NationStates Jolt Archive

<snip>


I'm not forgetting you... I'm just way to sleepy to answer coherently ;) I'll come back and edit this post as a real reply.

Conservatives? I wonder if you're aware that a higher percentage of Democrats than Republicans fought the 19th Amendment?
You mean back when the Democrats were far more conservative than the Republicans?

I've never seen one who'd deny that 2+2=4 is an absolute fact.
For a strict mathematical standpoint, 2+2 can equal anything from 3 to 5.

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?

Amen! I really like the way you think about this. I think that one day, when I'll be having kids, I'll be having the same agenda as you do.

You mean back when the Democrats were far more conservative than the Republicans?

LOL You guys are so silly.


For a strict mathematical standpoint, 2+2 can equal anything from 3 to 5.

Not if '2' is given as exactly equal to Integer 2.

I rearranged a couple of the points to group them together whenever I could answer multiple with a single block.

I also forgot to edit the other post when I said I'd use it to reply back. Oopsie. Here it is.

Consistent only in that you are consistently treating them differently based on sex.

In a very limited sense, yes. As we speak I've just put my baby daughter down for a nap in a pink sleeper. Had she been a boy, the sleeper would probably have been blue.


Two things here. First of all, there are people out there who would say that fixing brakes is, by definition, a male job.

Yes there are... But I think they're wrong, obviously just as you do. At the same time, if such a person were raising a child I wouldn't seek to undermine that over the wishes of the parent.


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?

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?


I see what you're getting at, and it is a very good question so I took some time to think about it. The answer is this: Clothing, on some level, is an expression of our identity. Who we are is expressed partly in how we choose to dress. By guiding my sons to dress as boys and my daughters to dress as girls I am instructing them on HOW to express themselves. What do boys wear? What do girls wear? How shall I dress to express who I am? These are the questions I answer whenever I buy clothing for my kids. (Remember, this was in the case of a whim as opposed to a deeper desire, which I'd approach differently.)

In the case of a costume of a bear vs. a princess, the difference is that a bear costume is enough of a departure from reality as to truly be a costume to transform someone into an utterly different entity. A princess costume, at its most basic level, is nothing but a fancy dress cut in a medieval style.


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?


I don't think they're quite so arbitrary. It isn't like there's one person sitting in an office somewhere deciding what the current cultural norm will be. (In spite of what many Paresian fashion designers might think ;) )


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.
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?


True, but I'd like to note for the record that womens' jeans and mens' jeans are not the same. Just as a skirt and a kilt are two different things.


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...


Which is precisely where guidance comes in. If he wants to be a princess for Halloween on a whim then I'd say he probably didn't understand the reasons I'd say no. I would then explain to him that in our culture wearing a dress is how people express themselves as girls and so it wouldn't make much sense for him to do that. Generally speaking, boys don't WANT to be perceived as a girl any more than girls want to be perceived as a boy. (Speaking generally here.)


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.


I prefer to think of it as we teach EVERYONE to dress in accordance with established cultural norms for expression of one's sex.


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.

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 another one of those cultural norms that just is. Guys generally don't use makeup to enhance our appearance (Probably because most women wouldn't find it attractive. Think about it. If suddenly women all over the world expressed an attraction to men who wore green eyeliner, the makeup aisle in the store would be packed to the ceiling with men. ;) )


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.

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?



Not randomly, I assure you.

I'd say a profession isn't related to sex expression. (At least, not any more)


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.

Ah, but it isn't because I say so. I'm not the Parisian :D


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.


And I will never criticize you for it, however much I disagree with that approach.


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.


There comes a level of maturity when they are ready for that, and each child reaches that point at a different time. The reason I proceed cautiously with other people's kids is

1)They are the ultimate authority on their child and I don't want to undermine it.
2)I can't be certain whether the child has reached the level of maturity to be able to handle it the way you describe.


...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.

Issues of faith and belief require a deeper level of maturity than accepting that 2+2=4. Math is simple, provable and always the same. If I give you a math problem to work out you will reach exactly the same answer as, say, a guy from West Russia. (Assuming you both do it correctly.) On the other hand, when it comes to religion/values it isn't so cut and dried. As much as I believe the truth of the Mormon Church to be a fact, it would be stupid of me to to acknowledge that other people, in good faith, can reach an entirely different conclusion and I MUST respect that right. That isn't so easy for a young child to understand.

Most young children won't understand why it can't be as simple as math. (A problem we see on these forums from time to time :) )

LOL You guys are so silly.
Read a book on U.S. history some time.

Not if '2' is given as exactly equal to Integer 2.
Then it would have to be rendered as "2." and not "2".

The boys would be as mystified if someone suggested they dress as girls as if you'd asked them if they'd like to play baseball with a wet rag and a tape measure.

I love that you started the thread talking about how you encourage your children to look at logic, evidence and keep an open mind and then prove that you encourage exactly the opposite.

There is not logic, nor any evidence, that makes a dress only for girls or knights only for boys or anything like. Rather than make a rational argument you make an invalid comparison to the necessity of bats and balls to baseball.

I assume you have some sort of evidence that without a dress a girl would no longer be a girl or that with a dress a boy is no longer a boy, yeah?

"I wouldn't let my child date a black man because they might be mistreated for being in a mixed relationship." Yup, it's not any more valid now that you're talking about gender roles than it was when people were using bigots to excuse their denial of their children's essential right to express themselves as they like and not how you indoctrinate them to express themselves.

I admit it. It's completely true.

So you think, outsider.

Not randomly, I assure you.

I'd say a profession isn't related to sex expression. (At least, not any more)

How do you think that change happened? Magic fairies? People like Neesika rejected the artificial and arbitrary limitation imposed on them and their children by convention. It is precisely by the kind of actions she describes that that change occurred. Your daughter can be a doctor or a lawyer specifically because people like you who wished that children not be taught that such limitations are false failed. And you'll fail here as well.

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.


Hmm. So what about me? I have been known to wear make-up to make me more attractive, yet I'm not a transvestite, nor a girl...?

Real men wear make-up.

Hmm. So what about me? I have been known to wear make-up to make me more attractive, yet I'm not a transvestite, nor a girl...?

Real men wear make-up.
Your sig reflects the Puscifer shirt Cobbleism gave me. And, on that note, coincidentally, you should TG me.

Your sig reflects the Puscifer shirt Cobbleism gave me. And, on that note, coincidentally, you should TG me.

There's a tshirt for Rev 22:20 (I assume that's the one you mean)? Awesome.

On which note, consider yourself slightly tg'd.

There's a tshirt for Rev 22:20 (I assume that's the one you mean)? Awesome.Indeed there is, which i display PROUDLY every Sunday. :)
The song absolutely rocks, of course. It gets Cobbleism to thrust his hips and sing it as he rollerblades around town.

On which note, consider yourself slightly tg'd.Thank you, good sir. *bows*

Indeed there is, which i display PROUDLY every Sunday. :)
The song absolutely rocks, of course. It gets Cobbleism to thrust his hips and sing it as he rollerblades around town.


I am filled with a strange combination of terror, curious arousal and more terror.

:D

Agreed though. The song makes me smile every time I hear it. :) Possibly his finest work.

I am filled with a strange combination of terror, curious arousal and more terror.

:DAFAIK, he hasn't YouTube'd it. Yet, even to my begging.

Agreed though. The song makes me smile every time I hear it. :) Possibly his finest work.Both versions rock, which is funny, since i already started playing a lounge version of it live BEFORE the full-length album came out. :)

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?

My agenda is to let my kid make up his own mind without bias in one direction or another. He asks a question, I answer it honestly. I don't make a point to indoctrinate him.

My agenda is to let my kid make up his own mind without bias in one direction or another. He asks a question, I answer it honestly. I don't make a point to indoctrinate him.

I hope you stick to your principles and let him make up his own mind about punching other kids in the face.

I hope you stick to your principles and let him make up his own mind about punching other kids in the face.

What is it with conservatives and proudly proclaiming that they don't know the difference between making your own personal choices unfettered and punching someone in the face.

I'll give you hint as to the difference, one of those two is a crime.

What is it with conservatives and proudly proclaiming that they don't know the difference between making your own personal choices unfettered and punching someone in the face.

I'll give you hint as to the difference, one of those two is a crime.

I'm not a conservative and what I just said was in support of a very non-conservative point of view. Re-read it.

I hope you stick to your principles and let him make up his own mind about punching other kids in the face.

Your child will make up his own mind to do that or not, no matter what you say. I make that choice daily as an adult, do I want to punch the bitch at Wal*mart? Absolutely. Do I want to deal with another assault charge and all the hassle that brings? Most likely no.

My children want to beat the shit out of the kid downstairs, do they want to deal with the consequences? Absolutely not.

If your child doesn't know how to make their own decisions, they are in a shitty place when they become grown ups and are expected to.

My children want to beat the shit out of the kid downstairs, do they want to deal with the consequences? Absolutely not.


And what might those consequences be?

Your child will make up his own mind to do that or not, no matter what you say. I make that choice daily as an adult, do I want to punch the bitch at Wal*mart? Absolutely. Do I want to deal with another assault charge and all the hassle that brings? Most likely no.

My children want to beat the shit out of the kid downstairs, do they want to deal with the consequences? Absolutely not.

If your child doesn't know how to make their own decisions, they are in a shitty place when they become grown ups and are expected to.

yeah.

its not that i indoctrinated my son into non violence. its that we discussed the pros and cons and he decided that the consequences werent worth the supposed satisfaction.

And what might those consequences be?

I would assume assault charges. You don't get to go around beating up people just because they're stupid.

I would assume assault charges. You don't get to go around beating up people just because they're stupid.

Most playground or neighborhood fights don't end in assault charges, surely? How many seven year olds are locked up? I'd expect the harshest punishment to come from the parents in the form of grounding or a telling off. And the reason for punishment is that kids have to learn that some things (like hitting people in the face or homophobia) aren't okay, irrespective of what the law says or does.

Most playground or neighborhood fights don't end in assault charges, surely? How many seven year olds are locked up? I'd expect the harshest punishment to come from the parents in the form of grounding or a telling off. And the reason for punishment is that kids have to learn that some things (like hitting people in the face or homophobia) aren't okay, irrespective of what the law says or does.

Of course I would ground them, that's a given. There are consequences outside of "the mom" though. One of them might be that the girls would be seen as anti-social and it would adversely affect their social life.

Don't mistake me grounding them for me making choices for them though. They make their own choices, they always have and always will. You can't control people, no matter how much you want to.

FWIW, if a child beat up my child, I would absolutely call the police. My children are not to be abused, by anyone, even if they are the little shit downstairs.

Of course I would ground them, that's a given. There are consequences outside of "the mom" though. One of them might be that the girls would be seen as anti-social and it would adversely affect their social life.

Don't mistake me grounding them for me making choices for them though. They make their own choices, they always have and always will. You can't control people, no matter how much you want to.

Of course you can't control people's minds. That's a given. No one is suggesting that parents develop hypnotise their children. But when your kid punches another kid in the face you tell them that's wrong and you re-enforce that through penalties. You don't leave them to come to their own conclusions about the safety of crossing a busy street or punching someone in the face - you do your best to impress upon them the correct way to behave. There's a limit to how much one can do, but if children grow up to be violent or homophobic it should be in spite of what their parents have told them. And if they grow up to be non-violent it shouldn't be just because they're scared of someone doing something back to them, it should be because they know it's the right thing to do. And the exact same thing applies to homophobia.

Note: If any of this comes out as snippy, it isn't intended to. My answers just look shorter than usual, so I'm worried they might come across that way.

In a very limited sense, yes.

A person who only did it for professions would be just as limited.

Yes there are... But I think they're wrong, obviously just as you do. At the same time, if such a person were raising a child I wouldn't seek to undermine that over the wishes of the parent.

