)

I can see where you'd come to that conclusion. In fairness, can you see where I'm sitting here wondering where you got the devastatingly handsome yet totally assholish version of Neo B in yours?

The problem is that the assholish version of Neo B is also yours, not mine. You frustrate the hell out of me sometimes, but I honestly think we'd get along fine in general. In truth, the arguments we have gotten into have been no worse than political arguments I've had with very dear friends and family. In fact, they've generally been better. Unless I've forgotten (which I generally don't), you've never made me cry.

If I actually thought you were an asshole or had a major problem with you, I'd rarely respond to you at all. What would be the point?

Don't know about the devastatingly handsome part, though. I don't believe I've ever seen pics of you.

The example was face painting. Imagine, if you will, Neesika or one of her ilk sitting there in a face painting booth, gleefully painting some little boy's face with some sort of stereotypically girly design, not giving a wet fart what this child's parents will think of it.

Strangely enough, I see no problem with this, as long as the little boy wanted the design in question.

When she paints a butterfly on a little girl's face, should she be worrying about whether or not the child's parents hate butterflies?

When she paints army paint on a little boy's face, should she be worrying about whether or not the child's parents are avid pacifists?

Now imagine her reaction if one of her kids wandered over to some Bible focused booth and asked "Who is Jesus" and somebody had the temerity to answer...

Given her thread on a similar subject, I would assume it would bother her.

Here's the real question, though:

Would she then forbid her child from finding out more about Christianity or from going to church if that child wanted to?

And, since you would apparently have a problem with Neesika painting a glittery butterfly on a boy's face without worrying about his parents' reaction, would you equally have a problem with someone talking about religion to a child who expressed an interest without worrying about the parents? Would the person who, in your example, answered the question about Jesus be just as bad as Neesika painting the boy's face?

Completely agree. Children "generally" gravitate towards a particular gender. Neesika's comment was written as if there is no natural distinction.

Neesika's comment was nothing of the sort. And before you start spouting off about 'gender' you'd better define the particular gender norms you're discussing, as gender norms vary widely from society to society.

I was reading over this thread earlier and it seems that I missed a few pages I also forgot what my original point was and why I got stuck in a slinging match. A bit embarrassing I know.

Anyway I originally was saying that you shouldn't encourage your child to go into saying your son to wear a dress to prove your point that they should be allowed to do so. A bit like calling your son Kate or Jessica because names shouldn't be restricted to a gender not very fair on the kid.

Regardless I think the question for all parents here is if your child went out of gender norms and maybe enjoyed playing with trucks instead of dolls in the case of daughters or your son enjoyed wearing a tutu would you love them any differently for it? You may not like their decision but would you still not support them and love them for it? For example if your child grew up and wanted to work for a democrat politician for republican parents or work for a republican for democrat parent you would still love them and support them in their choice would you not? even if you think that choice is nutty.

Okay this why I see you as being irrational, or perhaps lying. I don't know which, but in either case I really have no inclination to continue this juvenile pissing match.


That was it. I imply no force, I imply to argument form the child.


Neither did I imply that you implied any such thing. The point is, the story is about the MOTHER initiating this, which is an entirely different (indeed, in the relevant respect quite opposite) situation from a case in which the BOY initiates it.

Referencing this:


You link to a post talking about a boy who is forced to play with dolls although he doesn't want to. This, from our point of view, is obviously just as bad as, in fact essentially the same as, forcing a boy to play with trucks when he doesn't want to.


So... yah. You didn't just imply it, you SAID it.

Maybe you missed all the times she railed and complained at the idea of ANY religious person talking to her kids about religion EVER.

Funny, that... see, I remember that thread. She told about how one of her female relatives took her kid to Catholic events, and she was wondering if she should be concerned.
I don't remember her railing and complaining, if I recall she simply stated that Christianity did not sit easy with her due to its history in regards to her people, and she was looking for advise on how to communicate her feelings to her child without indoctrinating her either way.

It's rather amusing, the things you seem to pick up from people's posts on here...

But you don't seem to realize that what they did do is relevant only in that it means you've never been in the hypothetical situation under discussion.

Not exactly. None of this discussion has been independent of the hypothetical scenario.

You were asked what you would do in such a scenario. You responded. Everything else in the discussion stemmed from that response. As such, everything in this discussion was dependent upon that hypothetical.


Yes and no. There was someone on this thread (I don't remember exactly who now, and TBH I don't feel like searching for it because it isn't that important) who suggested that the reason it never came up was because on some level I had already been raising them in such a way that it wouldn't. In that sense, they were tying the hypothetical to the reality. I thought it was you but I kind of doubt it now.

Sometimes when it's me against multiple, it's hard to keep it straight.


You claimed that it is your job as a parent to exert such control if the situation came up. Thus, we both evaluated you as needing to be in control. The disagreement was over the necessity and advisability of such control.

I think this might be an example of us ascribing a subtly different meaning to a phrase. Some say "needing to be in control" in a way that implies a character flaw in the person in question, as if "needing to be in control" was equivalent to "being a control freak"... Exerting control for its own sake. Wheras if you meant it as "needing to be in control" as a parameter of being a parent, then I'd absolutely agree.

When I first read this a few pages ago, I took it as the former. Did you mean it as the latter? (Or another way I haven't thought of?)


I'm not certain. I hope that you're simply mistaken.

Do you really believe that I am?


Not that I think this of you necessarily, but in a lot of cases people sort of construct their motives and perceptions around what they WANT to be the truth, to the point where to them it ceases to be a lie and becomes their truth. I think it happens a LOT on here and I tend to see it maybe in places where it isn't happening.

I'm willing to extend trust if you are.


Not really. The KKK is a group formed specifically based in bigotry, so I would call it a bigoted organization.

But I'm talking about interactions with individuals. Individuals, if you dig deep enough, all tend to hold some sort of bigoted viewpoint. If we called them all bigots because of it, we'd have to label the entire human race as bigots and the word would lose all meaning.

As such, I find it is more useful to discuss the particular bigoted viewpoints than the person in question. From what I can tell, most bigoted viewpoints are held simply because people have never thought to question them. They think something is "just the way it is". I'm sure this is true of some people within the KKK as well.


I agree with this, but there's an issue that's being left out and that is that *nobody* likes to be told they're being bigoted, especially when they sincerely feel they are not. It's just not an effective way of keeping a conversation on a positive note.

I know bigotry. My gawd, as a Mormon I've been shocked into silence (yeah, imagine me being silent!) by some of the raw religious bigotry I've received from people you'd never think could harbor that level of hate. As the product of a mixed marriage I've seen racial bigotry, too. And yes, I've seen bigotry against other groups of which I am not a part, but been similarly irritated.

So you can imagine that I make a conscious effort to not be that way against others (and yes, sometimes it is an effort, admittedly) so it isn't easy to take when someone says it of me. But here's the other reason: If I don't let a son of mine wear a princess costume for Halloween, who am I being bigoted against? I mean, I could see where you might view that as closed minded or something like that, but bigoted? That just doesn't make sense to me.


Moving the goalposts is a different thing. In clarification, you're saying, 'You misunderstood what I was saying. I actually meant....."

In moving the goalposts, you say something, get a response, and then ask for something different from the original statement.

One can be mistaken for the other if the language was originally unclear, but there is a difference.


I think that all boils down to some level of trust. If a person says "What I REALLY meant is..." Then you have to decide whether or not to extend to them enough credibility to proceed from there.


If I had a personal problem with you, why is it that we have perfectly civil discussions in other threads?

I don't have a personal problem with you. I've wondered, in fact, if the opposite is true. But the threads in which this doesn't happen seem to dispute that.


I don't either, but it's not because of the times we've been in civil threads. I mean heck, even Muravyets and I have been known to exchange perfectly civil comments from time to time and I'm pretty sure she hates my guts.

My thing is, I've felt attacked by you on one or two occasions on items that I was pretty sure you'd have let go had someone else said it.


At what point?

I can think of twice in this thread where I did accuse you of shifting the goalposts.

An example was something like this:
You: Can you think of any point at which I told people what they should believe?
Me: Yes.
You: When I have I ever told people how to live their lives?
Me: That's something different.

But you didn't claim that I had misunderstood you in either case. If that was the cas

I see what you're saying here, but I don't think I've ever done either so the distinction (to me) seemed all but irrelevant. I've got very strong opinions on how I think things are or ought to be, but I do try to be very careful never to say something like "Well YOU should believe..." or "You really need to..." in terms of living one's life. (Not that I'd hesitate to tell someone they really should learn to read ;) )


I think you've jumped to a different discussion. This seems to relate more to your problem with my use of the word "bigotry" than your sense that I've been discussing the way you actually parented your children.


I don't think so... My aim there was to illustrate that using a hypothetical doesn't necessarily blunt the effect of a criticism.


Not that I recall.


In "Only the Lonely" John Candy stars as a cop who lives with his mom in Chicago. He has a hard time finding some female companionship or having much of a social life because he's completely dominated by a controlling mother. One of the big problems with mom is that she always "Tells it like it is" and figures that if someone is insulted it's because they can't handle the truth. As you might expect, her "telling it like it is" causes trouble for her son when he does finally find a lady.

I bring it up because it seemed like your evaluation of me holding a bigoted view rang similar to the situation in this movie, where "telling it like it is" (from your point of view) was causing a block in communicating, as opposed to facilitating it.


Of course it can. It can cloud everyone's objectivity.

Alright


Indeed. I just don't see why it comes across as inflammatory. You want to attribute ulterior motives to me quite often - but I generally don't understand why you're so up in arms about a given phrase.

And when I point out that it wasn't mean to be inflammatory, you argue with me about my own motives.


Well maybe it's another example of preconceived notions mixed with multiple sparring partners.

Maybe ;)


And see, I don't see that. Imposing is just a word to me, as is enforcing. Any emotional or moral value comes, not from the word itself, but instead from the particular thing being imposed or enforced.

A parent who is imposing, for instance, a healthy diet on her child is, in my mind, just doing her job. Nothing bad about it.

So can you see how you deciding that I was using the word because it is "scary" or "nasty" or whatever is frustrating?


I can. But I'd like to think if I used a word that carried no negative connotations for me but it did for you, that I'd rephrase if you made that clear to me.


Possibly. =)


Although at this point things seem to be smooth enough that I'll just waive that for now. :)


The problem is that the assholish version of Neo B is also yours, not mine. You frustrate the hell out of me sometimes, but I honestly think we'd get along fine in general. In truth, the arguments we have gotten into have been no worse than political arguments I've had with very dear friends and family. In fact, they've generally been better. Unless I've forgotten (which I generally don't), you've never made me cry.


I'm glad. It's never my desire to hurt anybody.


If I actually thought you were an asshole or had a major problem with you, I'd rarely respond to you at all. What would be the point?


If avoiding responding to assholes is something you're good at, can you teach me?


Don't know about the devastatingly handsome part, though. I don't believe I've ever seen pics of you.


That's okay, I'm not. But my wife did post one of us in the last picture thread.