I would. In fact, I have done things to help make it clear to children who might or might not have been socialized otherwise that traditionally "male" professions are open to them and that women can succeed in them.

I see what you're getting at, and it is a very good question so I took some time to think about it. The answer is this: Clothing, on some level, is an expression of our identity. Who we are is expressed partly in how we choose to dress. By guiding my sons to dress as boys and my daughters to dress as girls I am instructing them on HOW to express themselves. What do boys wear? What do girls wear? How shall I dress to express who I am? These are the questions I answer whenever I buy clothing for my kids. (Remember, this was in the case of a whim as opposed to a deeper desire, which I'd approach differently.)

But you aren't addressing the arbitrary nature of it.

Why should you teach your children that their gender identity is tied to clothing?
Why should you blindly accept the norms of society for such expression?
Why should they?

In the case of a costume of a bear vs. a princess, the difference is that a bear costume is enough of a departure from reality as to truly be a costume to transform someone into an utterly different entity. A princess costume, at its most basic level, is nothing but a fancy dress cut in a medieval style.

A bear costume is nothing but a very fuzzy outfit with a head on it.

What makes pretending to be a girl more harmful than pretending to be a bear?

I don't think they're quite so arbitrary. It isn't like there's one person sitting in an office somewhere deciding what the current cultural norm will be. (In spite of what many Paresian fashion designers might think ;) )

If they weren't arbitrary, we wouldn't have "girl" fashions that used to be "boy" fashions.

True, but I'd like to note for the record that womens' jeans and mens' jeans are not the same. Just as a skirt and a kilt are two different things.

It depends on the particular style. Some womens' jeans are cut just like mens'. Some aren't.

I prefer to think of it as we teach EVERYONE to dress in accordance with established cultural norms for expression of one's sex.

And you teach them different things depending on what genitalia they have.

That's another one of those cultural norms that just is.

In other words, you accept it unquestioningly. Why?

Why is that something that "just is"? If there isn't a good reason for it, why should you accept it and pass it on? You're willing to question and overturn the gender norms in professions. Why not in clothing?

Guys generally don't use makeup to enhance our appearance (Probably because most women wouldn't find it attractive.

How would you know if you don't try?

Well-applied makeup can look just as good on a man as on a woman, although his features might change the way in which he should apply it.

Not randomly, I assure you.

I'd say a profession isn't related to sex expression. (At least, not any more)

And why is clothing?

If you and others stopped pushing for a sexual code in clothing, you'd be saying that clothing wasn't tied to sex expression.

[quote]Ah, but it isn't because I say so. I'm not the Parisian :D[/quoet]

No, but you're the one who would be enforcing their "code", as it were.

Following generally accepting norms to some degree is helpful and helps kids avoid unnecessary teasing.

Anyone who tells their young male child its okay to wear dresses, make up, and play with girl toys shouldn't be surprised when their kid is teased and/or beaten up.

Telling kids when they don't know any better to break social norms, come to think of it, is downright cruel. You are inviting unnecessary heartache. Why would you do that to your kids?

Following generally accepting norms to some degree is helpful and helps kids avoid unnecessary teasing.

Anyone who tells their young male child its okay to wear dresses, make up, and play with girl toys shouldn't be surprised when their kid is teased and/or beaten up.

Telling kids when they don't know any better to break social norms, come to think of it, is downright cruel. You are inviting unnecessary heartache. Why would you do that to your kids?

Fear is not a good enough reason to conform. The psychology you describe here leads to yellow wallpaper, until enough people kick the trend.

I love that you started the thread talking about how you encourage your children to look at logic, evidence and keep an open mind and then prove that you encourage exactly the opposite.

There is not logic, nor any evidence, that makes a dress only for girls or knights only for boys or anything like. Rather than make a rational argument you make an invalid comparison to the necessity of bats and balls to baseball.

I assume you have some sort of evidence that without a dress a girl would no longer be a girl or that with a dress a boy is no longer a boy, yeah?

"I wouldn't let my child date a black man because they might be mistreated for being in a mixed relationship." Yup, it's not any more valid now that you're talking about gender roles than it was when people were using bigots to excuse their denial of their children's essential right to express themselves as they like and not how you indoctrinate them to express themselves.

Dude... the arguments you're making have been dealt with several pages ago. I'm not being snarky, I just can't see why I should repeat the same debate.

But I will make a couple quick points that will (hopefully) be useful.

1)I've never pushed the idea that their being mistreated by others is the reason for my decisions. Others have said that and pressed it, not me.

2)I DO encourage them to use logic, as opposed to a slavish devotion to liberal dogmatism "If you don't agree with me you're a bigot!!!" It is illogical for a male child to dress up as a princess. Period.

3)Not sure what your baseball analogy was meant to express, but there is logic an evidence, (Which has been linked in this thread) to support what I"m saying.

4)Did you get my TG?

How do you think that change happened? Magic fairies? People like Neesika rejected the artificial and arbitrary limitation imposed on them and their children by convention. It is precisely by the kind of actions she describes that that change occurred. Your daughter can be a doctor or a lawyer specifically because people like you who wished that children not be taught that such limitations are false failed. And you'll fail here as well.

People like me? At what point have I suggested that my female child couldn't be a doctor or a lawyer?

Hmm. So what about me? I have been known to wear make-up to make me more attractive, yet I'm not a transvestite, nor a girl...?

Real men wear make-up.

Your life. I'm no more bound by your moral cues than you are by mine. I hope you've noticed the difference is I'm not attacking you. (Not because yours is a position of moral strength, but because when I say people have the right to live as their conscience dictates, I actually MEAN it.)

Following generally accepting norms to some degree is helpful and helps kids avoid unnecessary teasing.

Anyone who tells their young male child its okay to wear dresses, make up, and play with girl toys shouldn't be surprised when their kid is teased and/or beaten up. Why would the kid being teased or beaten up ever not come as a surprise?

Telling kids when they don't know any better to break social norms, come to think of it, is downright cruel. You are inviting unnecessary heartache. Why would you do that to your kids?Sometimes telling your kids to conform to social norms also causes heartache.

I hope you stick to your principles and let him make up his own mind about punching other kids in the face.

Odd response, but why not? It's his mind to make up. Although, when he came to me about being bullied my response was, "Never start it, but always finish it." He'll do with that particular tidbit of advice as he chooses. Again, his mind and his choice. I prefer to give him guidance as opposed to "obedience training".

Sometimes telling your kids to conform to social norms also causes heartache.
See: every kid who is even mildly different. Gays, nerds, goths, geeks, punks, transgenders, crossdressers, weirdoes, loners, the list goes on.

Your life. I'm no more bound by your moral cues than you are by mine.


How is make-up a moral issue?


I hope you've noticed the difference is I'm not attacking you.


Which implies I was attacking you?

If you percieve me telling you I have worn make-up as an attack, it speaks a whole lot more to your gender insecurity than it does to my intentions to wound.


(Not because yours is a position of moral strength,


Again with the moral arguments?


...but because when I say people have the right to live as their conscience dictates, I actually MEAN it.)

I don't believe you. Your arguments certainly don't reflect it.

The thing I see here is - you are the one saying men can't wear make-up (and, apparently, girls can't sleep on blue blankets. God I hope you only pretend to have children), and that - if they do - it is for a different reason to why women wear it. You are the one making judgements, trying to push your arbitrary set of values, and trying to dictate how others live.

See: every kid who is even mildly different. Gays, nerds, goths, geeks, punks, transgenders, crossdressers, weirdoes, loners, the list goes on.

I guess we're all supposed to just pretend to be like these 'moral crusaders', so we don't make them feel uncomfortable.

There's the rub - we're being told we should fit in so we (or our kids) don't get beaten up... but who is it beating up the misfits? People like Trollgaard are attempting that old ruse of blaming rape on the victims.

2)I DO encourage them to use logic, as opposed to a slavish devotion to liberal dogmatism "If you don't agree with me you're a bigot!!!" It is illogical for a male child to dress up as a princess. Period.


The problem, NB, is that logic doesn't work that way. For one to declare something illogical, one must be able to, well, logically support that position, and "Period." is the opposite of logical support. You have said that it is illogical for a boy to dress up as a princess, but not illogical for a boy to dress up as a bear. Given that any boy could, in theory, become a princess through surgery and adoption, but that no boy could ever become a bear, that position doesn't really hold water. How is it illogical to dress as something that you almost certainly won't ever become, but logical to dress as something that you entirely certainly won't ever become (or, I presume, as something you already are or quite plausibly could be, since I doubt you're opposed to a little boy dressing up as a little boy)? I don't see logic there, I see "it just IS, okay?"

I'm not trying to insult you, but decisions made because "it just IS that way" are pretty much the dictionary definition of prejudiced - you are making a judgment based not on reason but on your own instinct that for a boy to do thus-and-such is wrong. That doesn't make you evil or a bad parent or any of the things you seem to believe people have been accusing you of - but it does mean that you are making certain decisions for your children based on prejudice rather than logic. Unless, of course, you can offer a genuine logical reason why it is logical for a small boy to dress up as a bear, a knight, a firefighter, a robot, a vampire, or a small boy, but not as a princess.

I'm not a conservative and what I just said was in support of a very non-conservative point of view. Re-read it.

No, as a matter of fact, it isn't. See, it's a typical conservative argument that allowing people to make up their own mind about their beliefs is equivalent allowing them to make up their own mind about punching someone in the face. It's not. Your comparison fails on every level.

Dude... the arguments you're making have been dealt with several pages ago. I'm not being snarky, I just can't see why I should repeat the same debate.

Spoken to =/= dealt with. You keep using the word logical. You clearly don't know what it means, as Poli points out. You cannot make a logical argument for why it's more appropriate for a boy to pretend to be Yoda but not Princess Di.

But I will make a couple quick points that will (hopefully) be useful.

1)I've never pushed the idea that their being mistreated by others is the reason for my decisions. Others have said that and pressed it, not me.

Yes, you have, in fact. You claimed that it was a perfectly acceptable non-bigotted reason to disallow your child from wearing the princess makeup.

2)I DO encourage them to use logic, as opposed to a slavish devotion to liberal dogmatism "If you don't agree with me you're a bigot!!!" It is illogical for a male child to dress up as a princess. Period.

Your definition of logic isn't actually logic. If it were, your argument would not end with "period". I know that works with your children, but unlike them we are encouraged to use logic here.

3)Not sure what your baseball analogy was meant to express, but there is logic an evidence, (Which has been linked in this thread) to support what I"m saying.

YOUR baseball analogy. If you don't read your own arguments, why should anyone else? You compared a boy dressing as a girl as making as much sense as playing baseball with the wrong equipment. The difference being of course that playing baseball REQUIRES a bat and ball, but being a boy does not REQUIRE any specific style of dress.

4)Did you get my TG?

Just did. I haven't been on EQ2 lately.


People like me? At what point have I suggested that my female child couldn't be a doctor or a lawyer?

You haven't. That's the point. But 50 years ago the exact same arguments were being made against those behaviors by a female child. There is no difference. Cultural norms are not the end all be all. LOGIC requires us to challenge them when they are unsupported.

Your life. I'm no more bound by your moral cues than you are by mine. I hope you've noticed the difference is I'm not attacking you. (Not because yours is a position of moral strength, but because when I say people have the right to live as their conscience dictates, I actually MEAN it.)

Makeup is a moral issue? So much for logic, huh?

You cannot make a logical argument for why it's more appropriate for a boy to pretend to be Yoda but not Princess Di.


That's the one that really confused me, too.

Apparently, a small boy knows he's not a bear, but might not be able to determine whether or not he is Snow White.

?

That's the one that really confused me, too.

Apparently, a small boy knows he's not a bear, but might not be able to determine whether or not he is Snow White.

?

One also wonders how a child can learn what logic REALLY is when being told that dressing up as Snow White is illogical but dressing up as other mythical creatures that happen to be considered arbitrarily masculine totally makes sense.

I wonder what his position is on dressing up as the mother from Hairspray. Certainly, logically, only boys should wear that costume.

One also wonders how a child can learn what logic REALLY is when being told that dressing up as Snow White is illogical but dressing up as other mythical creatures that happen to be considered arbitrarily masculine totally makes sense.

I wonder what his position is on dressing up as the mother from Hairspray. Certainly, logically, only boys should wear that costume.

I'm even more confused, actually.

I know I can't differentiate between male bears and female bears... what if the boy accidentally dresses as a girl bear!!!!

And, since we're supposed to base our conceptions on modern cultural norms... what are you supposed to do about a child that want's to dress up as a biblical character???

I'm even more confused, actually.

I know I can't differentiate between male bears and female bears... what if the boy accidentally dresses as a girl bear!!!!

And, since we're supposed to base our conceptions on modern cultural norms... what are you supposed to do about a child that want's to dress up as a biblical character???

Clearly, the safest position is to make sure the bear has a giant sagging penis. That way no one will be confused as to what kind of bear your son is. Want help making the costume?

I so want to be there when you take your infant son around to houses in Georgia with him wearing a bear costume with an obvious penis added just to make sure he's not violating cultural norms.

One also wonders how a child can learn what logic REALLY is when being told that dressing up as Snow White is illogical but dressing up as other mythical creatures that happen to be considered arbitrarily masculine totally makes sense.

I wonder what his position is on dressing up as the mother from Hairspray. Certainly, logically, only boys should wear that costume.

Unless he argues that John Travolta doesn't have boy-parts and is actually a girl in disguise.

Which makes no sense because if Travolta was really a girl, it'd be illogical for her to dress up as a man all the time to pretend...

But if he is a man, then why is he dressed as a woman in that movie? :confused:

*Head asplodes*

Unless he argues that John Travolta doesn't have boy-parts and is actually a girl in disguise.

Which makes no sense because if Travolta was really a girl, it'd be illogical for her to dress up as a man all the time to pretend...

But if he is a man, then why is he dressed as a woman in that movie? :confused:

*Head asplodes*

Seriously, it's hard not to just lie back and laugh.

"Son, it's illogical for you to dress as a girl. Boys can never be girls."
"But, Dad, you let John dress as a vampire."
"And?"
"But, Dad, boys can never be vampires, either."
"Son, vampires don't exist so it's not illogical to dress up as something that doesn't exist and you can never be."
"But Kerri is dressed as a bear."
"Son, it's illogical for boys to dress as girls. Period."

It's so funny that there is no way to apply logic to his argument and not destroy it but he keeps claiming to be on the side of logic. I want to see him make an argument for dressing as a bear but not a princess that employs logic rather tradition.

Unless he argues that John Travolta doesn't have boy-parts and is actually a girl in disguise.

Which makes no sense because if Travolta was really a girl, it'd be illogical for her to dress up as a man all the time to pretend...

But if he is a man, then why is he dressed as a woman in that movie? :confused:

*Head asplodes*

See? This is why we NEED arbitrary cultural (and, apparently, moral?) rules. It's all just too confusing if you actually try to apply logic. "I said so" is a much more sensible approach.

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?


Actually I think the kids are already aware of their personal preferences so
indoctrination of any kind probly won't change it.

Clearly, the safest position is to make sure the bear has a giant sagging penis. That way no one will be confused as to what kind of bear your son is. Want help making the costume?

I so want to be there when you take your infant son around to houses in Georgia with him wearing a bear costume with an obvious penis added just to make sure he's not violating cultural norms.

This is currently leaping up the list of top-ten things to do. I love the idea of telling people that the huge penis on the suit is to help make sure I don't offend them through gender confusion....

And, since we're supposed to base our conceptions on modern cultural norms... what are you supposed to do about a child that want's to dress up as a biblical character???

If a boy can't be a princess he sure can't be Jesus.

This is currently leaping up the list of top-ten things to do. I love the idea of telling people that the huge penis on the suit is to help make sure I don't offend them through gender confusion....

I can't wait to catch the eyeballs as they pop right out of the socket.

"Well, you do want to keep your son from become one of those icky people, but you're making us thinking about anatomy which of course was designed by God but is terribly icky and should never be viewed or considered..." EYEBALL POPPAGE!!

If a boy can't be a princess he sure can't be Jesus.

Are you calling Jesus a princess? :eek:

If a boy can't be a princess he sure can't be Jesus.

SO sigworthy.

SO sigworthy.

Why? I don't get it.

I can't wait to catch the eyeballs as they pop right out of the socket.

"Well, you do want to keep your son from become one of those icky people, but you're making us thinking about anatomy which of course was designed by God but is terribly icky and should never be viewed or considered..." EYEBALL POPPAGE!!

And, what could be more biblical than an enormous penis?

Why? I don't get it.

Another victim of genderblurring?

Another victim of genderblurring?

It's very possible. I'm not sure what genderblurring is, exactly, but if something has victims, it is a safe bet that I am one of them.

I'm guessing the implication is "Jesus was a princess," but I don't know if that is based on any specific verse, or the way he is depicted in art, or if it's just a weird and slightly random comment.

Are you calling Jesus a princess? :eek:

Well, he was a queen.

Are you calling Jesus a princess? :eek:
Yeah, it's in the Bible. Towards the end.
SO sigworthy.

:fluffle:

Hmmm... Performing Mob hits is all that's on my agenda. :sniper: ((Jk))

No, as a matter of fact, it isn't. See, it's a typical conservative argument that allowing people to make up their own mind about their beliefs is equivalent allowing them to make up their own mind about punching someone in the face. It's not. Your comparison fails on every level.

Explain the difference then. Given that what is important is what is right, not what is legal, what is the difference between telling your children that punching other kids in the face is wrong and that being a homophobe is wrong?

Explain the difference then. Given that what is important is what is right, not what is legal, what is the difference between telling your children that punching other kids in the face is wrong and that being a homophobe is wrong?

Being a homophobe is an opinion and punching someone in the face is a violation of their rights.

You don't know the difference between trying to regulate the thoughts and feelings of others and trying to prevent them from assaulting someone? That's fucking scary.

Being a homophobe is an opinion and punching someone in the face is a violation of their rights.

But the opinion that punching people in the face is right is an opinion.

Edit: *follows trail of quotations* Okay, so that's not what Sirmomo was saying originally. But still. *is awkward*

Being a homophobe is an opinion and punching someone in the face is a violation of their rights.

You don't know the difference between trying to regulate the thoughts and feelings of others and trying to prevent them from assaulting someone? That's fucking scary.

"Punching someone is okay if you can get away with it" is an opinion. If you try and get your children to believe that punching someone isn't okay (and not just put them off by telling them they might go to jail) then you're as guilty of "regulating the thoughts and feelings of others" as someone who tries to get their children to understand that being bigoted is wrong. If a kid thinks that punching people is fine as long as you don't get caught, you think it's wrong to try and persuade them that it's not? To me, THAT'S fucking scary.

I want to see him make an argument for dressing as a bear but not a princess that employs logic rather tradition.

Well since Prince is the male equliavant of a Princess only males can be Princes. Dressing up as a princess is another matter.

Wouldn't it be nice if no one gave a monkeys about gays?

"Punching someone is okay if you can get away with it" is an opinion. If you try and get your children to believe that punching someone isn't okay (and not just put them off by telling them they might go to jail) then you're as guilty of "regulating the thoughts and feelings of others" as someone who tries to get their children to understand that being bigoted is wrong. If a kid thinks that punching people is fine as long as you don't get caught, you think it's wrong to try and persuade them that it's not? To me, THAT'S fucking scary.

No thats not fucking scary at all, that's common sense.

Whats fuckedup is teaching your children that punching someone in the face is okay if they can get away with it.

You don't get to go around beating up people just because they're stupid.

If you were imagine the amount of people walking around with black eyes.

As for calling the police, would the police in your town get involved that much if the little shit downstairs just puched your child? I know mine won't get into it that much unless the beating is really serious it is a shame and the schools (when it happnes at school) don't always seem to concerned about ensuring everybody is safe.

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.

well, Im no suppporter but heck, Id like to see how you think of this

people are of two genders for a reason, reproduction, and it is important the children of today and tomorrow can see the difference between Girls and Boys, or it all becomes one big bluer and marriage whith children would become per chance, not costume.

and if girls arent treatend as girls, they wont think of themselves as girls, theyl want to do things thath are not at home in the Norms of our culture, thus punchin tradition in the face, and whos to say a new culture in which Woman are too busy whiht their career and have their childern be raised by the TV is a better one, and if you say ''let the man do it''. then your just chanching the genders, but not the roles or the inert sexism.


as I said, I dont support this but I was dissapointed by the lack of counterarguments, so I thought of these

I don't believe you. Your arguments certainly don't reflect it.


Fine. We're done then.


The thing I see here is - you are the one saying men can't wear make-up (and, apparently, girls can't sleep on blue blankets. God I hope you only pretend to have children),

That's pretty low coming from someone who presents himself as being such a mild mannered debater. We're done here.

The problem, NB, is that logic doesn't work that way. For one to declare something illogical, one must be able to, well, logically support that position, and "Period." is the opposite of logical support. You have said that it is illogical for a boy to dress up as a princess, but not illogical for a boy to dress up as a bear. Given that any boy could, in theory, become a princess through surgery and adoption, but that no boy could ever become a bear, that position doesn't really hold water. How is it illogical to dress as something that you almost certainly won't ever become, but logical to dress as something that you entirely certainly won't ever become (or, I presume, as something you already are or quite plausibly could be, since I doubt you're opposed to a little boy dressing up as a little boy)? I don't see logic there, I see "it just IS, okay?"

I'm not trying to insult you, but decisions made because "it just IS that way" are pretty much the dictionary definition of prejudiced - you are making a judgment based not on reason but on your own instinct that for a boy to do thus-and-such is wrong. That doesn't make you evil or a bad parent or any of the things you seem to believe people have been accusing you of - but it does mean that you are making certain decisions for your children based on prejudice rather than logic. Unless, of course, you can offer a genuine logical reason why it is logical for a small boy to dress up as a bear, a knight, a firefighter, a robot, a vampire, or a small boy, but not as a princess.

Side note: I don't just believe people are saying that, just look at GnI's comment I replied to above.

At any rate, I know what you're saying, but I feel I've addressed that question already in response to Dempublicents1. Letting a kid dress as a bear or a robot or a vampire etc. doesn't undermine their learning about what the cultural norms are in terms of male and female dress. It's that simple. It is completely illogical to undermine one's own teaching. As I've said before, if my son grow up to be a cross dresser then that's his life, but at least he will be able to make that decision based on a foundation of knowing what is and what isn't normal for our culture. If he chooses to go against that grain as he matures then so be it, but my j ob is to tech him what those norms are. It really is that simple.

This debate is beginning to feel repetitive. You guys ever watch MAD TV? There was a sketch they did once shortly after the synthetic cholesterol substitute (remember that stuff? It was a cholesterol substitute for snack foods that came out in the mid 90s). The sketch was done in the format of an infomercial about Olestra where one person was presenting it, and another was asking questions, sort of the "average guy on the street role."

So at some point the presenter says that their brand of cholesterol substitute only causes 10% of the anal leakage of the leading brand of synthetic cholesterol. The "average guy" says, I don't think I understand, can you show me an analogy?