Strangely enough, I see no problem with this, as long as the little boy wanted the design in question.

When she paints a butterfly on a little girl's face, should she be worrying about whether or not the child's parents hate butterflies?

When she paints army paint on a little boy's face, should she be worrying about whether or not the child's parents are avid pacifists?


Actually, yes. I believe she should. The younger the child, the more important that is.


Given her thread on a similar subject, I would assume it would bother her.

Here's the real question, though:

Would she then forbid her child from finding out more about Christianity or from going to church if that child wanted to?


That I can't say for absolute certain, but I'd give anything to be a fly on THAT wall.


And, since you would apparently have a problem with Neesika painting a glittery butterfly on a boy's face without worrying about his parents' reaction, would you equally have a problem with someone talking about religion to a child who expressed an interest without worrying about the parents? Would the person who, in your example, answered the question about Jesus be just as bad as Neesika painting the boy's face?

Absolutely, yes.

When I was a Cub Scout Den Leader there was one scout who expressed an interest to me in learning about becoming a Mormon. (Our Scout Pack was sponsored by my local church.) I told him I though that was great but that his next step should be to talk about that with his mom & dad.

Sadly, it appeared that his dad refused to let him, but he is the boy's father and within his rights. That's the bottom line whether I like it or not.

Funny, that... see, I remember that thread. She told about how one of her female relatives took her kid to Catholic events, and she was wondering if she should be concerned.
I don't remember her railing and complaining, if I recall she simply stated that Christianity did not sit easy with her due to its history in regards to her people, and she was looking for advise on how to communicate her feelings to her child without indoctrinating her either way.

It's rather amusing, the things you seem to pick up from people's posts on here...

You wouldn't happen to remember what the thread was called, would you? Because I bet your memory of it is no more reliable than anyone else's, including mine.

You wouldn't happen to remember what the thread was called, would you? Because I bet your memory of it is no more reliable than anyone else's, including mine.

Children and religion (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=556931)...

Seems my memory is still working ok.

Children and religion (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=556931)...

Seems my memory is still working ok.

Good.

(Although not exactly the same scenario.)

Okay this why I see you as being irrational, or perhaps lying. I don't know which, but in either case I really have no inclination to continue this juvenile pissing match.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
That was it. I imply no force, I imply to argument form the child.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tmutarakhan
Neither did I imply that you implied any such thing. The point is, the story is about the MOTHER initiating this, which is an entirely different (indeed, in the relevant respect quite opposite) situation from a case in which the BOY initiates it.

Referencing this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tmutarakhan
You link to a post talking about a boy who is forced to play with dolls although he doesn't want to. This, from our point of view, is obviously just as bad as, in fact essentially the same as, forcing a boy to play with trucks when he doesn't want to.

So... yah. You didn't just imply it, you SAID it.

OK, my bad then for using the word "forced", and not anticipating how you would take it. All I mean is that MOMMY TOLD HIM TO, not intenting to imply either that the kid argued back (I would assume that like most kids, he would know better than to argue with Mommy), or that he got beaten for non-compliance or whatever it is that you think I was meaning.

The point is, Mommy telling him to play with dolls (whether he wants to or not, and nothing in your story indicated any initiative on his part) is the same behavior as Daddy telling him to play with trucks-- or Mommy telling him that; in my case, it was always mom telling me "Don't be such a little fairy!" all the time when I grew up (I didn't come out to her until my forties, and then by accident: I'd always taken it for granted that she knew, and just didn't want to talk about it). Dad by contrast was easy-going: if I'd had a dad like you (or like you think that you would be in such a case: in the only place where I recall myself speculating about your conduct, I said that if you'd actually had such a child you might have turned out to be more tolerant than you think you would be) then my childhood would truly have been a living hell.

there's an issue that's being left out and that is that *nobody* likes to be told they're being bigoted, especially when they sincerely feel they are not
Especially especially when they really are being bigoted.
My gawd, as a Mormon I've been shocked into silence (yeah, imagine me being silent!) by some of the raw religious bigotry I've received from people
And how do you react to "I read an article that Mormons molest their children more than any other group" -- "What article?" -- "I can't be bothered to look it up right now, go look it up for yourself and you'll find exactly what I'm talking about"?
If I don't let a son of mine wear a princess costume for Halloween, who am I being bigoted against?
Your son. And everyone like him. Particularly if your reasoning is, "If I don't squelch him now he'll turn into a criminal like all those other deviants".
I think that all boils down to some level of trust. If a person says "What I REALLY meant is..." Then you have to decide whether or not to extend to them enough credibility to proceed from there.
If what the person says is along the lines of "You must be some kind of idiot not to understand immediately what I really meant..." that doesn't instill a lot of credibility.
even Muravyets and I have been known to exchange perfectly civil comments from time to time and I'm pretty sure she hates my guts
I'm pretty sure she doesn't (of course I can't speak for her with 100% certitude), any more than Dem does or Neesika does or I do. We think of you as a fun sparring partner, especially because you're so irritating, and especially especially because you're so easily irritated :sniper:

Here's the thing, and I'm gonna say it again because I love to repeat myself. I must, because I keep doing it. All I want from you and from others on this thread is an acknowledgment that my point of view needn't be the same as theirs without automatically being labeled a bigot or homophobe. I'd REALLY like an acknowledgment that it can be valid, even though it disagrees. The coup de grace would be an acknowledgment that it's equally valid, but I'm not holding my breath.

I acknowledge that it is possible for anyone to have a different point of view than mine without being a homophobe or a bigot. I'm not certain that your point of view concerning gender roles and socialisation is homophobic or bigoted. I don't think it is. It appears to be based mostly on tradition and a skewed interpretation of a few personal experiences.

People like Neesika are hypocritical in the sense that they think their own set of values is superior to everybody else's and will unashamedly seek to encourage other people's children in accordance with it, while at the same time gleefully assaulting more conservative people's values and getting all hot and bothered at the merest suggestion of someone talking to her kids about religion.

Neesika believes her values to be superior to those of a homophobe or bigot. In this, I completely agree with her. She does not believe her values are superior to everyone else's. Does she seek to pass on her paradigm to others? Of course she does. So does everyone else. This si the process of socialisation. She, and I, simply refuse to socialise our children into the traditional paradigm. We are doing something else. And if your children come and play with ours, they will also find a space for them to be whatever gender they want, even if they choose to totally embrace the traditional view.

The example was face painting. Imagine, if you will, Neesika or one of her ilk sitting there in a face painting booth, gleefully painting some little boy's face with some sort of stereotypically girly design, not giving a wet fart what this child's parents will think of it. Now imagine her reaction if one of her kids wandered over to some Bible focused booth and asked "Who is Jesus" and somebody had the temerity to answer...

When I face-painted, I never asked the parents what to put onthe kid's face. I asked the kid. I see nothing wrong with being apathetic about the parent's wishes over something as trivial as that.

Now, if my children were to be curious about religion, I would not be at all surprised. For two reasons: first of all, they are naturally curious, secondly, the Christian religion is so ubiquitous in our society that they would have to be complete morons not to notice it. My children are not morons, so they already ask a lot of questions. And I answer them.

I would give my children the same choices in religion as I do in gender. I would support their choices as long as it harms no one. I will also answer all their questions as honestly as I can. I won't even raise them to believe what I believe.

I would not get all hot and bothered if someone started talking to my kids about religion. They can even try and pass off their beliefs as fact. I'm fairly sure it won't stick. They don't even believe my stories.

That's what I find distasteful and wrong.

I think that instead of getting upset at the apparent hypocrisy, you should see if such hypocrisy actually exists.

Neo B, could you take a step back for a moment please? I'd like to point something out to you, and I don't mean it in a sneaky or victorious or anything kind of way.

You have gone on about how people here are attacking you and saying horrid things to you, and you have also stated repeatedly that you aren't doing that to anyone.

Yet pretty much every time you have spoken about me, it has been with a very negative connotation. "Neesika and her ilk", "gleefully...not giving a wet fart"...and so on. My point is, you have not once in this thread been above namecalling.

I suspect this is because you fell under attack, and you're lashing back.

Alright, fine...now let's all step back and realise that it's not helping.

I think GoG has done a good job of explaining my position, because it's a position he understands well. You...I believe have read into it what you've wished because you want to fight with me.

Are you a homophobe or a bigot? Well, I don't know enough about you to say. However, I can say with absolute certainty that I do not go around deliberately undermining parents and encouraging their children to go against whatever natural instincts they have in order to 'stick it to the man'.

But I did have a male child yesterday during the Canada Day festivities ask me for a butterfly on his face. I was thinking of you at that moment. I simply asked him what colour, and I began painting. When his mother came over to see what he'd chosen, I paid close attention to her reaction. This is what she did.

*furrows brow* "Is that a butterfly, sweetie?*

boy - "Yup, it's going to be purple and blue and there's going to be a flower on my mouth, because butterflies like to eat nectar"

*bites lip* "Are you sure you don't want to be spiderman or the hulk?"

boy - "Naw, that's boring. We had butterflies in our class, and I want this one."

*shrugs* "Okay then, it's looking good!"


I was completely silent during this exchange. The mom appeared to have some doubts...but when her child expressed his intention to continue, she got over it. I never suggested a butterfly...I never suggest anything because kids get prickly about suggestions when it comes to face painting. But I was very happy that his mother didn't make him feel like shit for choosing a 'girly' painting.

That sort of thing makes me happy. That's my gay agenda. That parents would support the choices of their children. They way I support my girls in their frou-frou dresses and tiaras and silly high heels, even though at that moment, I might want a little tomboy to go mud-sliding with.

If someone came up to my child and started preaching about Jesus, I would be upset. Why? Because I think it's weird for random adults to walk up to children and start talking to them about things like that. Just as it would be weird for me to walk up to a bunch of boys and ask them if they want to look like princesses. My daughter, by the way, continues to go to church and talk to me about it, and while I don't care for it, I don't think it's harmful and she enjoys it. Yes, I hope she grows out of it, but I'm not going to say that to her, or indicate it to her in any way.

But you go ahead and make me the villain in your fantasy story, if that's what you really want. It's not particularly productive, but I don't require you to be if that's not something you want.

I was reading over this thread earlier and it seems that I missed a few pages I also forgot what my original point was and why I got stuck in a slinging match. A bit embarrassing I know.

Anyway I originally was saying that you shouldn't encourage your child to go into saying your son to wear a dress to prove your point that they should be allowed to do so. A bit like calling your son Kate or Jessica because names shouldn't be restricted to a gender not very fair on the kid.

Regardless I think the question for all parents here is if your child went out of gender norms and maybe enjoyed playing with trucks instead of dolls in the case of daughters or your son enjoyed wearing a tutu would you love them any differently for it? You may not like their decision but would you still not support them and love them for it? For example if your child grew up and wanted to work for a democrat politician for republican parents or work for a republican for democrat parent you would still love them and support them in their choice would you not? even if you think that choice is nutty.

Exactly.

I like to point out examples of going 'outside the norms' to my kids...because I want them to always know they have the option to do the same. But kids are born with personality and unless you beat them into submission, they aren't particularly tractable.

My eldest is fastidious...she hates getting dirty. I encourage her to go ahead if she wants to...but she refuses. End of story. She doesn't want to play in the mud? Well, I wish she would because I find it fun, but I understand that she hates it, so there you go. She knows that I think it's okay, and she knows I'm not going to force her to do it. One day, perhaps she'll dive in nose first, but then again, maybe she won't.

People who shut down any inquiries into 'outside the norms' I think do so out of fear of what might happen. My approach to child-rearing is to always answer the questions put to you, even when it gets annoying...because at some point, your kids might stop asking you, and I think that is something as parents we should fear the most. Shutting them down, ridiculing them, telling them that they should behave like 'x' is a surefire way to get them to take their questions elsewhere.

When my kids have developed the proper motor skills I drive out into the middle of the country and leave them blindfolded in the woods with a brick and lighter fluid with which they must remove the blindfold and survive until they have spent six years in the company of a lupine family.

At this point a documentarian will make a "wolfboy" docu-drama with the royalties going to yours truly.

Anyone got any moral objections to that?

OK, my bad then for using the word "forced", and not anticipating how you would take it. All I mean is that MOMMY TOLD HIM TO, not intenting to imply either that the kid argued back (I would assume that like most kids, he would know better than to argue with Mommy), or that he got beaten for non-compliance or whatever it is that you think I was meaning.


Alright but like I said, her insistence was not directed at the child. As far as I know, she didn't push him. That's the whole thing. Like I said a couple replies ago, she insisted that the dolls be there over dad's objections, but I don't think she pushed the boy.


The point is, Mommy telling him to play with dolls (whether he wants to or not, and nothing in your story indicated any initiative on his part) is the same behavior as Daddy telling him to play with trucks-- or Mommy telling him that; in my case, it was always mom telling me "Don't be such a little fairy!" all the time when I grew up (I didn't come out to her until my forties, and then by accident: I'd always taken it for granted that she knew, and just didn't want to talk about it). Dad by contrast was easy-going: if I'd had a dad like you (or like you think that you would be in such a case: in the only place where I recall myself speculating about your conduct, I said that if you'd actually had such a child you might have turned out to be more tolerant than you think you would be) then my childhood would truly have been a living hell.

This is kind of a side note, but just out of curiosity, do you draw a link between the toy preferences of a child and their sexual orientation?

I ask because if my son anted to dress as a princess, my objections would have nothing to do with a fear of it being a sign of homosexuality. In my mind, I've never drawn that parallel because from what I understand, gay men run the same range of masculinity-not so much as straight men do. My brother and I are indistinguishable except for the age difference, his lack of hair (which I am *not* losing at the age he did BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA) and the fact that I like girls and he likes guys. As far as I know he played with exactly the same sort of toys when he was a child as I did. (Except that if he were here, I'd tease him by saying that his toys must have been made of stone :p)


Especially especially when they really are being bigoted.


*shrug* But how would one know?


And how do you react to "I read an article that Mormons molest their children more than any other group" -- "What article?" -- "I can't be bothered to look it up right now, go look it up for yourself and you'll find exactly what I'm talking about"?


I get stuff similar to that from the South Park fans here in the office. I simply don't care enough to watch the relevant episode.


Your son. And everyone like him. Particularly if your reasoning is, "If I don't squelch him now he'll turn into a criminal like all those other deviants".


Who is 'like' him in that sense? See, it seems to me that this entire argument is predicated on the idea that a boy's preference for wearing a princess costume is somehow a sign of a larger personality issue that I'm squelching, and yet if that had happened, I'd have made no such assumption. Because, as some have noted here, sometimes little kids just don't think about things in that way, so for me to say no wouldn't be such a big deal.


If what the person says is along the lines of "You must be some kind of idiot not to understand immediately what I really meant..." that doesn't instill a lot of credibility.


I only resort to that sort of abrasive response when I get it from the other person. When someone in good faith simply misunderstands, I don't play the nasty game.


I'm pretty sure she doesn't (of course I can't speak for her with 100% certitude), any more than Dem does or Neesika does or I do. We think of you as a fun sparring partner, especially because you're so irritating, and especially especially because you're so easily irritated :sniper:

:D

Well met.

I acknowledge that it is possible for anyone to have a different point of view than mine without being a homophobe or a bigot. I'm not certain that your point of view concerning gender roles and socialisation is homophobic or bigoted. I don't think it is. It appears to be based mostly on tradition and a skewed interpretation of a few personal experiences.


I'll take that, with the caveat that I don't agree that they're skewed ;)


Neesika believes her values to be superior to those of a homophobe or bigot. In this, I completely agree with her. She does not believe her values are superior to everyone else's. Does she seek to pass on her paradigm to others? Of course she does. So does everyone else. This si the process of socialisation. She, and I, simply refuse to socialise our children into the traditional paradigm. We are doing something else. And if your children come and play with ours, they will also find a space for them to be whatever gender they want, even if they choose to totally embrace the traditional view.

I don't entirely agree with the assertions you made here, but that's not really important. I'd rather not get into a debate over Neesika's opinions as those are/will be self-evident.

Although I do appreciate the sentiment of that last sentence, and would hope you know I'd do the same.


When I face-painted, I never asked the parents what to put onthe kid's face. I asked the kid. I see nothing wrong with being apathetic about the parent's wishes over something as trivial as that.


I do, because what you see as trivial may not be trivial to someone else.


Now, if my children were to be curious about religion, I would not be at all surprised. For two reasons: first of all, they are naturally curious, secondly, the Christian religion is so ubiquitous in our society that they would have to be complete morons not to notice it. My children are not morons, so they already ask a lot of questions. And I answer them.

I would give my children the same choices in religion as I do in gender. I would support their choices as long as it harms no one. I will also answer all their questions as honestly as I can. I won't even raise them to believe what I believe.


I do the same, believe it or not, although with more structure than you, perhaps.


I would not get all hot and bothered if someone started talking to my kids about religion. They can even try and pass off their beliefs as fact. I'm fairly sure it won't stick. They don't even believe my stories.


This is where we disagree and here's why. I find it grossly inappropriate to proselytize to children without their parents' knowledge or consent. Answering honest questions is one thing, and if that's what you mean, then fine.

The problem is that there are people out there who know how to 'sell' their beliefs, especially to kids who don't realize what's happening. While I trust my kids' knowledge and faith in the Church, I'm not blind to the fact that some self-appointed crusader form some other church could do a lot of damage.


I think that instead of getting upset at the apparent hypocrisy, you should see if such hypocrisy actually exists.

Look, I'm not a jerk, and I'm not an asshole. I'm just playing by the same rules as a great many of my opponents seem to want to play by. I've been called just about every name in the book on here, and I toss back a very small proportion of the hate I get. If you think I'm jumping to conclusions, then I would suggest you may not realize that:

1)It gets done to me every day, but there are very few on here who will watch my back, so I have to deal with it on my own
2)I see patterns so I don't always wait for someone to turn nasty in a particular thread if I've seen how they are previously.

I think given that I'm usually engaged with 3 or more people at a time, you guys can cut me some slack on this. I'm not whining. I come here on my own initiative, but that is the reality.

Neo B, could you take a step back for a moment please? I'd like to point something out to you, and I don't mean it in a sneaky or victorious or anything kind of way.
<snip>


Alright fair enough. I appreciate that you're not being nasty and your point is well taken.

I admit that part of the issue is that in past threads over similar or related issues things between us have gotten very heated, and there's a big part of me that automatically goes to battle stations when I see you reply to me in a way that is less civil than the one I'm replying to right now.

For that I have no good excuse, and I apologize.

Having said that, I hope you can understand why that is, and how in many occasions your tone isn't that smooth, either.

(cue soft piano music)

It isn't easy to be a Conservative on a board like this. That's not a whine... I know what I'm getting myself into every day when I log in. It gets tiring though. Replying to 3, 4 sometimes more people at the same time, some of them arguing from different perspectives, some of them parroting each other, takes a lot of time and energy. Some of you guys have said I frustrate you, well I know... but just imagine if there were 3 or 4 of me on you at once!

So I pledge to be more open and civil to you, Neeiska, if you're willing to do likewise. Fair enough?

(end piano music)


But I did have a male child yesterday during the Canada Day festivities ask me for a butterfly on his face. I was thinking of you at that moment. I simply asked him what colour, and I began painting. When his mother came over to see what he'd chosen, I paid close attention to her reaction. This is what she did.

*furrows brow* "Is that a butterfly, sweetie?*

boy - "Yup, it's going to be purple and blue and there's going to be a flower on my mouth, because butterflies like to eat nectar"

*bites lip* "Are you sure you don't want to be spiderman or the hulk?"

boy - "Naw, that's boring. We had butterflies in our class, and I want this one."

*shrugs* "Okay then, it's looking good!"


I was completely silent during this exchange. The mom appeared to have some doubts...but when her child expressed his intention to continue, she got over it. I never suggested a butterfly...I never suggest anything because kids get prickly about suggestions when it comes to face painting. But I was very happy that his mother didn't make him feel like shit for choosing a 'girly' painting.


(Ironic note: I don't find butterflies to be inherently girly. if that were my son, I'd not have said a word.)


That sort of thing makes me happy. That's my gay agenda. That parents would support the choices of their children. They way I support my girls in their frou-frou dresses and tiaras and silly high heels, even though at that moment, I might want a little tomboy to go mud-sliding with.


I can relate to this in a way that you might find surprising... I kind of hope one of my daughters asks me to teach her to fix cars. (My oldest one helped me change the brakes once, but lost interest halfway through the job. ;) ) By the same token, I wish my sons would ask me for tips in cooking. My older son likes to cook but seems to get bored when I try to show him my recipe for roast chicken that, frankly, if you came over to my home and had some of you'd probably have an orgasm. It's THAT good.

I'm not one of those stereotypical rednecky "well that's woman's work!" Or "That woman's got no bid'ness doing that in a man's world!"

I just happen to have a view that it isn't such a great idea to let a child wander too far in their experimenting with stuff.

When I was little I asked my mom to put makeup on me. And she did. Did that make me a transvestite or damage my manhood? No it didn't. I wear dresses because I want to.

(kidding.)

But seriously... I would rather mom hadn't, if for no other reason than it just doesn't make sense to me, in retrospect. if I, at the age of 4 or whatever it was, asked to wear makeup it's because I probably didn't realize that men don't wear mascara or lip gloss (generally speaking) and in my way of thinking, it would have been better for mom to explain that to me so that I gained that understanding.


If someone came up to my child and started preaching about Jesus, I would be upset. Why? Because I think it's weird for random adults to walk up to children and start talking to them about things like that. Just as it would be weird for me to walk up to a bunch of boys and ask them if they want to look like princesses. My daughter, by the way, continues to go to church and talk to me about it, and while I don't care for it, I don't think it's harmful and she enjoys it. Yes, I hope she grows out of it, but I'm not going to say that to her, or indicate it to her in any way.