Presenter: "Sure! Here are two lab beakers with the anal leakage caused by each product. As you can see, Olestra has only 10% of the anal leakage of the leading brand!"
Guy:"Hmm... I'm not sure I understand still. got another analogy?"
Presenter:"Absolutely! [indicating two diapers] The diaper on the left has only 10% of the anal leakage of the one on the right, the leading brand!"
Guy:"Hmm... I'm just not sure I understand. got another analogy?"
Presenter:"Certainly! [indicating two plates of french fries] The fries on the left have been cooked in the anal leakage from Olestra, and the ones on the right, the leading brand!"

And so on... and that's what this thread's starting to feel like. Guys, I get it. I know what you believe and why. I understand completely. I don't agree with you. I have that right, and I'm not being closed minded or stubborn. I just haven't seen a good reason to change my approach and some of the arguments I'm seeing are just repeating each other so it's nothing new. Don't take offense, don't get mad at me.

As parents, our job is to provide a framework for our kids, to teach them not only the obvious right and wrong but also provide a stable base upon which they'll go on to build their life. Part of that base is an understanding of our culture and the norms associated with it. Like it or not, it is not considered normal for boys to wear dresses in our culture. You can question that all you want but that's the way it is, by whatever means that came to be. Letting a young boy wear a dress undermines the teaching of that foundation in a way that a bear costume or robot costume does not, namely, sex identity. That's my approach. That's why it's my approach. Simple.

If you don't agree that's fine, and you want to debate it? Perfectly fine, but I do ask that we not go in circles on it. Fair?

Spoken to =/= dealt with. You keep using the word logical. You clearly don't know what it means, as Poli points out. You cannot make a logical argument for why it's more appropriate for a boy to pretend to be Yoda but not Princess Di.


Sure I can. Yoda was male. Di wasn't.


Yes, you have, in fact. You claimed that it was a perfectly acceptable non-bigotted reason to disallow your child from wearing the princess makeup.


I believe I mentioned it as a factor once WAY back but I haven't advanced it further than that. I know it's a shitty reason and if it were the only one, it wouldn't be enough. God knows my kids get picked on at school for their religion, that's hardly a reason not to teach it to them.


Your definition of logic isn't actually logic. If it were, your argument would not end with "period". I know that works with your children, but unlike them we are encouraged to use logic here.


Sure it is, if it's an axiom, which I believe it to be.


YOUR baseball analogy. If you don't read your own arguments, why should anyone else? You compared a boy dressing as a girl as making as much sense as playing baseball with the wrong equipment. The difference being of course that playing baseball REQUIRES a bat and ball, but being a boy does not REQUIRE any specific style of dress.


Dude cut me some slack... I made that analogy a LONG time ago in the scheme of things...

Yes, he's a boy already, but that doesn't magically make dress-wearing a good idea just because it won't make his penis disappear. Like I said in my replies to Poli and Dem, I'm trying to teach them the baseline, not confuse it.


Just did. I haven't been on EQ2 lately.


Cool.


You haven't. That's the point. But 50 years ago the exact same arguments were being made against those behaviors by a female child. There is no difference. Cultural norms are not the end all be all. LOGIC requires us to challenge them when they are unsupported.


I don't think they're the same at all. One is about establishing a baseline in accordance with our culture. The other was an unreasonable and unnecessary limitation that had nothing to do with building a foundation.


Makeup is a moral issue? So much for logic, huh?

It can be, depending on the circumstances.

At any rate, I know what you're saying, but I feel I've addressed that question already in response to Dempublicents1. Letting a kid dress as a bear or a robot or a vampire etc. doesn't undermine their learning about what the cultural norms are in terms of male and female dress. It's that simple. It is completely illogical to undermine one's own teaching. As I've said before, if my son grow up to be a cross dresser then that's his life, but at least he will be able to make that decision based on a foundation of knowing what is and what isn't normal for our culture. If he chooses to go against that grain as he matures then so be it, but my j ob is to tech him what those norms are. It really is that simple.

This debate is beginning to feel repetitive. You guys ever watch MAD TV? There was a sketch they did once shortly after the synthetic cholesterol substitute (remember that stuff? It was a cholesterol substitute for snack foods that came out in the mid 90s). The sketch was done in the format of an infomercial about Olestra where one person was presenting it, and another was asking questions, sort of the "average guy on the street role."

So at some point the presenter says that their brand of cholesterol substitute only causes 10% of the anal leakage of the leading brand of synthetic cholesterol. The "average guy" says, I don't think I understand, can you show me an analogy?

Presenter: "Sure! Here are two lab beakers with the anal leakage caused by each product. As you can see, Olestra has only 10% of the anal leakage of the leading brand!"
Guy:"Hmm... I'm not sure I understand still. got another analogy?"
Presenter:"Absolutely! [indicating two diapers] The diaper on the left has only 10% of the anal leakage of the one on the right, the leading brand!"
Guy:"Hmm... I'm just not sure I understand. got another analogy?"
Presenter:"Certainly! [indicating two plates of french fries] The fries on the left have been cooked in the anal leakage from Olestra, and the ones on the right, the leading brand!"

And so on... and that's what this thread's starting to feel like. Guys, I get it. I know what you believe and why. I understand completely. I don't agree with you. I have that right, and I'm not being closed minded or stubborn. I just haven't seen a good reason to change my approach and some of the arguments I'm seeing are just repeating each other so it's nothing new. Don't take offense, don't get mad at me.

As parents, our job is to provide a framework for our kids, to teach them not only the obvious right and wrong but also provide a stable base upon which they'll go on to build their life. Part of that base is an understanding of our culture and the norms associated with it. Like it or not, it is not considered normal for boys to wear dresses in our culture. You can question that all you want but that's the way it is, by whatever means that came to be. Letting a young boy wear a dress undermines the teaching of that foundation in a way that a bear costume or robot costume does not, namely, sex identity. That's my approach. That's why it's my approach. Simple.

If you don't agree that's fine, and you want to debate it? Perfectly fine, but I do ask that we not go in circles on it. Fair?

Well, me again.

At least now there is something we can debate. ;)
I can, to a certain extend, understand that this is your way of teaching them about social norms.
However, would you teach them in the same way about EVERY social norm? Regardless of which norm it is? And regardless if you agree with it or not?
To stay with gender roles on this one, would you not only teach your daughter how to tinker with cars, but would you also teach your sone how to knit a jumper?

It's not a random example, it was in fact my first run-in with gender roles. I used to love knitting when I was in my early teens, and my youngest brother started to show and interest. So I taught him. To my total astonishment this shocked and outraged not only my grandparents, but also my parents, we ended up having a massive fight about me helping my 6 year old brother knitting a scarf. My parents lost the fight, because they could when challenged not give any other reason than "boys don't knit, girls do".
My brother was, as I said, 6 at the time and well aware that knitting wasn't the most macho occupation, but he said it looked like fun and he wanted to try it. (He still has that scarf, btw, and keeps wearing it. It looks rather stylish, because of all the mistakes he made;))

Yes, there are norms. Yes, children need to learn about their existence. But do they need to learn to conform to them? Really?

I don't think they're the same at all. One is about establishing a baseline in accordance with our culture. The other was an unreasonable and unnecessary limitation that had nothing to do with building a foundation.


But think about it... girls wearing skirts and staying at home was the norm back then. Pretty much undisputed, too.
It took years of rebellion and cultural re-structuring to allow girls the same freedoms as boys (my grnadmother to this day doesn't understand why a girl would even WANT to wear trousers, or have short hair). Only now, boys still don't have the same freedoms as girls, by today's norm.

Yes, there are norms. Yes, children need to learn about their existence. But do they need to learn to conform to them? Really?

But that was not what NeoB was saying at least in his post two above this one, he gave the example of his cross dressing son, while he taught them that this was outside of the norms he wasn't saying that he is forcing him not to do it just teaching him that it isn't normal to be a cross dresser.

Well, me again.

At least now there is something we can debate. ;)
I can, to a certain extend, understand that this is your way of teaching them about social norms.
However, would you teach them in the same way about EVERY social norm? Regardless of which norm it is? And regardless if you agree with it or not?
To stay with gender roles on this one, would you not only teach your daughter how to tinker with cars, but would you also teach your sone how to knit a jumper?

It's not a random example, it was in fact my first run-in with gender roles. I used to love knitting when I was in my early teens, and my youngest brother started to show and interest. So I taught him. To my total astonishment this shocked and outraged not only my grandparents, but also my parents, we ended up having a massive fight about me helping my 6 year old brother knitting a scarf. My parents lost the fight, because they could when challenged not give any other reason than "boys don't knit, girls do".
My brother was, as I said, 6 at the time and well aware that knitting wasn't the most macho occupation, but he said it looked like fun and he wanted to try it. (He still has that scarf, btw, and keeps wearing it. It looks rather stylish, because of all the mistakes he made;))

Yes, there are norms. Yes, children need to learn about their existence. But do they need to learn to conform to them? Really?

I appreciate where you're coming from and that story is an example of a time when you and I would agree. I don't see fixing cars as being an inherently "man" thing to do and I also happen to think sewing is a very useful skill regardless of whether you're male of female.

Think ab out this: Even the most traditionalist, backwater, closed minded wingnut can't deny that World War II was a perfect example of why those norms that you listed don't apply:

During the Second World War a huge number of men from my country went overseas to fight. Who was sewing the patches onto their uniforms? Who was repairing tears and holes in their clothing? They were. The Army taught these men to sew in order to fix their stuff. They didn't bring along a corps of women to do the sewing. That would be idiotic.

And back home? Women were building bombers, tanks, fighters, warships, etc. and doing a damn fine job, too. (My grandmother worked in a bomber plant.)

There are practical arguments against professional roles for men vs. women. The truth is quite obvious.

But when you start talking about wearing dresses and such, or a princess costume where not only would the boy be wearing the clothing of a girl, but actually pretending to BE one, then you're not talking about the same thing at all. The women building battleships were not pretending to be men. Soldiers sewing up a hole in a field jacket or cooking a pot of soup over a sterno can weren't pretending to be women. That's the difference.

But think about it... girls wearing skirts and staying at home was the norm back then. Pretty much undisputed, too.
It took years of rebellion and cultural re-structuring to allow girls the same freedoms as boys (my grnadmother to this day doesn't understand why a girl would even WANT to wear trousers, or have short hair). Only now, boys still don't have the same freedoms as girls, by today's norm.

Are mens' and womens' jeans identical?

Are mens' and womens' jeans identical?

:confused:
Not sure what you mean, now. Why jeans?
As far as I can tell, they're identical.

But when you start talking about wearing dresses and such, or a princess costume where not only would the boy be wearing the clothing of a girl, but actually pretending to BE one, then you're not talking about the same thing at all. The women building battleships were not pretending to be men. Soldiers sewing up a hole in a field jacket or cooking a pot of soup over a sterno can weren't pretending to be women. That's the difference.

I understand why a boy dressing up as a princess for Halloween is pretending to be a woman, but that's a very specific example. How is a man wearing a skirt or make-up pretending to be a woman?

I appreciate where you're coming from and that story is an example of a time when you and I would agree. I don't see fixing cars as being an inherently "man" thing to do and I also happen to think sewing is a very useful skill regardless of whether you're male of female.

Think ab out this: Even the most traditionalist, backwater, closed minded wingnut can't deny that World War II was a perfect example of why those norms that you listed don't apply:

During the Second World War a huge number of men from my country went overseas to fight. Who was sewing the patches onto their uniforms? Who was repairing tears and holes in their clothing? They were. The Army taught these men to sew in order to fix their stuff. They didn't bring along a corps of women to do the sewing. That would be idiotic.

And back home? Women were building bombers, tanks, fighters, warships, etc. and doing a damn fine job, too. (My grandmother worked in a bomber plant.)

There are practical arguments against professional roles for men vs. women. The truth is quite obvious.

But when you start talking about wearing dresses and such, or a princess costume where not only would the boy be wearing the clothing of a girl, but actually pretending to BE one, then you're not talking about the same thing at all. The women building battleships were not pretending to be men. Soldiers sewing up a hole in a field jacket or cooking a pot of soup over a sterno can weren't pretending to be women. That's the difference.