I agree with you.

You know, I sometimes wonder how I'd feel if one of my kids started going to a different church with their friends. I think they should have the experience of visiting others, but I'm talking about it becoming a regular thing... I like to think I would handle it in the way you talk about how you handle your child going, although I don't think I could do it without at least trying to segue the conversation in a direction that would allow me to 'clarify' the differences between that church and ours...

But suffice it to say I am glad my eldest is interested in a girl from our church ;)


But you go ahead and make me the villain in your fantasy story, if that's what you really want. It's not particularly productive, but I don't require you to be if that's not something you want.

I won't if you won't. Deal?

I won't if you won't. Deal?

Deal. Let's let things heat up and get all snarly if necessary, but let it be a product of the actual discussion, not because of discussions past.

Deal. Let's let things heat up and get all snarly if necessary, but let it be a product of the actual discussion, not because of discussions past.

Done. :fluffle:

This thread is rapidly turning from a warzone to a love fest....

Sorry, it's a by-product of all the lovey feelings I'm having. I'll try harder to be the bitch everyone loves to hate.

Sorry, it's a by-product of all the lovey feelings I'm having. I'll try harder to be the bitch everyone loves to hate.

Oh, I don't think that'll be necessary :D This way, I can logout of NSG for the day in an actual GOOD mood.

When I was little I asked my mom to put makeup on me. And she did. Did that make me a transvestite or damage my manhood? No it didn't. I wear dresses because I want to.

(kidding.)

But seriously... I would rather mom hadn't, if for no other reason than it just doesn't make sense to me, in retrospect. if I, at the age of 4 or whatever it was, asked to wear makeup it's because I probably didn't realize that men don't wear mascara or lip gloss (generally speaking) and in my way of thinking, it would have been better for mom to explain that to me so that I gained that understanding.What would be the purpose of this knowledge (about men not wearing makeup) in this instance?

a gay agenda? not really, when I have kids Im goint to theach them NOT to be extreme about anithing, NOT to worry about things like race, riches etc and NOT to assume general opinion is right, I think the gender rolesystem and the gay things are generally in these ways

Oh, I don't think that'll be necessary :D This way, I can logout of NSG for the day in an actual GOOD mood.

Well that won't do. Time for an elaborate plot to piss you off, preferrably involving a James Bond-esque high-tech killing system.

What would be the purpose of this knowledge (about men not wearing makeup) in this instance?

Knowledge for it's own sake, which I value highly.

Well that won't do. Time for an elaborate plot to piss you off, preferrably involving a James Bond-esque high-tech killing system.

Dude, it ain't THAT hard...

Knowledge for it's own sake, which I value highly.But instead, you received the knowledge of what it looks/feels like to be in makeup.

Yes and no. There was someone on this thread (I don't remember exactly who now, and TBH I don't feel like searching for it because it isn't that important) who suggested that the reason it never came up was because on some level I had already been raising them in such a way that it wouldn't. In that sense, they were tying the hypothetical to the reality. I thought it was you but I kind of doubt it now.

I remember the statement you're talking about, but it wasn't directed at you in particular. What was said was that your children had already internalized gender norms. Those norms come from all of society - not just parents.

The idea was that, if our society was one in which dresses were normal fashion for boys, your sons likely would have wanted to wear dresses.

I think this might be an example of us ascribing a subtly different meaning to a phrase. Some say "needing to be in control" in a way that implies a character flaw in the person in question, as if "needing to be in control" was equivalent to "being a control freak"... Exerting control for its own sake. Wheras if you meant it as "needing to be in control" as a parameter of being a parent, then I'd absolutely agree.

When I first read this a few pages ago, I took it as the former. Did you mean it as the latter? (Or another way I haven't thought of?)

This is a tricky one to answer. I do think the clothing example is being over-controlling.

You think it is just another part of being a parent.

The control factor is there in either case and I'm sure we can both agree that parents need to exert some level of control, but we disagree on whether this is a good exercise of control.

I'm willing to extend trust if you are.

*virtual hand shake* =)

I agree with this, but there's an issue that's being left out and that is that *nobody* likes to be told they're being bigoted, especially when they sincerely feel they are not. It's just not an effective way of keeping a conversation on a positive note.

Of course, it's also impossible to avoid unless I shut up and don't express my opinion. Like I said earlier, every time I see something I consider to be bigotry, I could define bigotry instead of using the word, but that would make my posts even longer and the sentiment being expressed would be no different.

So you can imagine that I make a conscious effort to not be that way against others (and yes, sometimes it is an effort, admittedly) so it isn't easy to take when someone says it of me. But here's the other reason: If I don't let a son of mine wear a princess costume for Halloween, who am I being bigoted against? I mean, I could see where you might view that as closed minded or something like that, but bigoted? That just doesn't make sense to me.

In such a situation, you would be treating your children differently because of their sex, but not based on any actual biological differences.

You would let your daughter wear a princess costume, but not your son.
You would let your son dress as a given male character, but deny that to your daughter.

Unless you can point to actual biological differences that make such differential treatment necessary, it is, by definition, sexism.

My thing is, I've felt attacked by you on one or two occasions on items that I was pretty sure you'd have let go had someone else said it.

I apologize if you felt attacked. I'm sure I do come off as aggressive at times.

As for whether or not I would have let it go if someone else said it, that's very possible. But that wouldn't represent me having a problem with you. Quite the opposite, in fact. It means I recognize you and think responding could possibly be productive.

If someone like, say, UB makes a comment in a religious thread, I generally ignore him unless I'm in an odd mood. I've long since realized that it is completely and utterly useless to talk to him. But if someone I sort of know and recognize to be a generally rational person said something similar, I'd respond.

I see what you're saying here, but I don't think I've ever done either so the distinction (to me) seemed all but irrelevant. I've got very strong opinions on how I think things are or ought to be, but I do try to be very careful never to say something like "Well YOU should believe..." or "You really need to..." in terms of living one's life.

Perhaps. But what you do instead is act as if no one could feel a certain way. You accuse them of pretending so they can cover up their "true" feelings (which just so happen to match yours). You tell us that your wife doesn't feel that way as if it means that no one ever could. And so on....

Whether you mean it that way or not, it certainly comes across as you telling people what to believe.

I don't think so... My aim there was to illustrate that using a hypothetical doesn't necessarily blunt the effect of a criticism.

Maybe not. But it does mean that you're not criticizing something already done.

I bring it up because it seemed like your evaluation of me holding a bigoted view rang similar to the situation in this movie, where "telling it like it is" (from your point of view) was causing a block in communicating, as opposed to facilitating it.

So how do you suggest I get across my own view without blocking communication?

I can. But I'd like to think if I used a word that carried no negative connotations for me but it did for you, that I'd rephrase if you made that clear to me.

The problem here is that you attacked me over it, instead of just saying that you didn't like the word. It is perhaps a fault of mine that, when someone personally attacks me - particularly when they start ascribing motives to me that are incorrect - I get defensive.

I honestly can't stand the idea that someone has a poor opinion of me - even on an internet forum. It's a bit neurotic, really.

If avoiding responding to assholes is something you're good at, can you teach me?

Hehe. It really depends on my mood. I can generally avoid responding to people by remembering that it won't do any good. They're just assholes.

Occasionally, I still respond, and it ends up being really snarky.

Actually, yes. I believe she should. The younger the child, the more important that is.

Seems to me like you're misplacing the responsibility here. If a parent allows a child to go to a face-painting booth, isn't it that parent's responsibility to stand there and make certain that their child doesn't get anything they find inappropriate? How is it Neesika's responsibility to read the mind of every parent who allows the child to visit the booth alone?

When I was a Cub Scout Den Leader there was one scout who expressed an interest to me in learning about becoming a Mormon. (Our Scout Pack was sponsored by my local church.) I told him I though that was great but that his next step should be to talk about that with his mom & dad.

See, I don't think parents should exert that much control over their children's religious exploration. In fact, I think doing so is harmful to the child. So, while I would encourage the child to discuss the matter with his parents (unless I actually knew them to be the types who would get abusive over it), I wouldn't refrain from telling him what he wanted to know.

If a child is curious - on just about any subject - I'm going to encourage that curiosity and do what I can to facilitate it. If a parent doesn't like that, they shouldn't entrust their child to my care.

Alright but like I said, her insistence was not directed at the child. As far as I know, she didn't push him. That's the whole thing. Like I said a couple replies ago, she insisted that the dolls be there over dad's objections, but I don't think she pushed the boy.
This is not at all how the story sounded when you posted it, nor do I think this revised version makes much sense: your contention now is that the boy became confused and violent, not because he ever played with dolls, but because the mere PRESENCE of dolls in his toy-box pushed him over the edge?
This is kind of a side note, but just out of curiosity, do you draw a link between the toy preferences of a child and their sexual orientation?
Sometimes. Sometimes not. I never had interest in girly toys or dressing up as a girl as a child, but I have known gay men who did. Sometimes those who liked cross-gender dressing when young become transvestite, but not at all homosexual or transsexual, when they grow up (often, it is just an exploratory phase and nothing long-lasting).
I ask because if my son anted to dress as a princess, my objections would have nothing to do with a fear of it being a sign of homosexuality. In my mind, I've never drawn that parallel because from what I understand, gay men run the same range of masculinity-not so much as straight men do.
I'm rather "bearish" myself, which is a little odd since I was considered distinctly un-manly when I was young.
My brother and I are indistinguishable except for the age difference, his lack of hair (which I am *not* losing at the age he did BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA) and the fact that I like girls and he likes guys. As far as I know he played with exactly the same sort of toys when he was a child as I did. (Except that if he were here, I'd tease him by saying that his toys must have been made of stone :p)
Interesting.
I get stuff similar to that from the South Park fans here in the office. I simply don't care enough to watch the relevant episode.
I was talking about people who would claim such a thing as a FACT: in fact, such a well-known fact that you would immediately know it if you just bothered to look it up; which is the kind of stance you have taken here.
Who is 'like' him in that sense? See, it seems to me that this entire argument is predicated on the idea that a boy's preference for wearing a princess costume is somehow a sign of a larger personality issue that I'm squelching
Often, it is. You shouldn't make the assumption that it means nothing to him.
I only resort to that sort of abrasive response when I get it from the other person. When someone in good faith simply misunderstands, I don't play the nasty game.
That's just not true. You need a little more self-awareness. You interpret disagreement as personal attack, interpret misunderstanding as willful stupidity, and sometimes even misread people who are trying to agree with you as if they were saying something opposite.
I've been called just about every name in the book on here
No, you really haven't. Not that I've seen anyway. Here again is where you ought to give an example or two of whatever it is you are complaining about.
1)It gets done to me every day, but there are very few on here who will watch my back, so I have to deal with it on my own
I'm not very well liked or respected on this board either. I have lost my temper a couple times, drew a ban once, but I don't make nearly as much of a habit of complaining about how persecuted I am as you do.
It isn't easy to be a Conservative in a reality like this.
Fixed
:D

I try to show him my recipe for roast chicken that, frankly, if you came over to my home and had some of you'd probably have an orgasm. It's THAT good.
But I'd have to buy a steak dinner first?
When I was little I asked my mom to put makeup on me. And she did...
But seriously... I would rather mom hadn't
Seriously: no you wouldn't. You were luckier to have the kind of mom you did. I wish I had.
So now your argument appears to be: it would turn kids into confused, behaviorally troubled, potentially violent sickos if they get raised the way that, uh, you were raised?
But suffice it to say I am glad my eldest is interested in a girl from our church ;)
I take it your eldest is male?