No doubt that mending clothes is useful. Sowing a button back on isn't quite the same as knitting a scarf, though. ;)
And I was accused by my grandmother of wearing boy's clothes when I showed up in trousers. She also accused me of pretending to be a boy when I learned how to whistle (she taught me a lovely little children's rhyme about how one needs to twist the necks of girls who whistle and chicken who crow).
I went ahead with it anyway.
And I wonder why we now accept that girls can act in a way that was previously the sole domain of men, but boys can't behave in ways considered "female".

Dressing up is pretending about being something you are not. Any kind of costume is about pretending. Most costumes are about pretending to be something you can never, ever be. That's the whole point of pretending. It's playing at being someone you're not.

:confused:
Not sure what you mean, now. Why jeans?
As far as I can tell, they're identical.

Ah but they aren't. There's the womens' section on one side and the mens' section on the other.

I understand why a boy dressing up as a princess for Halloween is pretending to be a woman, but that's a very specific example. How is a man wearing a skirt or make-up pretending to be a woman?

I don't care what men do. I'm not responsible for any but myself ;)

No doubt that mending clothes is useful. Sowing a button back on isn't quite the same as knitting a scarf, though. ;)
And I was accused by my grandmother of wearing boy's clothes when I showed up in trousers. She also accused me of pretending to be a boy when I learned how to whistle (she taught me a lovely little children's rhyme about how one needs to twist the necks of girls who whistle and chicken who crow).
I went ahead with it anyway.
And I wonder why we now accept that girls can act in a way that was previously the sole domain of men, but boys can't behave in ways considered "female".


I'm with you on this. I draw no distinction between the idea of sewing on a patch or knitting a scarf.

There are male tailors, are there not? I don't see why that should be an issue.


Dressing up is pretending about being something you are not. Any kind of costume is about pretending. Most costumes are about pretending to be something you can never, ever be. That's the whole point of pretending. It's playing at being someone you're not.

Somebody made this point already and I answered ;)

Ah but they aren't. There's the womens' section on one side and the mens' section on the other.

Are there? I have to admit that I usually disregard that separation, and go for the cheapest pair that fits.


I'm with you on this. I draw no distinction between the idea of sewing on a patch or knitting a scarf.

There are male tailors, are there not? I don't see why that should be an issue.

Well, there are males wearing women's clothes as well. Yet you seem to have an issue with children immitating that. ;)

Are there? I have to admit that I usually disregard that separation, and go for the cheapest pair that fits.


:shrug: ok, but don't tell me you're not aware of this.


Well, there are males wearing women's clothes as well. Yet you seem to have an issue with children immitating that. ;)

Of course. Why should I equate that with a tailor?

Ah but they aren't. There's the womens' section on one side and the mens' section on the other.

I have worn men's pants on several occasions. I don't think anyone particularly noticed, but even if they had - why is that in any way a bad thing or a problem?

I don't care what men do. I'm not responsible for any but myself ;)

Semantics. :p Fine, if a boy wears make-up or a skirt, is he pretending to be a girl?

I have worn men's pants on several occasions. I don't think anyone particularly noticed, but even if they had - why is that in any way a bad thing or a problem?


:shrug:


Semantics. :p Fine, if a boy wears make-up or a skirt, is he pretending to be a girl?

It's not semantics I'm making a point. But now let me ask you, what are the circumstances? How old is the kid? Is it my kid? Is it blemish covering makeup or mascara? Is it a skirt or a kilt? Is he doing theater and pretending to be a Roman Centurion?

Be specific, please.

:shrug: ok, but don't tell me you're not aware of this.

Well, I was aware that there's fashion for men and women, but in all honesty I wasn't aware that normal jeans are different as well. Why, anyway? They're practically identical, from what I can tell.


Of course. Why should I equate that with a tailor?

Don't know, you made it sound like since there are male tailors, it's ok for boys to sow.
So, since there are men in frocks, why is it not ok for boys to dress up and wear make up?

Just trying to follow your line of thinking, but apparantly failing...

Well, I was aware that there's fashion for men and women, but in all honesty I wasn't aware that normal jeans are different as well. Why, anyway? They're practically identical, from what I can tell.


Seriously? You don't see a difference in the cut and the fit?


Don't know, you made it sound like since there are male tailors, it's ok for boys to sow.
So, since there are men in frocks, why is it not ok for boys to dress up and wear make up?

Just trying to follow your line of thinking, but apparantly failing...

I didn't say that since there were tailors it's ok for boys to sew. I said it's a practical skill and that I see no reason for both sexes not to posses it. Tailors are just an example.

Seriously? You don't see a difference in the cut and the fit?

Er... no? Is there?



I didn't say that since there were tailors it's ok for boys to sew. I said it's a practical skill and that I see no reason for both sexes not to posses it. Tailors are just an example.

Ok... to bring this back to the original example, knitting isn't exactly a practical skill. It's more of an expensive hobby. Should my brother not have learned it, then?

Er... no? Is there?


Yes.


Ok... to bring this back to the original example, knitting isn't exactly a practical skill. It's more of an expensive hobby. Should my brother not have learned it, then?

I already said I see them as all basically the same. Why would I have a problem with that? It's just a hobby.

It's not semantics I'm making a point. But now let me ask you, what are the circumstances? How old is the kid? Is it my kid? Is it blemish covering makeup or mascara? Is it a skirt or a kilt? Is he doing theater and pretending to be a Roman Centurion?

Be specific, please.

Well, it is semantics if the point in question, while relevant to the larger discussion, really doesn't matter with regard to the specific question I asked.

From the fact that you insist on specificity, I assume that you recognize that wearing a skirt at least does not automatically equal pretending to be female, since specificity would hardly be needed at that point. I'm glad to hear that.

But if you want a specific scenario - the kid (who is a hypothetical kid, and thus neither yours nor anyone else's - because I don't want to waste time on tangents about whether your actual children would ever do this or anything like that) is, let us say, nine years old, and he has bought himself a flowered skirt from a garage sale with his pocket money. He is now wearing it while playing in the front yard. Is he pretending to be female? Why or why not?

Another child, who is, let's say, 12, has started wearing lipstick because he thinks his lips look nicer with a bit more color. Is he pretending to be female? Why or why not?

But if you want a specific scenario - the kid (who is a hypothetical kid, and thus neither yours nor anyone else's - because I don't want to waste time on tangents about whether your actual children would ever do this or anything like that) is, let us say, nine years old, and he has bought himself a flowered skirt from a garage sale with his pocket money. He is now wearing it while playing in the front yard. Is he pretending to be female? Why or why not?

Another child, who is, let's say, 12, has started wearing lipstick because he thinks his lips look nicer with a bit more color. Is he pretending to be female? Why or why not?

Neither child is necessarily pretending to be female, BUT if they were my kids I wouldn't permit it in the first place, for the reasons I've described previously.

Yes.


I never noticed. Most jeans shops around here don't separate into male and female, only places like Penneys do that.


I already said I see them as all basically the same. Why would I have a problem with that? It's just a hobby.

Ok, then... so basically, in your eyes males and females should all have access to equal skills. Only that girls get to wear make-up if they feel like it, and can choose between wearing a skirt or pants, and boys can't.
Did I get that right now?

Neither child is necessarily pretending to be female, BUT if they were my kids I wouldn't permit it in the first place, for the reasons I've described previously.

Im still struggling with those... the reason being that boys wearing make-up and skirts isn't the norm?
Just like girls wearing trousers when I grew up wasn't the norm?

Neither child is necessarily pretending to be female, BUT if they were my kids I wouldn't permit it in the first place, for the reasons I've described previously.

My apologies for possibly making you repeat yourself, but could you restate those reasons in light of the idea that wearing skirts and make-up is not intrinsically "pretending to be female"? My memory of your reasoning was that you predominantly felt it was illogical for boys to pretend to be female, so I'm a bit confused.

I never noticed. Most jeans shops around here don't separate into male and female, only places like Penneys do that.


It's pretty common here.


Ok, then... so basically, in your eyes males and females should all have access to equal skills. Only that girls get to wear make-up if they feel like it, and can choose between wearing a skirt or pants, and boys can't.
Did I get that right now?

Bearing in mind that (around here) even ladies' pants aren't the same as mens'.

Im still struggling with those... the reason being that boys wearing make-up and skirts isn't the norm?
Just like girls wearing trousers when I grew up wasn't the norm?

Basically.

My apologies for possibly making you repeat yourself, but could you restate those reasons in light of the idea that wearing skirts and make-up is not intrinsically "pretending to be female"? My memory of your reasoning was that you predominantly felt it was illogical for boys to pretend to be female, so I'm a bit confused.

Here's the gist of it.

As a parent, it is my responsibility to teach my children what the baseline is for our cultural norms. This includes everything from not eating mashed potatoes with your hands to boys not wearing flowery skirts. I don't tolerate my young kids eating mashed potatoes with their hands any more than I'd tolerate my young son wearing a flowery skirt. These are not the way our culture works, despite the pretense by some otherwise.

It's that simple.

Bearing in mind that (around here) even ladies' pants aren't the same as mens'.


But... they are!

Here's the gist of it.

As a parent, it is my responsibility to teach my children what the baseline is for our cultural norms. This includes everything from not eating mashed potatoes with your hands to boys not wearing flowery skirts. I don't tolerate my young kids eating mashed potatoes with their hands any more than I'd tolerate my young son wearing a flowery skirt. These are not the way our culture works, despite the pretense by some otherwise.

It's that simple.

Which gets me back to the original question : Do you teach them social norms without evaluating if they're positive or negative?
As in, my mother found the norm that girls have to wear skirts pointless, and would let me wear trousers when I asked if I could.
Personally, I find the norm that boys have to wear trousers equally pointless, as the only rationale behind it is "everybody else is doing it".

Mind you, I've got no problems with useful norms, such as table manners etc. It's only those norms that ... well, are simply tradition, without logic or relevance.
Tradition, in my experience, is just short if "it's broken but we ain't fixin' it".

As parents, our job is to provide a framework for our kids, to teach them not only the obvious right and wrong but also provide a stable base upon which they'll go on to build their life. Part of that base is an understanding of our culture and the norms associated with it. Like it or not, it is not considered normal for boys to wear dresses in our culture. You can question that all you want but that's the way it is, by whatever means that came to be. Letting a young boy wear a dress undermines the teaching of that foundation in a way that a bear costume or robot costume does not, namely, sex identity. That's my approach. That's why it's my approach. Simple.

And that is the exact reason for my approach. Because it undermines the traditional teaching. And it is not questioning sex identity so much as gender identity. Having little boys dress as princesses does not make them question the existence of their penis, it only makes them question why boys can't dress like princesses.

And I want to live in a community where people honestly don't care if anyone is dressed as a princess.

I appreciate where you're coming from and that story is an example of a time when you and I would agree....But when you start talking about wearing dresses and such, or a princess costume where not only would the boy be wearing the clothing of a girl, but actually pretending to BE one, then you're not talking about the same thing at all. The women building battleships were not pretending to be men. Soldiers sewing up a hole in a field jacket or cooking a pot of soup over a sterno can weren't pretending to be women. That's the difference.

So, do you think boys should not pretend to be females? Do you think wearing a princess costume is pretending to be female?

It would seem as if you believe these two things, but I would like some clarification.

And that is the exact reason for my approach. Because it undermines the traditional teaching. And it is not questioning sex identity so much as gender identity. Having little boys dress as princesses does not make them question the existence of their penis, it only makes them question why boys can't dress like princesses.
Most boys could care less, and never ask.

And I want to live in a community where people honestly don't care if anyone is dressed as a princess.
Good luck with that. It's called "dashing oneself at reality". In a world where the majority rules, the majority doesn't want men running around looking like princesses. You and I might think it would just be all in fun, but the majority would not, and there isn't anything we could say or do to stop them from shitting on the person dressed like a princess.


So, do you think boys should not pretend to be females? Do you think wearing a princess costume is pretending to be female? Pretending is one thing - actively encouraging someone to always be something that one is not is a bad thing. You wouldn't tell a gay boy to be straight, now would you? "Oh, just pretend to be straight, will you?"

The older of my two sons had some gender identity issues (which I believe were minor and transient). For a while, he enjoyed playing "being a woman" so much that it carried over into his day to day life. Shoes, dress, etc. - which my wife and I allowed, as we saw it as "play" and at the most "exploring". I think he found the natural limits, as the "majority" at school subjected him to constant derision. While the school administration was supportive, you cannot legislate what others think, nor force people to accept it, and after a while, he gave up all of it on his own.

He doesn't seem to miss it, but I know he'll never forget how ugly "just doing whatever you wish you could" can get.

But... they are!

But.. they're not!


Which gets me back to the original question : Do you teach them social norms without evaluating if they're positive or negative?
As in, my mother found the norm that girls have to wear skirts pointless, and would let me wear trousers when I asked if I could.
Personally, I find the norm that boys have to wear trousers equally pointless, as the only rationale behind it is "everybody else is doing it".

Mind you, I've got no problems with useful norms, such as table manners etc. It's only those norms that ... well, are simply tradition, without logic or relevance.
Tradition, in my experience, is just short if "it's broken but we ain't fixin' it".

Of course I evaluate them.

Here's the gist of it.

As a parent, it is my responsibility to teach my children what the baseline is for our cultural norms. This includes everything from not eating mashed potatoes with your hands to boys not wearing flowery skirts. I don't tolerate my young kids eating mashed potatoes with their hands any more than I'd tolerate my young son wearing a flowery skirt. These are not the way our culture works, despite the pretense by some otherwise.

It's that simple.

Okay.

When your grandmother started working in a factory, the cultural norm was that women did not do such things. Should she have been forbidden to do so?

Even today, the cultural norm is that women do not know how to fix cars. Should you forbid your daughters to learn how to do so?

Sixty years ago, segregation was the cultural norm. If tomorrow your family was beamed back to 1948, would you forbid your children from associating with members of other races?

Okay.

When your grandmother started working in a factory, the cultural norm was that women did not do such things. Should she have been forbidden to do so?


I've already addressed this.


Even today, the cultural norm is that women do not know how to fix cars. Should you forbid your daughters to learn how to do so?


I've already addressed this.


Sixty years ago, segregation was the cultural norm. If tomorrow your family was beamed back to 1948, would you forbid your children from associating with members of other races?

Good question. If it ever happens, I'll let you know.

But teaching a boy not to wear a flowery dress isn't anything like teaching him about racism.

I don't think they're the same at all. One is about establishing a baseline in accordance with our culture. The other was an unreasonable and unnecessary limitation that had nothing to do with building a foundation.

Again, you are using the exact same arguments that were used before - with things you don't agree with. Those who separated work into a "man's job" and a "woman's job" would say it was perfectly reasonable and necessary. What makes clothing more important? What makes the enforcement of arbitrary clothing choices for those of different sexes reasonable and necessary?

I've already addressed this.

I've already addressed this.

Well, sort of. You've suggested you see no problem with your grandmother working in a factory or your daughter fixing cars. But why? Those things defy cultural norms just as much as boys wearing skirts do. Why is a girl knowing how to repair an engine okay, but a boy wearing a pretty skirt not?


Good question. If it ever happens, I'll let you know.

Oh, for heaven's sake. Do you THINK you would?

But teaching a boy not to wear a flowery dress isn't anything like teaching him about racism.

I didn't discuss "teaching about racism." I discussed enforcing cultural norms, which is exactly what both teaching a modern boy not to wear skirts and teaching a 1940s boy not to drink out of the "wrong" water fountain are.

But that was not what NeoB was saying at least in his post two above this one, he gave the example of his cross dressing son, while he taught them that this was outside of the norms he wasn't saying that he is forcing him not to do it just teaching him that it isn't normal to be a cross dresser.

....by forbidding him to do it.

Ah but they aren't. There's the womens' section on one side and the mens' section on the other.

And there are women who actually find that mens' jeans fit better and wear them instead. As a general rule, nobody ever notices unless they actually look at the size tags.

Somebody made this point already and I answered.

Unfortunately, your answer was like so many you're giving here. "This is just the way it is. This is more confusing because I say so."

If it is true, you should be able to give reasons, not simply say, "This is the way it is." If that's all you have, you clearly haven't questioned the standard. You are conforming for the sake of conformity.


Well, I was aware that there's fashion for men and women, but in all honesty I wasn't aware that normal jeans are different as well. Why, anyway? They're practically identical, from what I can tell.

The cut is generally different. Women tend to have wider hips and curvier butts than men, so women's jeans are cut that way. (and there are multiple different cuts among them).

Of course, when you get a woman without that shape or who is curvier than the norm, she has trouble finding clothes that fit. In the former case, many such women wear mens' jeans instead.

Here's the gist of it.

As a parent, it is my responsibility to teach my children what the baseline is for our cultural norms. This includes everything from not eating mashed potatoes with your hands to boys not wearing flowery skirts. I don't tolerate my young kids eating mashed potatoes with their hands any more than I'd tolerate my young son wearing a flowery skirt. These are not the way our culture works, despite the pretense by some otherwise.

It's that simple.

The difference, of course, being that you wouldn't let any of your children eat mashed potatoes with their hands (above a certain age anyways, I would assume).

You would, however, let two of your children wear a flower skirt, while you would deny that to two of them. And you would do this to push them into conformity with cultural norms because.....as far as I can tell, just because they're cultural norms.

Of course I evaluate them.

Ah, good!

So you can tell us exactly why it is necessary to determine that girls can wear skirts and boys can't. Note that, "That's just the way it is" does not demonstrate any evaluation.

But teaching a boy not to wear a flowery dress isn't anything like teaching him about racism.

It is teaching him a cultural norm. When the cultural norm was that whites didn't associate with blacks, children were taught that cultural norm.

What is the difference?

Again, you are using the exact same arguments that were used before - with things you don't agree with. Those who separated work into a "man's job" and a "woman's job" would say it was perfectly reasonable and necessary. What makes clothing more important? What makes the enforcement of arbitrary clothing choices for those of different sexes reasonable and necessary?

Here's the thing, and I'm going to repeat this I'm sure.

I've given my reasons. The problem people seem to be having here is that they don't agree with my reasons and so they sort of respond as if I hadn't given any at all. At some point the circles have to cease and we have to either agree to disagree and let it go at that, or talk about something different. I'm getting the distinct sense that y'all are settling into a pattern of reacting to me as if "Because I said so" was my argument, despite the fact that it isn't, and want me to apologize for it tor reverse myself to accommodate that.

I don't put this stuff out there to change people's minds. I put it out there to answer questions. People don't like my reasoning? Oh well.

Also realize that I'm debating multiple issues with half a dozen people. You guys have the luxury of agreeing with each other. Cut me some slack here.

Well, sort of. You've suggested you see no problem with your grandmother working in a factory or your daughter fixing cars. But why? Those things defy cultural norms just as much as boys wearing skirts do. Why is a girl knowing how to repair an engine okay, but a boy wearing a pretty skirt not?


I don't know why you seem to link the two. I am aware of what OTHER people have felt was a cultural restriction on women being mechanics, but I never have. Why do you keep demanding that I answer as if I have?


Oh, for heaven's sake. Do you THINK you would?


That question is a logic trap. If I say "Of course I wouldn't teach my kids racism" You'll probably suggest that I'm somehow reversing myself, as if racism had anything to do at all with teaching a boy what to wear. If, on the other hand, I say that I would go with the 'norm' then I become a racist and a true bigot. Finally, if I say I don't know then I can be accused of a wishy washy stance.

The fact is your question is a false analogy, from where I sit, like debating Ford vs. Chevy and demanding that I tell you what I'd do if I were riding a Schwinn.


I didn't discuss "teaching about racism." I discussed enforcing cultural norms, which is exactly what both teaching a modern boy not to wear skirts and teaching a 1940s boy not to drink out of the "wrong" water fountain are.

And those cultural norms WERE racist.

Not all cultural norms are right. Not all of them are wrong. It's up to us to find the difference and react accordingly.


Unfortunately, your answer was like so many you're giving here. "This is just the way it is. This is more confusing because I say so."


Why are you saying this? This is coming across as an attempt to aggravate me, because I would hope you know perfectly well that this is not what I'm saying, whatever you might think of what I AM saying.

We have just come to a mutual understanding. Don't throw it away now.


If it is true, you should be able to give reasons, not simply say, "This is the way it is." If that's all you have, you clearly haven't questioned the standard. You are conforming for the sake of conformity.


but I HAVE given reason! I realize you don't agree and that's fine but it's disingenuous to say that I haven't given any.


The difference, of course, being that you wouldn't let any of your children eat mashed potatoes with their hands (above a certain age anyways, I would assume).

Just like I wouldn't let ANY of my children dress in a manner that would undermine their learning about the way men and women dress in our culture.


You would, however, let two of your children wear a flower skirt, while you would deny that to two of them. And you would do this to push them into conformity with cultural norms because.....as far as I can tell, just because they're cultural norms.
Ah, good!

So you can tell us exactly why it is necessary to determine that girls can wear skirts and boys can't. Note that, "That's just the way it is" does not demonstrate any evaluation.


A couple posts ago I expanded on this.


It is teaching him a cultural norm. When the cultural norm was that whites didn't associate with blacks, children were taught that cultural norm.


Not as universally as you guys are implying.



What is the difference?

Seriously? Are you being rhetorical or do you honestly mean to suggest that racism is no different form me not letting a boy wear a dress?

I've given my reasons. The problem people seem to be having here is that they don't agree with my reasons and so they sort of respond as if I hadn't given any at all.

"This is just the way it is" isn't a reason.

You said that identity is tied to clothing choice. I asked why or why we should promote such a tie. You never answered.

The fact that you acknowledge "female" fashions that were once "male" fashions makes it clear that there is no logic in this. It isn't in any way based on actual differences between men and women. It is arbitrary. And you have yet to give a reason for accepting this arbitrary distinction between the sexes over others. You just repeatedly say, "those are different" without showing an actual difference.

I don't know why you seem to link the two. I am aware of what OTHER people have felt was a cultural restriction on women being mechanics, but I never have. Why do you keep demanding that I answer as if I have?

Why not either apply the same logic to all arbitrary gender norms or give some rational distinction between them?

You say that you don't think it makes sense to restrict jobs in that manner. Great! That means that you have questioned certain social norms and found them lacking.

Where is that questioning when it comes to mode of dress? Presumably, you found that keeping men and women out of certain jobs based on sex was arbitrary and unnecessary. So why, exactly, are the gender norms of our culture regarding mode of dress less arbitrary or more necessary?

And those cultural norms WERE racist.

Not all cultural norms are right. Not all of them are wrong. It's up to us to find the difference and react accordingly.

So, what is the difference?

Would it be ok if a person was raising a white child and a black child and made them dress differently based on that distinction because of cultural norms? Why or why not?

Why are you saying this? This is coming across as an attempt to aggravate me, because I would hope you know perfectly well that this is not what I'm saying, whatever you might think of what I AM saying.

Then what are you saying?

Because all I have seen from you is that you will have your children conform to cultural norms on clothing because they'll somehow get confused if they don't.