But instead, you received the knowledge of what it looks/feels like to be in makeup.

Yah... Can you hear the rapture in my voice? ;)

On the plus side, it does enable me to speak intelligently on how uncomfortable lipstick is...

I remember the statement you're talking about, but it wasn't directed at you in particular. What was said was that your children had already internalized gender norms. Those norms come from all of society - not just parents.

The idea was that, if our society was one in which dresses were normal fashion for boys, your sons likely would have wanted to wear dresses.


True dat.


This is a tricky one to answer. I do think the clothing example is being over-controlling.

You think it is just another part of being a parent.

The control factor is there in either case and I'm sure we can both agree that parents need to exert some level of control, but we disagree on whether this is a good exercise of control.


Yeah that sounds about right.


*virtual hand shake* =)


Ah, back in the old days of chatroom debate, this sort of agreement would be sealed with a virtual pouncing... Good times... :D


Of course, it's also impossible to avoid unless I shut up and don't express my opinion. Like I said earlier, every time I see something I consider to be bigotry, I could define bigotry instead of using the word, but that would make my posts even longer and the sentiment being expressed would be no different.


It's a balancing act, to be sure. One thing I was taught once was to phrase stuff like that in a way that leaves room for the other person to "save face" as it were... for example instead of saying "That's a bigoted viewpoint" one could say "That seems bigoted to me" or "I see that as a bigoted viewpoint."

I don't mean to sound like I'm telling you how to speak, just offering that as a tidbit I learned that does help sometimes.


In such a situation, you would be treating your children differently because of their sex, but not based on any actual biological differences.

You would let your daughter wear a princess costume, but not your son.
You would let your son dress as a given male character, but deny that to your daughter.

Unless you can point to actual biological differences that make such differential treatment necessary, it is, by definition, sexism.


We've talked about that before and you remember, I'm sure, that I think that such a use of the term "sexism" makes the word u se meaning, since IMHO it would equally suggest the makers of Tampax are sexist because their product is necessarily meant for women.

Having said that, I can more easily understand that word than bigoted in this case, since to me there's no 'group' of people being treated or viewed unfairly.


I apologize if you felt attacked. I'm sure I do come off as aggressive at times.


Likewise. I tend to express my opinions in absolute terms, I know, but I only do it to avoid appearing uncertain. I'll try and mitigate that a bit in the future.


As for whether or not I would have let it go if someone else said it, that's very possible. But that wouldn't represent me having a problem with you. Quite the opposite, in fact. It means I recognize you and think responding could possibly be productive.

If someone like, say, UB makes a comment in a religious thread, I generally ignore him unless I'm in an odd mood. I've long since realized that it is completely and utterly useless to talk to him. But if someone I sort of know and recognize to be a generally rational person said something similar, I'd respond.

It never really occurred to me to see it that way. Now I feel all warm and fuzzy... :p


Perhaps. But what you do instead is act as if no one could feel a certain way. You accuse them of pretending so they can cover up their "true" feelings (which just so happen to match yours). You tell us that your wife doesn't feel that way as if it means that no one ever could. And so on....

Whether you mean it that way or not, it certainly comes across as you telling people what to believe.


I can see that.

My thing is that a lot of times I DO think people sort of create their own reality on certain issues, and my aggressiveness is intended to crack that shell. I admit I'm not always very good at knowing who's doing it and who isn't, but whenever I start to doubt myself the little devil on my shoulder reminds me that I usually don't get the same level of courtesy from some others so I go full throttle... Which is juvenile of me.

I can't promise never to use that tactic, but I will pledge to do a better job of knowing when not to.


Maybe not. But it does mean that you're not criticizing something already done.


Yah, but IMHO the criticism against the person is still the same. It's like if I told you your tendency to ignite cats was inappropriate and cruel. The f act that you don't ignite cats (I assume) doesn't make it very easy to ignore the criticism.


So how do you suggest I get across my own view without blocking communication?

Using that tip above... where it's phrased in a way that lets the recipient have room to maneuver so they don't feel so accused.


The problem here is that you attacked me over it, instead of just saying that you didn't like the word. It is perhaps a fault of mine that, when someone personally attacks me - particularly when they start ascribing motives to me that are incorrect - I get defensive.

I honestly can't stand the idea that someone has a poor opinion of me - even on an internet forum. It's a bit neurotic, really.


I'm sorry for that. I thought I was making that part clear but by that point I don't think I was doing a very good job of that at all.

I have a similar tendency to want to be a people pleaser. Not easy to overcome. These forums are practice :D


Hehe. It really depends on my mood. I can generally avoid responding to people by remembering that it won't do any good. They're just assholes.

Occasionally, I still respond, and it ends up being really snarky.


I've gotten a little better at that... but then my main practice subject for ignoring got forum banned so now I'm SOL. ;)


Seems to me like you're misplacing the responsibility here. If a parent allows a child to go to a face-painting booth, isn't it that parent's responsibility to stand there and make certain that their child doesn't get anything they find inappropriate? How is it Neesika's responsibility to read the mind of every parent who allows the child to visit the booth alone?


I agree that if the parent is concerned about it then he/she should be there to veto or approve... And while I wouldn't say it's the responsibility of the face painter to read minds, I WOULD say that there is a certain level of respect or awareness that is a responsibility. It's like if you go to do face painting at, say, a Washington Redskins game. If some kid comes up wanting a Dallas Cowboys star, you might to well to check with mom or dad given what sometimes happens to Cowboys fans in this area ;)

Now if that same kid just wanted a feather in the Redskins' colors, then it's reasonable to assume the parents wouldn't mind.


See, I don't think parents should exert that much control over their children's religious exploration. In fact, I think doing so is harmful to the child. So, while I would encourage the child to discuss the matter with his parents (unless I actually knew them to be the types who would get abusive over it), I wouldn't refrain from telling him what he wanted to know.


I don't know exactly how much control is best for the child, but I do know how much control the parent has a RIGHT to exercise. I think the kid in my example has a dad who's a jackass, but my opinion has no bearing on the reality.


If a child is curious - on just about any subject - I'm going to encourage that curiosity and do what I can to facilitate it. If a parent doesn't like that, they shouldn't entrust their child to my care.

I always encourage my kids' curiosity too, no matter the subject. The only thing is, I like to be aware of their sources of information. There are people out there who will brainwash your kid if given the chance. I like to be the source of info for them, but I also want them to not only know how to go out and find things out on their own, I want them to be able to evaluate the quality of the source.

What would be the purpose of this knowledge (about men not wearing makeup) in this instance?

Not to mention, why would you have wanted her to tell you not to do it? Is there something inherently wrong about men wearing makeup :rolleyes: ?

Although I admit that it would make me look twice at said man as it's quite rare :p

This is not at all how the story sounded when you posted it, nor do I think this revised version makes much sense: your contention now is that the boy became confused and violent, not because he ever played with dolls, but because the mere PRESENCE of dolls in his toy-box pushed him over the edge?

One thing that's important to note is that I posted that story in response to a request from Smunkee for an example. It was never intended as a scholarly example nor was I trying to prove anything by posting a single story. There's a lot more to the tale than that, including some amusing self-denial on dad's part "Look how tough he is! He's a tank!" Moments before he came screaming because he fell down on his butt in the grass.

The point being I think you guys are/were building that story up to mean a lot more than it does.


Sometimes. Sometimes not. I never had interest in girly toys or dressing up as a girl as a child, but I have known gay men who did. Sometimes those who liked cross-gender dressing when young become transvestite, but not at all homosexual or transsexual, when they grow up (often, it is just an exploratory phase and nothing long-lasting).

I'm rather "bearish" myself, which is a little odd since I was considered distinctly un-manly when I was young.


I wouldn't have assumed it. My thinking is that unless and until I have reason to believe otherwise, stuff like that is what it is, a whim, or at most, a phase. If it turns out to be more than that then I wouldn't simply dismiss it, I'm only saying I wouldn't make a mountain out of a molehill.


Interesting.


Heh want me to introduce you? lol


I was talking about people who would claim such a thing as a FACT: in fact, such a well-known fact that you would immediately know it if you just bothered to look it up; which is the kind of stance you have taken here.


That isn't the stance I've taken. Remember that all I've been trying to do is to advance the idea that I have a valid point of view in general. People have been trying to turn it into a debate on the sexual identities of kids, which is a debate I'll gladly have but I wanted to get this first issue out of the way first. That's the basis for my refusal to go link fishing. (Along with the other factors I listed for GoG)


Often, it is. You shouldn't make the assumption that it means nothing to him.


Fair enough, although I'd be remiss as a parent if I created an environment in which my sons couldn't be open with me, and I assure you, they are. I'm not going to violate their confidence by enumerating the things we've spoken of, but suffice it to say they'd tell me if it were something like that.


That's just not true. You need a little more self-awareness. You interpret disagreement as personal attack, interpret misunderstanding as willful stupidity, and sometimes even misread people who are trying to agree with you as if they were saying something opposite.


As I admitted to both Dem and Neesika in this thread, past experience tends sometimes to color my reactions to people.


No, you really haven't. Not that I've seen anyway. Here again is where you ought to give an example or two of whatever it is you are complaining about.


It's not that important.


I'm not very well liked or respected on this board either. I have lost my temper a couple times, drew a ban once, but I don't make nearly as much of a habit of complaining about how persecuted I am as you do.


It's not that I complain about persecution against me, as much as I am standing up for other conservatives who are either too intimidated or not committed enough to stand up for themselves.

That's right, I'm the people's champion, bitches.

(ahem) Sorry.


Fixed
:D

THPPPPPT! :P

But I'd have to buy a steak dinner first?


Nah, the first one's always free :D


Seriously: no you wouldn't. You were luckier to have the kind of mom you did. I wish I had.
So now your argument appears to be: it would turn kids into confused, behaviorally troubled, potentially violent sickos if they get raised the way that, uh, you were raised?

No. My argument is that it COULD as a result of confusion. Mom didn't generally raise me in a sexless way. My room was a boy's bedroom (I didn't have a choice but it was kinda cool) and mom raised me like a boy. I think exceptions such as the makeup example were not the norm. (She was biploar too. Who knows why she did it?)


I take it your eldest is male?

Yep. My 2 eldest are boys and the 2 youngest are girls.

One thing that's important to note is that I posted that story in response to a request from Smunkee for an example.
Supposedly your viewpoint is based on your extensive experience and readings on the subject, but this was the sum totality of the experience and reading that you had to relate.
The point being I think you guys are/were building that story up to mean a lot more than it does.
You left it as your sole evidence.
Heh want me to introduce you? lol
The mods might take it amiss if we start using this as a matchmaking board :D
Remember that all I've been trying to do is to advance the idea that I have a valid point of view in general.
You would advance that idea only by showing some validation for your point of view.
That's the basis for my refusal to go link fishing.
You refuse to show anything that make your viewpoint seem valid, on grounds that everybody has to first concede that your viewpoint is valid?
Nah, the first one's always free :D
I'll be looking forward to it then!
No. My argument is that it COULD as a result of confusion.
And why do you think so? My intuitions, the intuitions of the other people who are arguing with you, and such meager research as has been cited here are that confusion results from parents pushing kids not to follow their interests.

I just happen to have a view that it isn't such a great idea to let a child wander too far in their experimenting with stuff.

I think anyone can agree with this statement in general, but in the context of this discussion, why not? What's the worst that can happen? They end up liking something non-traditional?

When I was little I asked my mom to put makeup on me. And she did. Did that make me a transvestite or damage my manhood? No it didn't. I wear dresses because I want to.

(kidding.)

But seriously... I would rather mom hadn't, if for no other reason than it just doesn't make sense to me, in retrospect. if I, at the age of 4 or whatever it was, asked to wear makeup it's because I probably didn't realize that men don't wear mascara or lip gloss (generally speaking) and in my way of thinking, it would have been better for mom to explain that to me so that I gained that understanding.

Why? If you had liked wearing makeup, would you have suddenly stopped liking it because most men don't currently wear it?

Should we encourage such conformism in our kids?

And, on a different note, should my male friend who does occasionally wear eyeliner or lip gloss continue feel embarrassed when he gives me makeup tips? Should he have to worry that people will think there's something wrong with him for doing so?

For the next post, know that I'm cutting out a lot of the warm fuzzies. It's not because I'm ignoring them, just trying to shorten the reply. So consider them acknowledged. =)


We've talked about that before and you remember, I'm sure, that I think that such a use of the term "sexism" makes the word u se meaning, since IMHO it would equally suggest the makers of Tampax are sexist because their product is necessarily meant for women.

Not at all. Let's look at what I said again, shall we?

Unless you can point to actual biological differences that make such differential treatment necessary, it is, by definition, sexism.

There is a pretty clear biological difference that makes Tampax targeted towards women. Men don't menstruate and they don't have vaginas.

Having said that, I can more easily understand that word than bigoted in this case, since to me there's no 'group' of people being treated or viewed unfairly.

Sexism is a form of bigotry. The group being treated unfairly is whatever sex is currently being pigeonholed.

Yah, but IMHO the criticism against the person is still the same. It's like if I told you your tendency to ignite cats was inappropriate and cruel. The f act that you don't ignite cats (I assume) doesn't make it very easy to ignore the criticism.

If I told you I wanted to ignite cats, I'd certainly hope that you would point out that it was inappropriate and cruel.

Using that tip above... where it's phrased in a way that lets the recipient have room to maneuver so they don't feel so accused.

Noted. I'll try to remember in the future, although I admit that it will likely depend on how heated the conversation already is and whether or not I've eaten that day, etc.

I agree that if the parent is concerned about it then he/she should be there to veto or approve... And while I wouldn't say it's the responsibility of the face painter to read minds, I WOULD say that there is a certain level of respect or awareness that is a responsibility. It's like if you go to do face painting at, say, a Washington Redskins game. If some kid comes up wanting a Dallas Cowboys star, you might to well to check with mom or dad given what sometimes happens to Cowboys fans in this area

Ok, that would be direct concern for the safety of the child. I could definitely see that.

But that's different from worrying about whether or not a parent will have a problem with something you've already painted on other children.

I don't know exactly how much control is best for the child, but I do know how much control the parent has a RIGHT to exercise. I think the kid in my example has a dad who's a jackass, but my opinion has no bearing on the reality.

In this case, the parent has a right to say that the child can't talk to you.

But if he entrusts the child to your care without explicit instructions about this, then he has given over much of that control to you for the time being.

I always encourage my kids' curiosity too, no matter the subject. The only thing is, I like to be aware of their sources of information. There are people out there who will brainwash your kid if given the chance. I like to be the source of info for them, but I also want them to not only know how to go out and find things out on their own, I want them to be able to evaluate the quality of the source.

Absolutely! And I think this has a lot to do with parent-child trust. If a healthy, trusting relationship has been built, a child is going to come to the parent with such things and they can discuss the content and the source of new information.

I did it all the time as a child. I would hear something I wasn't entirely sure about or that I was more curious about, and I would go to my mother for more information or different sources. She was always willing to answer my questions, so I never had to worry about doing so.

Of course, if your child thinks you're going to get angry that they even asked someone else about something, they wouldn't discuss that with you, and it could be a problem. Because if a parent won't do it, the child will find someone else.

Supposedly your viewpoint is based on your extensive experience and readings on the subject, but this was the sum totality of the experience and reading that you had to relate.

You left it as your sole evidence.


Not presented as evidence. Presented as an example, as requested.


The mods might take it amiss if we start using this as a matchmaking board :D


lol


You would advance that idea only by showing some validation for your point of view.

You refuse to show anything that make your viewpoint seem valid, on grounds that everybody has to first concede that your viewpoint is valid?


A point of view is exactly that- a point of view. How does one go about proving such a thing?


I'll be looking forward to it then!


Bring friends.


And why do you think so? My intuitions, the intuitions of the other people who are arguing with you, and such meager research as has been cited here are that confusion results from parents pushing kids not to follow their interests.

But whose intuition prevails? Because it would seem that our intuitions are in conflict, as well as those of a LOT of people with whom I've interacted over the years.

I think anyone can agree with this statement in general, but in the context of this discussion, why not? What's the worst that can happen? They end up liking something non-traditional?


I wouldn't say that's the worst thing but in some cases it can be problematic. As for the worst thing, it's like I said I think a small child can become confused unnecessarily.


Why? If you had liked wearing makeup, would you have suddenly stopped liking it because most men don't currently wear it?


In my case, yeah.

But not because I'm a conformist. You'd have to spend about 15 seconds in my apartment to know that I conform to NOBODY'S standard for anything other than morality. (This is why my wife rocks... she's the same way)

But for a guy to wear womens' makeup is a non-sequitur to me. It's like a man wearing a bra. Sure he COULD do it, but what the heck for? Even man boobs don't really need support (ugh... try not to visualize it... and if you already did, I'm very sorry).


Should we encourage such conformism in our kids?


At that level, yes. If it doesn't make sense, yes.


And, on a different note, should my male friend who does occasionally wear eyeliner or lip gloss continue feel embarrassed when he gives me makeup tips? Should he have to worry that people will think there's something wrong with him for doing so?

He's gotta live according to his own judgment and I wouldn't say he should be concerned about other people's view of him for it. It's not my place to say. If it makes sense to him, then fine. It doesn't to me, but it's not my business.


For the next post, know that I'm cutting out a lot of the warm fuzzies. It's not because I'm ignoring them, just trying to shorten the reply. So consider them acknowledged. =)


So noted. :)


Not at all. Let's look at what I said again, shall we?

There is a pretty clear biological difference that makes Tampax targeted towards women. Men don't menstruate and they don't have vaginas.


Alright so let me ask you this: Is it your opinion that the ONLY difference between male and female is physiological? (As opposed to psychological or emotional)


Sexism is a form of bigotry. The group being treated unfairly is whatever sex is currently being pigeonholed.


So to be sure I understand you: If I don't let my boy wear a princess costume on the grounds that he's male, and I would let my daughter wear one, that's sexist to you?


If I told you I wanted to ignite cats, I'd certainly hope that you would point out that it was inappropriate and cruel.


Sure, but would that criticism matter less because we're talking hypothetical as opposed to reality?


Noted. I'll try to remember in the future, although I admit that it will likely depend on how heated the conversation already is and whether or not I've eaten that day, etc.


So if I think I'm seeing it happen, should I remind you to eat? :D


Ok, that would be direct concern for the safety of the child. I could definitely see that.

But that's different from worrying about whether or not a parent will have a problem with something you've already painted on other children.


It's different but it still illustrates that a prudent face painter has to consider other factors.


In this case, the parent has a right to say that the child can't talk to you.

But if he entrusts the child to your care without explicit instructions about this, then he has given over much of that control to you for the time being.


Right but here's the difference I see. The Cub Scout program isn't a church program per se. The Mormon Church (among most others) supports the program but a Cub Scout activity at a Mormon church is no different from one at a Methodist church. I wouldn't call it secular as such, but you get the idea. If a parent leaves their son with the Cub Scouts, there's no implicit permission to proselytize.

On the other hand, if a parent drops their child off at what is specifically a church activity... Then it would be strange for the parent to get up in arms over a religious teaching being given to their child.


Absolutely! And I think this has a lot to do with parent-child trust. If a healthy, trusting relationship has been built, a child is going to come to the parent with such things and they can discuss the content and the source of new information.

I did it all the time as a child. I would hear something I wasn't entirely sure about or that I was more curious about, and I would go to my mother for more information or different sources. She was always willing to answer my questions, so I never had to worry about doing so.

Of course, if your child thinks you're going to get angry that they even asked someone else about something, they wouldn't discuss that with you, and it could be a problem. Because if a parent won't do it, the child will find someone else.

That's true. That's the backdoor reason why it's important to keep things open. A parent who refuses to discuss certain subjects with their child isn't preventing their child from discussing them... only preventing the child from discussing it with THEM.

And that's a problem.

Exactly.

I like to point out examples of going 'outside the norms' to my kids...because I want them to always know they have the option to do the same. But kids are born with personality and unless you beat them into submission, they aren't particularly tractable.

My eldest is fastidious...she hates getting dirty. I encourage her to go ahead if she wants to...but she refuses. End of story. She doesn't want to play in the mud? Well, I wish she would because I find it fun, but I understand that she hates it, so there you go. She knows that I think it's okay, and she knows I'm not going to force her to do it. One day, perhaps she'll dive in nose first, but then again, maybe she won't.

People who shut down any inquiries into 'outside the norms' I think do so out of fear of what might happen. My approach to child-rearing is to always answer the questions put to you, even when it gets annoying...because at some point, your kids might stop asking you, and I think that is something as parents we should fear the most. Shutting them down, ridiculing them, telling them that they should behave like 'x' is a surefire way to get them to take their questions elsewhere.

Very good point. Do we actully agree on something Nessika ;) Yes it seems so.

Whether we have adequate science regarding gender and anatomical / genetic drivers of behavior is not really at the center of this issue, I'd say.

It seems to me that what's at issue is the position:

"There are forms of intolerance that I will not tolerate."

And some people have come down against this apparently paradoxical position while others embrace it.

Personally, I take my cue from Walt Whitman on this one: I am large enough to contain contradictions ... and I agree that there are forms of intolerance that I'm not willing to tolerate.