You haven't given any explanation for why you think identity should be tied to fashion choices. In fact, you've agreed that fashion norms change over time and something that was "masculine" may now be "feminine". So how does it make sense to suggest that identity is tied to these things? By that logic, those "masculine" men of the past must actually have felt feminine, since their identity was somehow tied to some inherent femininity of make-up.

You haven't given any reason for the particular fashion norms of this culture. In fact, when asked for them, your answer was that you don't make them up - you just accept them. So, again, no reasons. Just blind acceptance.

You may hope otherwise, but all I have seen thus far is "because this is the way it is."

I'm not trying to aggravate you. In fact, I'm rather frustrated myself. From my point of view, when I ask why, the answer I get is that this is just the norm in our culture. When I repeat that answer, you get upset and claim that it wasn't yours.

but I HAVE given reason! I realize you don't agree and that's fine but it's disingenuous to say that I haven't given any.

Ok. So you can show me the post where you explained exactly why dresses are for girls and not boys in which the gyst wasn't "this is just the norm"?

You can show me a post in which you explained why men aren't supposed to want to improve their appearance that didn't resort to "this is just the norm."

You can show me a post in which you explained why identity should be tied to clothing other than just saying, "In our culture, this is the way it is"?

If you have posted such things, I missed them. Please link them.

Seriously? Are you being rhetorical or do you honestly mean to suggest that racism is no different form me not letting a boy wear a dress?

Of course it is different. In this case, the restriction is based on sex instead of race.

But a lot of racism was based in the "This is just the way our society works so I'm going to keep doing it," mentality.

Of course I evaluate them.

Ok, then what value due you see in keeping the social norm that girls are allowed skirts or trousers, while boys are only allowed trousers?

"Punching someone is okay if you can get away with it" is an opinion. If you try and get your children to believe that punching someone isn't okay (and not just put them off by telling them they might go to jail) then you're as guilty of "regulating the thoughts and feelings of others" as someone who tries to get their children to understand that being bigoted is wrong. If a kid thinks that punching people is fine as long as you don't get caught, you think it's wrong to try and persuade them that it's not? To me, THAT'S fucking scary.

So the only way you can make a remotely logical argument to entirely ignore that when you punch someone THAT someone knows you did it.

See, in one case you're talking about preventing an action and in another you're talking about preventing a thought.

I could care less if my kid thinks about punching kids. I care very much if they start punching people. Sadly, you don't understand the difference.

My agenda is gay, but not in the homosexual sense.

Sure I can. Yoda was male. Di wasn't.

That's not logic. You've not demonstrated why pretending to be famale when you're male is different than pretending to be a bear. In fact, you avoid the question. So much for that crap about want to apply logic to your beliefs.

I believe I mentioned it as a factor once WAY back but I haven't advanced it further than that. I know it's a shitty reason and if it were the only one, it wouldn't be enough. God knows my kids get picked on at school for their religion, that's hardly a reason not to teach it to them.

It's pretty much your entire reason.


Sure it is, if it's an axiom, which I believe it to be.

Heh. Again, so much for logic. So how can something be an axiom that changes at the whim of the public? That blacks and whites should attend different schools was an axiom. That women couldn't be mechanics was an axiom. They had no more logic behind them than your claims which is why you're avoiding actually supporting them.

However, I accept your claim here. You have no logical thought behind your requirement that your children pretend to be boys and girls. I'm glad you're finally admitting it.

That's not logic. You've not demonstrated why pretending to be famale when you're male is different than pretending to be a bear. In fact, you avoid the question. So much for that crap about want to apply logic to your beliefs.


This is false. I haven't avoided the question.

I realize there's a lot to read but if you're going to accuse me of not answering questions then back it up.


It's pretty much your entire reason.


That's flat out false. Again, if you don't have time to read the thread that's fine, but it doesn't give you a pass to make stuff up.


However, I accept your claim here. You have no logical thought behind your requirement that your children pretend to be boys and girls. I'm glad you're finally admitting it.

Did you misquote me on purpose or was that a typo?

Ok, then what value due you see in keeping the social norm that girls are allowed skirts or trousers, while boys are only allowed trousers?

I've answered that question repeatedly.

I have an anti-food agenda. Food is fuel people, it's not to be the entire basis for your social and emotional life!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *dies*

So, by that rule, you should only have sex to reproduce, and it should be as bland and efficient as it can be?

"This is just the way it is" isn't a reason.


True, which is why I haven't said that.


You said that identity is tied to clothing choice. I asked why or why we should promote such a tie. You never answered.

Um... yes I did.


The fact that you acknowledge "female" fashions that were once "male" fashions makes it clear that there is no logic in this. It isn't in any way based on actual differences between men and women. It is arbitrary. And you have yet to give a reason for accepting this arbitrary distinction between the sexes over others. You just repeatedly say, "those are different" without showing an actual difference.


Which reminds me, a few posts back I asked you whether it was your assertion that there WAS no difference between men and women other than anatomy. I don't believe you responded to it. So by way of reminder I ask you this: Is it your contention that there is no difference between men and women other than biologically? (For example, emotionally, mentally)


Why not either apply the same logic to all arbitrary gender norms or give some rational distinction between them?

You say that you don't think it makes sense to restrict jobs in that manner. Great! That means that you have questioned certain social norms and found them lacking.

Where is that questioning when it comes to mode of dress? Presumably, you found that keeping men and women out of certain jobs based on sex was arbitrary and unnecessary. So why, exactly, are the gender norms of our culture regarding mode of dress less arbitrary or more necessary?


Why do you assume that I haven't examined them at all just because I've come to a different conclusion? Especially when I've already answered this question.


So, what is the difference?

Would it be ok if a person was raising a white child and a black child and made them dress differently based on that distinction because of cultural norms? Why or why not?

That question is non-sequitur and I flat refuse to accept the idea that this has any parallel to racism whatsoever.


Then what are you saying?

Because all I have seen from you is that you will have your children conform to cultural norms on clothing because they'll somehow get confused if they don't.

You haven't given any explanation for why you think identity should be tied to fashion choices. In fact, you've agreed that fashion norms change over time and something that was "masculine" may now be "feminine". So how does it make sense to suggest that identity is tied to these things? By that logic, those "masculine" men of the past must actually have felt feminine, since their identity was somehow tied to some inherent femininity of make-up.

You haven't given any reason for the particular fashion norms of this culture. In fact, when asked for them, your answer was that you don't make them up - you just accept them. So, again, no reasons. Just blind acceptance.

You may hope otherwise, but all I have seen thus far is "because this is the way it is."

I'm not trying to aggravate you. In fact, I'm rather frustrated myself. From my point of view, when I ask why, the answer I get is that this is just the norm in our culture. When I repeat that answer, you get upset and claim that it wasn't yours.

Ok then you tell me. Why is it that in our culture the norm is for women to wear dresses and not men? You tell me, because you seem to expect me to know.

Remember back when I talked about clothing being a form of identity expression? That's when I answered abut the rest.


Ok. So you can show me the post where you explained exactly why dresses are for girls and not boys in which the gyst wasn't "this is just the norm"?


See above.


You can show me a post in which you explained why men aren't supposed to want to improve their appearance that didn't resort to "this is just the norm."


That was just a couple of posts ago, too.


You can show me a post in which you explained why identity should be tied to clothing other than just saying, "In our culture, this is the way it is"?


I never said identity was tied to clothing. I said clothing was an expression of identity. That's not semantics. It's an important distinction.


If you have posted such things, I missed them. Please link them.


They weren't that long ago. I'd rather that you look (And by 'you' I mean the last 3 people I've responded to) because I've spent a shitload of time typing out my reasons and explanations and now people are accusing me of saying stuff I haven't said. I'm frustrated and discouraged with this whole damn argument because between Jocabia putting other people's words in my mouth, Cabra apparently disregarding entire pages of postings, and now you, who I thought really WERE reading carefully, I'm beginning to wonder what better uses there are for my time than posting responses that people aren't bothering to read with the same level of care they're demanding of me in reading theirs. I think there's some value in making people go back and look for themselves.

So forgive me if I'm coming across as petulant, but I'm just not sure I'm even interested in going any further.


Of course it is different. In this case, the restriction is based on sex instead of race.

But a lot of racism was based in the "This is just the way our society works so I'm going to keep doing it," mentality.

I'm not going to continue if we're going to get into comparing this to racism. It's not the same thing AT ALL and I'm not going to humor the argument. If that makes me an asshole in people's eyes then so be it, but if you really honestly see it that way, then our perspectives are just too far apart to find a common ground and we'll save ourselves a lot of aggravation to just stop here.

True, which is why I haven't said that.

Oh? Keep reading.

Um... yes I did.

Then show me, please. I can't find it.

Which reminds me, a few posts back I asked you whether it was your assertion that there WAS no difference between men and women other than anatomy. I don't believe you responded to it. So by way of reminder I ask you this: Is it your contention that there is no difference between men and women other than biologically? (For example, emotionally, mentally)

Actually, I did respond:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13808025&postcount=495

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.

Why do you assume that I haven't examined them at all just because I've come to a different conclusion? Especially when I've already answered this question.

I'm not assuming. I'm making the best guess I can based on what you're giving me. Since you haven't yet given me an argument in favor of gender norms in clothing that couldn't just as well (or not, as it were) be used for gendered professions, I'm left to wonder if you've questioned it.

And you've made it rather clear that you won't question society on what it does consider gendered clothing. You are quite comfortable with the idea that a "masculine" fashion could be a "feminine" one and vice versa depending on the current norm. This makes it absolutely clear that you aren't questioning the norms themselves - you just accept whatever society has deemed "normal" for today.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13808593&postcount=496

That question is non-sequitur and I flat refuse to accept the idea that this has any parallel to racism whatsoever.

Of course you do. You think men and women should be treated differently in arbitrary ways based on their sex, and you revile such treatment based on ethnicities.

But is there really a difference?

Ok then you tell me. Why is it that in our culture the norm is for women to wear dresses and not men? You tell me, because you seem to expect me to know.

Of course I expect you to know! You claim to have examined these standards and found them to be important. If you don't know the reasons for them, how could you have come to such a conclusion?

I have examined them. I have found absolutely no reason that women should be expected to wear dresses but men should not be. Hence the reason that I don't think such standards should be enforced.

You, on the other hand, claim that they should be. As such, I would expect you to be able to list the reasons behind them.

Remember back when I talked about clothing being a form of identity expression? That's when I answered abut the rest.

Yeah. I looked at that post. It boiled down to, "this is the norm in our culture and that's just the way it is."

That was just a couple of posts ago, too.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13813791&postcount=505

That's another one of those cultural norms that just is.

In other words, "this is just the way it is." You speculate that women wouldn't find men in makeup attractive, despite having no evidence for this. In fact, if you'd paid any attention to the number of women who have swooned over men in makeup (Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow, anyone?), you have evidence to the contrary.

Not to mention, of course, the societies in which it was expected for men to wear makeup to improve their appearance. Obviously, there's no reason that women won't find men in makeup attractive.

I never said identity was tied to clothing. I said clothing was an expression of identity. That's not semantics. It's an important distinction.

Ok, fine. I misunderstood.

But why should this particular expression of identity be tied to sex?

Art is also quite often an expression of identity, but we don't tell men that they have to make it in a different way than women. Our beliefs are a part of our identity, but we don't separate them into "male" and "female" beliefs. Our interests and thus our eventual profession are an expression of our identity, but you've made it quite clear that you don't agree with gender limitations on those things.

Why clothing? Why should it, out of all expressions of identity, be segregated by sex?

And, if clothing is such a clear expression of our identity, how can it be that "masculine" fashions have become "feminine"? If tights and makeup really were an expression of gender identity, wouldn't they always either be masculine or feminine?

We express our identity by stepping outside of conformity and determining our own likes and dislikes, not by unquestioningly taking whatever other people have decided on.