I wouldn't say that's the worst thing but in some cases it can be problematic. As for the worst thing, it's like I said I think a small child can become confused unnecessarily.

Wouldn't that same child likely be rather confused by the idea that they would be disallowed certain actions that some of their peers were not simply because of their sex?

Personally, as a child, I was much more confused by people telling me that being a girl meant I couldn't do certain things than by the sentiment that my sex didn't limit me. I'm just lucky that my parents and most of my close family fell into the latter group, rather than the former.

In truth, given the reaction I had and the reactions I've seen from children in such situations, I think it's likely that such restrictions will only make the child more adamant that they can or will do something.

In my case, yeah.

But not because I'm a conformist. You'd have to spend about 15 seconds in my apartment to know that I conform to NOBODY'S standard for anything other than morality. (This is why my wife rocks... she's the same way)

I assume you are aware that it has not always been uncommon for men to wear makeup?

How can your insistence that it simply isn't something men do then be anything but conformism? By that same logic, if most men currently did wear makeup, you'd be lining up to buy mascara.

But for a guy to wear womens' makeup is a non-sequitur to me. It's like a man wearing a bra. Sure he COULD do it, but what the heck for? Even man boobs don't really need support (ugh... try not to visualize it... and if you already did, I'm very sorry).

A bra is an entirely different situation. In most cases, a woman has breasts that need support and a man doesn't. It's sort of like the tampon example. A man doesn't menstruate and he doesn't have a vagina, so he wouldn't need a tampon for its intended use.

Makeup, on the other hand, is meant to be used on the face. Its intended purpose is to enhance someone's looks. Both men and women have faces. Both men and women may want to take steps to enhance their looks. There's nothing about either that is specific to a given sex.

My friend who gave me tips on eyeliner? His tips were about dealing with baggy, tired eyes. He has found that, when he's tired and it shows in his eyes, a little bit of light-colored eyeliner under his eyes makes him look more awake.

Why should he be less worried about his looks than any given woman? And why shouldn't he take similar steps to improve his looks when he has the same body parts - in this case, eyes?

At that level, yes. If it doesn't make sense, yes.

How does, "you can't wear this because most boys don't," make any more sense than, "you can't take ballet because most boys don't"?

He's gotta live according to his own judgment and I wouldn't say he should be concerned about other people's view of him for it. It's not my place to say. If it makes sense to him, then fine. It doesn't to me, but it's not my business.

I hate to say it, but people like you are the reason he does feel that he has to be embarrassed. People like you are the reason he hesitates to mention his occasional use of makeup - because he's worried that the person he is talking to would be someone like you.

Because people have arbitrarily defined makeup as a "girl's thing", he is left to feel as if people will think there is something wrong with him for doing something that is no less natural for him than for me.

Alright so let me ask you this: Is it your opinion that the ONLY difference between male and female is physiological? (As opposed to psychological or emotional)

If you have a specific male and a specific female, the only differences you can count on are physiological.

That isn't to say that there aren't trends in psychology or emotions. While it's difficult to separate out the socialized from the innate, I do think that there tend to be psychological and emotional differences between men and women as a whole, just as I have no problem with the apparent trends in toy preference.

But tendencies aren't very useful when you're dealing with actual individuals. An individual male or female may or may not fit well into the trendlines. And since I think we should treat human beings as individuals, I think different treatment for men or women as a whole must be based in physiological differences - the only ones guaranteed to exist.

So to be sure I understand you: If I don't let my boy wear a princess costume on the grounds that he's male, and I would let my daughter wear one, that's sexist to you?

Yes.

Sure, but would that criticism matter less because we're talking hypothetical as opposed to reality?

Only if I complained that you were accusing me of harming an actual pet cat... =)

So if I think I'm seeing it happen, should I remind you to eat? :D

It probably wouldn't hurt. =)

Right but here's the difference I see. The Cub Scout program isn't a church program per se. The Mormon Church (among most others) supports the program but a Cub Scout activity at a Mormon church is no different from one at a Methodist church. I wouldn't call it secular as such, but you get the idea. If a parent leaves their son with the Cub Scouts, there's no implicit permission to proselytize.

I don't consider answering a child's question to be proselytization. If you initiated it or if you tried to convert the child, I think that would be inappropriate. But if the child came to you curious about your religion, I don't see the harm in answering the question. The intention would be to inform, not to convert.

The answer would be formed in the terms "Well, I believe..." or "Mormons believe...." as opposed to "This is the way it is." Extra points for being thorough if you give other beliefs for comparison.

The same is true of, say, teachers. I am adamantly opposed to a public school teacher using the classroom to proselytize. But if a student asks a teacher a question about her religion, I see no reason that she shouldn't answer.

If a child asked a cub scout leader or a teacher a history or math question, even if it were outside of the normal activities/curriculum, no one would have a problem with them giving an answer. I don't see why a question about a religion should be any different.

Now, if you fear that you are unable to simply answer the question without starting to proselytize, then it is probably best to back off and simply tell the child where they can find the information. But I think proselytizing takes enough of an effort that most people can successfully avoid it.

Wouldn't that same child likely be rather confused by the idea that they would be disallowed certain actions that some of their peers were not simply because of their sex?


I don't think so, because I'm presenting a consistent framework to them.


Personally, as a child, I was much more confused by people telling me that being a girl meant I couldn't do certain things than by the sentiment that my sex didn't limit me. I'm just lucky that my parents and most of my close family fell into the latter group, rather than the former.


I see a difference though. Telling a boy he shouldn't dress as Cinderella is very different from telling a girl she can't put on a set of coveralls and help fix brakes. By definition, a princess is a female entity. a daughter of royalty. If there's a male child of royalty, we call him a prince. The costume follows from that. To go even more generic, a dress, as has been noted, is worn by females in our culture. In ages past men have worn similar garments certainly, just as it was once considered the height of masculinity to wear tights. That is not the case in this day and age. Men who wear dresses now are transvestites. If, in some future time, it becomes common for men to wear dress like garments then so be it.

Kinda like how it's common for women to wear jeans. It wasn't always so, but it is now. Times change.

On the other hand, while 99.9% of the people who wear coveralls and are covered in brake dust are male, coveralls aren't specifically the province of men. If my daughter wanted to learn auto repair (and I'd love it if she wanted to) then it would naturally follow that she should wear coveralls to avoid damaging her normal clothing.


In truth, given the reaction I had and the reactions I've seen from children in such situations, I think it's likely that such restrictions will only make the child more adamant that they can or will do something.


It can. But that's escalating the issue to a higher level than how I've been looking at it. Just by way of clarification: I'm envisioning a scenario where a son has a whim to dress up as a princess, as opposed to some deeper desire.


I assume you are aware that it has not always been uncommon for men to wear makeup?

Yep. And that's another of those cultural 'evolutions' that it isn't common now. I mean, it's not like I'm gonna show up for work wearing a toga, right?


How can your insistence that it simply isn't something men do then be anything but conformism? By that same logic, if most men currently did wear makeup, you'd be lining up to buy mascara.


There are different types of conformism. One type that I think is destructive (and I'm pretty sure you'd agree) is the kind of conformism where everybody acts and thinks the same (Ever seen the movie Equilibrium?). That's bad conformism.

On the other hand, there is a certain level of common expectation that we do all conform to (Like not waiting for the bus in your underwear or not trying to eat soup by cupping it in your hands.) That's good conformity. All I'm saying is that since teaching your children the good conformity is the job of every parent, then one also teaches them to not wear a princess dress.

Now, if later on one of my sons decides to become a transvestite, then that's on him.


A bra is an entirely different situation. In most cases, a woman has breasts that need support and a man doesn't. It's sort of like the tampon example. A man doesn't menstruate and he doesn't have a vagina, so he wouldn't need a tampon for its intended use.

Makeup, on the other hand, is meant to be used on the face. Its intended purpose is to enhance someone's looks. Both men and women have faces. Both men and women may want to take steps to enhance their looks. There's nothing about either that is specific to a given sex.

My friend who gave me tips on eyeliner? His tips were about dealing with baggy, tired eyes. He has found that, when he's tired and it shows in his eyes, a little bit of light-colored eyeliner under his eyes makes him look more awake.

Why should he be less worried about his looks than any given woman? And why shouldn't he take similar steps to improve his looks when he has the same body parts - in this case, eyes?


Your point is taken but consider this: If YOU wear eyeliner it's likely that you're doing it for the sake of enhancing your looks (Whether you need to or not, and I think very few people do, but that's just my opinion. I like the natural look.) What you've just described with your friend however, is a bit more practical. I think it's a little unusual but not wrong in any way.

It's like if I wore makeup to hide a bruise on my face. It's not to enhance my beauty (can't enhance what ain't there ;) ) but for the practical purpose of hiding a blemish. To me, that's completely different.


How does, "you can't wear this because most boys don't," make any more sense than, "you can't take ballet because most boys don't"?


I may be missing the point, but to me, ballet isn't an inherently female thing at all. You ever seen the guns on a male ballet dancer? Sheesh! If I could have arms and a chest like that...


I hate to say it, but people like you are the reason he does feel that he has to be embarrassed. People like you are the reason he hesitates to mention his occasional use of makeup - because he's worried that the person he is talking to would be someone like you.

Because people have arbitrarily defined makeup as a "girl's thing", he is left to feel as if people will think there is something wrong with him for doing something that is no less natural for him than for me.


I hope that my comments on that in the section above have clarified that somewhat.


If you have a specific male and a specific female, the only differences you can count on are physiological.

That isn't to say that there aren't trends in psychology or emotions. While it's difficult to separate out the socialized from the innate, I do think that there tend to be psychological and emotional differences between men and women as a whole, just as I have no problem with the apparent trends in toy preference.

But tendencies aren't very useful when you're dealing with actual individuals. An individual male or female may or may not fit well into the trendlines. And since I think we should treat human beings as individuals, I think different treatment for men or women as a whole must be based in physiological differences - the only ones guaranteed to exist.


That's a good point, but that gets us back to the conformity thing. Is it a bad thing for a girl to buck the trend and become an auto mechanic, or a boy to go against the trend and become a nurse? Absolutely not. But to me that's pretty obvious, I only say it to make sure you know I see it that way.

But what about guys who want to dress in skirts and blouses? I think it's weird as hell, TBH... But an adult makes his own choices. My job is only to guide my kids in their youth to know what those trends are and to use them as a baseline. How they take it from there as they mature is up to them.


Yes.


Well, you know how I feel about that so I won't beat the dead horse.


Only if I complained that you were accusing me of harming an actual pet cat... =)


So then you don't want me to show people the Polaroids I have of you, the cat, and the blowtorch?


It probably wouldn't hurt. =)


hehe

"Dammit Dem, get off my back and have lunch already!"


I don't consider answering a child's question to be proselytization. If you initiated it or if you tried to convert the child, I think that would be inappropriate. But if the child came to you curious about your religion, I don't see the harm in answering the question. The intention would be to inform, not to convert.

The answer would be formed in the terms "Well, I believe..." or "Mormons believe...." as opposed to "This is the way it is." Extra points for being thorough if you give other beliefs for comparison.


I agree with the principle of what you're saying but I don't think that works in actual practice. Kids are way too impressionable and naive (generally speaking) to understand the difference between "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" and "Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Adults in positions of authority carry great credibility with kids, and they can't be relied upon to distinguish between what you believe and what is.


The same is true of, say, teachers. I am adamantly opposed to a public school teacher using the classroom to proselytize. But if a student asks a teacher a question about her religion, I see no reason that she shouldn't answer.

If a child asked a cub scout leader or a teacher a history or math question, even if it were outside of the normal activities/curriculum, no one would have a problem with them giving an answer. I don't see why a question about a religion should be any different.


Because unlike math or historical facts, religion is controversial as hell and isn't universal. 2+2=4 isn't up for discussion. Whether Jonah became an expert on aquatic anatomy is.


Now, if you fear that you are unable to simply answer the question without starting to proselytize, then it is probably best to back off and simply tell the child where they can find the information. But I think proselytizing takes enough of an effort that most people can successfully avoid it.


I'm pretty sure I am able, but not everybody is.

I don't think so, because I'm presenting a consistent framework to them.

Consistent only in that you are consistently treating them differently based on sex.

I see a difference though. Telling a boy he shouldn't dress as Cinderella is very different from telling a girl she can't put on a set of coveralls and help fix brakes. By definition, a princess is a female entity. a daughter of royalty. If there's a male child of royalty, we call him a prince. The costume follows from that.

Two things here. First of all, there are people out there who would say that fixing brakes is, by definition, a male job.

Second of all, we're talking about dressing up - playing pretend. Why should we limit what children can pretend to be because they don't have the right genitalia?

If a boy dresses up as a bear, he isn't a bear. By definition, because he is human, he cannot be a bear. How is that any different from him dressing up as a princess - something else he cannot actually be?

To go even more generic, a dress, as has been noted, is worn by females in our culture. In ages past men have worn similar garments certainly, just as it was once considered the height of masculinity to wear tights. That is not the case in this day and age. Men who wear dresses now are transvestites. If, in some future time, it becomes common for men to wear dress like garments then so be it.

So, again, we're talking about conformity, not anything inherent to sex. Our culture has arbitrarily decided that men should not wear dresses and we are apparently supposed to unthinkingly accept that distinction.

But why? Why should we conform to arbitrary fashion restrictions?

Kinda like how it's common for women to wear jeans. It wasn't always so, but it is now. Times change.

Indeed. They change because people buck the system. They changed because women started wearing jeans in spite of the arbitrary distinction that said they weren't supposed to.

It can. But that's escalating the issue to a higher level than how I've been looking at it. Just by way of clarification: I'm envisioning a scenario where a son has a whim to dress up as a princess, as opposed to some deeper desire.

So am I. But by refusing such a whim, you could simply make him more adamant that he wants to dress as a princess. If he wanted to do so, and he was disallowed while his sister was allowed, he might be jealous and wonder why she got to dress as she liked, but he didn't. And so on...

There are different types of conformism. One type that I think is destructive (and I'm pretty sure you'd agree) is the kind of conformism where everybody acts and thinks the same (Ever seen the movie Equilibrium?). That's bad conformism.

Sort of like how nearly everyone in our culture has unquestioningly accepted arbitrary distinctions on "male" and "female" dress instead of dressing as they like?

How is "wear the same clothes" any different from "listen to the same type of music" or "like the same baseball team" or anything else a child might conform to his peers on?

On the other hand, there is a certain level of common expectation that we do all conform to (Like not waiting for the bus in your underwear or not trying to eat soup by cupping it in your hands.) That's good conformity. All I'm saying is that since teaching your children the good conformity is the job of every parent, then one also teaches them to not wear a princess dress.

We teach everyone not to wait for the bus in their underwear. We pick out an arbitrary group - little boys - and teach them not to wear dresses.

Your point is taken but consider this: If YOU wear eyeliner it's likely that you're doing it for the sake of enhancing your looks (Whether you need to or not, and I think very few people do, but that's just my opinion. I like the natural look.) What you've just described with your friend however, is a bit more practical. I think it's a little unusual but not wrong in any way.

I'd wear eyeliner for the same reasons he would, actually. In addition, I might wear it to enhance my looks further - but probably only for a special occasion or because I was in a weird mood.

Either way, the idea is to make myself look better. The only difference is that I have a specific "problem" to hide in one case, while in the other I just want to look even better.

It's like if I wore makeup to hide a bruise on my face. It's not to enhance my beauty (can't enhance what ain't there ;) ) but for the practical purpose of hiding a blemish. To me, that's completely different.

Ok, so let's see if I've got this straight:

Hiding blemishes is both a male and a female thing.
Enhancing one's appearance is only a female thing.

Is that the gyst of it? And, if so, why should we accept the idea that men cannot seek to enhance their appearance?

And are you aware that a lot of the makeup some women do wear on a regular basis has the purpose of hiding blemishes?

That's a good point, but that gets us back to the conformity thing. Is it a bad thing for a girl to buck the trend and become an auto mechanic, or a boy to go against the trend and become a nurse? Absolutely not. But to me that's pretty obvious, I only say it to make sure you know I see it that way.

But what about guys who want to dress in skirts and blouses? I think it's weird as hell, TBH... But an adult makes his own choices. My job is only to guide my kids in their youth to know what those trends are and to use them as a baseline. How they take it from there as they mature is up to them.

I don't see any clear difference between the auto mechanic/nurse thing and the mode of dress. In either case, large segments of society have arbitrarily deemed certain things to be in a female domain and others in a male domain. In either case, someone who bucks the trend is not conforming.

It's one thing to let your children know that, should they make certain choices, they might catch hell for it. Lack of conformity in any situation can cause that to happen. It's quite another to tell them that they must conform - because you say so.

If I had a son who wanted to paint his nails and wear glittery clothes, I'd let him know that other children might have a problem with that. I wouldn't want him to get blindsided. But I wouldn't tell him that he must dress like the other boys.

As far as I can tell, you randomly choose gender norms that you think are important and should therefore be rules for your children. What makes gendered mode of dress more important and necessary than gendered professions?

I agree with the principle of what you're saying but I don't think that works in actual practice. Kids are way too impressionable and naive (generally speaking) to understand the difference between "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" and "Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Adults in positions of authority carry great credibility with kids, and they can't be relied upon to distinguish between what you believe and what is.

I think people give kids in general too little credit in things like this. I don't think that most children will have a major problem understanding that people hold different beliefs.

When I heard differing beliefs from the ones I was most exposed to, I would go to my mother with them. These things could range from religion to politics to (well, anything else with widely varying viewpoints). I'd tell her what I had heard and ask her if it was true. Her response on such matters was to say "Some people believe that. Personally, I believe X. Some other people believe Y."

As a very young child, I'd generally say that I believed X. After all, it's what my mother believed. As I grew up and learned to think critically on such things, I found that I agree with her on some of it. Sometimes, my own views are closer to those other people.

In truth, I think sheltering our kids from that make it more difficult for them to learn critical thinking - not less.

Because unlike math or historical facts, religion is controversial as hell and isn't universal. 2+2=4 isn't up for discussion. Whether Jonah became an expert on aquatic anatomy is.

...which is why you explain to them that it isn't universal. If they don't already know, I really don't think most children will have trouble understanding that.

A point of view is exactly that- a point of view. How does one go about proving such a thing?
You can't "prove" it, of course, but you can make it sound more valid, if you show that it is based on something other than irrational prejudices. That is what you are strangely resistant to doing.
But whose intuition prevails? Because it would seem that our intuitions are in conflict, as well as those of a LOT of people with whom I've interacted over the years.
A "LOT"? CAPITALIZED FOR EMPHASIS!? When you have only mentioned one single case, of dubious relevance? See what I mean? And if handful of anecdotes, and intuitive feelings about hypothetical situations we haven't actually been in, don't seem like much of a basis for forming opinions, you could, you know, look at the work of people who have gone to some trouble to study the matter.
while 99.9% of the people who wear coveralls and are covered in brake dust are male, coveralls aren't specifically the province of men.
They certainly used to be: and conservatives fought tooth and nail to keep things that way, based on similar "reasoning" as what you're showing here. It would destroy womanhood if women started doing "dirty" jobs (never mind how many shitty diapers and puked-on floors the womenfolk had been cleaning up all those years).
2+2=4 isn't up for discussion. Whether Jonah became an expert on aquatic anatomy is.
I've seen some Christians who would reverse those two :D

I have an agenda too.

I teach my kids to trust their instincts over propaganda. I teach them that if something they hear on the news or in their public education indoctrination doesn't make sense to them, then it's probably because it doesn't make sense at all.

I teach them to pursue the truth, however uncomfortable that might become. I teach them that it's perfectly acceptable to question our religion as long as they're willing to do it objectively and with an open mind.

I teach them that generally when someone calls them an ugly, small-minded fool it's a way to disguise that person's own ugliness, small-mindedness, and foolishness. Name-calling is for children and they're better than that.

I teach my kids to acknowledge that not everybody believes in the same things that they do, and that's the way it should be. I teach them that they mustn't force their ideas and beliefs on others, but that they also shouldn't allow themselves to worry about others attempting to belittle them for their own beliefs.

My agenda is to produce children who are strong enough to find the truth and hold fast to it, and to understand that the truth isn't always warm and fuzzy, but that it's still preferable over ignorance and self-deception.

I completely agree.
I have a humanitarian agenda. Teaching people that sending 50 bucks to world vision does not excuse them from being socially accountable. When I have kids, they will be volunteering in soup kitchens, visiting nursing homes and hospitals. I want them to grow up knowing that they are valued, but not everything is about them, and they have something good to contribute and make the world a better place.

You can't "prove" it, of course, but you can make it sound more valid, if you show that it is based on something other than irrational prejudices. That is what you are strangely resistant to doing.


Oh now that's different. Until now all I've heard is (in essence) "prove it! prove it!" What you're saying here is much more reasonable.

Except that 'strangely resistant' line.


A "LOT"? CAPITALIZED FOR EMPHASIS!? When you have only mentioned one single case, of dubious relevance? See what I mean? And if handful of anecdotes, and intuitive feelings about hypothetical situations we haven't actually been in, don't seem like much of a basis for forming opinions, you could, you know, look at the work of people who have gone to some trouble to study the matter.

Why are you making an issue of my caps? Are you trying to be petty?

At any rate, we were just talking about intuition, that is by definition separate from study. So I ask again, whose intuition prevails?


They certainly used to be: and conservatives fought tooth and nail to keep things that way, based on similar "reasoning" as what you're showing here. It would destroy womanhood if women started doing "dirty" jobs (never mind how many shitty diapers and puked-on floors the womenfolk had been cleaning up all those years).


Conservatives? I wonder if you're aware that a higher percentage of Democrats than Republicans fought the 19th Amendment?


I've seen some Christians who would reverse those two :D

I've never seen one who'd deny that 2+2=4 is an absolute fact.