They weren't that long ago. I'd rather that you look (And by 'you' I mean the last 3 people I've responded to) because I've spent a shitload of time typing out my reasons and explanations and now people are accusing me of saying stuff I haven't said.

I have looked. Multiple times. I haven't found what you say is there. Can you please point it out?

I'm not going to continue if we're going to get into comparing this to racism. It's not the same thing AT ALL and I'm not going to humor the argument.

If someone wanted to tell a woman that she could be a mechanic, and I said it was akin to telling a black man that he could not hold a management job, would you complain about that comparison?

If that makes me an asshole in people's eyes then so be it, but if you really honestly see it that way, then our perspectives are just too far apart to find a common ground and we'll save ourselves a lot of aggravation to just stop here.

Like I've said before, if you can point me to the actual difference between men and women that makes you think such discriminatory treatment is necessary, I'll listen.

As far as I can tell, the difference in perspective here is that I apply the same standards to any discriminatory treatment - I expect a clear reason for it. I expect the person advocating it to be able to point me to the actual difference between the groups of people he seeks to treat differently that makes such treatment advisable or necessary.

I expect this whether those groups are based on ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, nationality, or any other distinction.

You don't get a free pass by picking one of these and just repeating that there are differences that make different treatment necessary. I expect you to be able to point out exactly what those differences are and exactly why they warrant the difference in treatment you are putting forth, just as I would for any other distinction.

Fine. We're done then.


We sure are. You're pretending to be something you're not. Any more pursuit down this particular avenue would be pointless, without at least a basis of honesty.


That's pretty low coming from someone who presents himself as being such a mild mannered debater. We're done here.


If you honestly think there is some harm to be delivered from clothing a baby girl in blue blankets, 'we were done, here' a long time before I posted a response.

Thus, I have to assume you're trolling.

Thus, I have to assume your 'children' are fictional tools for that purpose.

If they are real, I feel sorry for them.

... if they were my kids I wouldn't permit it in the first place, for the reasons I've described previously.

And here's the evidence that I was right.

Thanks, Neo. You made a liar of yourself, and saved me the trouble.

Good luck with that. It's called "dashing oneself at reality". In a world where the majority rules, the majority doesn't want men running around looking like princesses.

I bet you even think that's original.

A century ago, this attitude would have been the response to the idea of women in pants. Now, no one gives a shit, except a few fringe religious wackos.

I've answered that question repeatedly.

Well, then it should be easy to give a quick summary.

....by forbidding him to do it.

Well no, he said it was his sons life in regards to the post I mentioned, but he would still teach him that it was against natural norms.

Well, then it should be easy to give a quick summary.

Or you could just read the thread instead of jumping in half way through.

This is false. I haven't avoided the question.

I realize there's a lot to read but if you're going to accuse me of not answering questions then back it up.

Um, what? How would that even be possible? I'd have to quote every response from the entire thread. Do you happen to know what shifting the burden of proof is? You're doing it and it's pretty much a guaranteed loss in debate.

Meanwhile, I did quote you calling it an axiom. That's avoiding the question.

That's flat out false. Again, if you don't have time to read the thread that's fine, but it doesn't give you a pass to make stuff up.

Heh. You seem to be accusing the entire thread of not paying attention. There's a common factor here and you're it. If you actually answered these questions it would be easy enough for you to quote yourself doing it. Burden of proof is on you. Don't tell me you don't how to logically support an argument.


Did you misquote me on purpose or was that a typo?

Typo. The last bit was me. Still I accept your premise. Calling it an axiom circumvents logic. I accept that you cannot logically support your claims.

True, which is why I haven't said that.



Um... yes I did.

You don't know what an axiom is, do you? Axiom is pretty much synonymous with "that's just the way it is". You've avoided giving a specific answers to specific questions and then pretended every person in the thread just missed it.

If you answered, quote it. It's called burden of proof.

Heh. You seem to be accusing the entire thread of not paying attention. There's a common factor here and you're it. If you actually answered these questions it would be easy enough for you to quote yourself doing it. Burden of proof is on you. Don't tell me you don't how to logically support an argument.


This reply is for everybody but I think once should be enough to adequately reach anyone who needs it.

Here's the thing, and I'm really serious about this. I think on some level you guys are feeding off of each other. I'm not saying that to be snarky, but when multiple people keep accusing me of saying something that I KNOW I haven't said, then the only explanation I can think of is either 1)I've been grossly unclear or 2)The posters in question are sort of riding each other's momentum.

The reason I think it's the latter rather than the former is because oftimes like when you accused me of carrying an argument against child cross dressing when I know for a fact that while I did mention it once, I didn't take it any further because I know it's a weak argument... But you accused me of it AGAIN even when I clarified this point.

So that leaves me wondering what's really going on here. I'm not saying anybody here is a liar, but I do think there's a certain amount of carelessness going on when people mistake an argument, then expect me to repeat it over and over. (This is especially aggravating when each of 4 posters wants their own copy of my answer.)

I'm not doing it. If you honestly, truly feel like despite my assertions to the contrary I have not responded to something you've said, when I've insisted that I have, then kindly go double check. Allow for the possibility that you misunderstood my reply. If, after doing this, you STILL feel I haven't replied, then quote the relevant section and explain to me where I've erred.

But, and this is important, if it's a case where I have answered and you dismiss it because you just don't like the answer or you feel you've refuted it, that is not the same as my not answering so do me a favor and call it what it is.

If they are real, I feel sorry for them.

Coming from you, that's high praise. Especially coming from somebody who clearly has his own issues with the truth calling me a liar. That's just the thing I needed this morning to put a smile on my face. If, in the future, you feel an urge to distort anything else I've said, don't bother. I know a waste of my time when I see it.

This isn't the first thread where I've watched you take things I've said and turn them into something completely different. I've wasted WAY too much time trying to clarify things for you. I don't think you've misunderstood me at all. I think you're doing it on purpose. I think you get some kind of sick rush from it.

Even Jhahannam and I managed to reach some sort of common ground in that last thread. What's your excuse?

(Don't answer, that question was rhetorical.)

I've been fucked up and fucked over all the forty years of my life by people who believe, and seek to enforce the belief, that my defining characteristic is my female body and that my abilities, talents, hopes and dreams are frivolous adornments to that which can be dismissed when they don't fit the feminine stereotype.

I have no confusion about who I am, but a lot about what the world expects me to be, and why. I was told that girls don't fix cars, that girls don't do rocket science, that girls can't even draw space ships, that girls do not become stockbrokers or actuarys, that girls don't to technical drawing or physics, that girls don't have careers, that girls don't deserve pay rises, that girls do deserve rape, that girls don't enjoy sex, that girls... the list is endless. Nobody ever told me why. I am angry and bitter about the opportunities that are lost to me, about the insults and humiliation I have endured, and I am fucked up about the things I did to try and be what people wanted me to be.

My agenda is to call a halt to this bullshit and to help, wherever I can, those people who are experiencing a disconnect between what they are and what they are told they should be. I came to this thread late, but have read all of it. I'm glad to know that others feel as I do, and that they have argued against imposing arbitrary gender roles on children who do not naturally conform to them. It is heart-breaking that there are still people who think of themselves as responsible parents who are consciously teaching their children that they must be "normal", and if they're not they must pretend to be and hide their differences.

Don't teach your children that they are "wrong", you are fucking them up.

It is heart-breaking that there are still people who think of themselves as responsible parents who are consciously teaching their children that they must be "normal", and if they're not they must pretend to be and hide their differences.

Don't teach your children that they are "wrong", you are fucking them up.

I don't teach my children that they are "wrong". However, you can't stop the "majority" that they run into from pounding that into them.

I don't teach my children that they are "wrong". However, you can't stop the "majority" that they run into from pounding that into them.

Wouldn't the responsible thing to do for a parent be to comfort them, tell them that, yes, certain people do expect certain behaviours of others, but you should never make that the basis of your own behaviour? That you will never please everybody and will only hurt youself in trying? That what's important is what you feel, not what the rest of the world feels?

And, most importantly, that people judging others based on nothing but their looks, are nothing but stupid mouth-breathers?

I don't teach my children that they are "wrong". However, you can't stop the "majority" that they run into from pounding that into them.

I agree - but its hugely important to children that their parents love and support them and teach them how to deal with that "majority", who will always find something to dislike anyhow. Children who are loved and secure and confident can deal with the "majority" much better than those who believe they are "wrong".

Actually, I did respond:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13808025&postcount=495


My bad. Sorry.

So I got about halfway through responding to the rest when I hit this, and deleted what I'd written up to that point:


Yeah. I looked at that post. It boiled down to, "this is the norm in our culture and that's just the way it is."
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13813791&postcount=505

That's another one of those cultural norms that just is.

In other words, "this is just the way it is." You speculate that women wouldn't find men in makeup attractive, despite having no evidence for this. In fact, if you'd paid any attention to the number of women who have swooned over men in makeup (Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow, anyone?), you have evidence to the contrary.

Not to mention, of course, the societies in which it was expected for men to wear makeup to improve their appearance. Obviously, there's no reason that women won't find men in makeup attractive.


If you're going to quote me, quote me completely. What you left out makes a difference. You think I just typed that out to exercise my fingers?


That's another one of those cultural norms that just is. Guys generally don't use makeup to enhance our appearance (Probably because most women wouldn't find it attractive. Think about it. If suddenly women all over the world expressed an attraction to men who wore green eyeliner, the makeup aisle in the store would be packed to the ceiling with men. )

See what I mean? You might still disagree with me but what I actually said has a helluva lot more to say than "That's just the way it is." Disagree? Let's debate the point but don't leave that stuff out.

It matters because: I said GENERALLY, which is true.
I'm not talking about other societies, I've been specifically talking about our culture
Jack Sparrow is a movie character so of COURSE he's covered with makeup. Are you saying that's ALL that appeals to the swooning fans?

Can you see why this makes it look to me like my posts aren't being read? This one looks like you read the first line, thought of a reply, then disregarded the rest. Is that what happened? Can you see why it looks that way to me?

This is why I'm starting to think I may as well post the recipe for roast chicken for all the likelihood it'll get read.

Wouldn't the responsible thing to do for a parent be to comfort them, tell them that, yes, certain people do expect certain behaviours of others, but you should never make that the basis of your own behaviour? That you will never please everybody and will only hurt youself in trying? That what's important is what you feel, not what the rest of the world feels?

And, most importantly, that people judging others based on nothing but their looks, are nothing but stupid mouth-breathers?

I do that yes. But it doesn't really help the hurt in the long run. There are a lot of mouthbreathers.

I can't tell you how many times I've said, "Look, the people who are teasing you are mindless jackasses. You do what you think is right, and you do what you do naturally - don't let other people tell you you're strange or wrong, and stop trying to please people - please yourself first, and if that doesn't please others, then fuck 'em."

It doesn't help as much as you might think.

I do that yes. But it doesn't really help the hurt in the long run. There are a lot of mouthbreathers.

I can't tell you how many times I've said, "Look, the people who are teasing you are mindless jackasses. You do what you think is right, and you do what you do naturally - don't let other people tell you you're strange or wrong, and stop trying to please people - please yourself first, and if that doesn't please others, then fuck 'em."

It doesn't help as much as you might think.


It's a long process of learning that pleasing other people is pointless... but it's something everyone has to learn one way or another.

And trust me, it helps a lot more than hearing "I'm not going to be seen with you like this. What will people say? I don't care what you think, you'll do as I say!", which is what I got a lot during my childhood.

Yes, my parents are stupid mouthbreathers.
At least you might still have your kids' respect once they've grown up. :)

I don't teach my children that they are "wrong". However, you can't stop the "majority" that they run into from pounding that into them.

Yes. Yes you most certainly can.

And you can even teach your kids how to stop the "majority" themselves as well.

Yes. Yes you most certainly can.

And you can even teach your kids how to stop the "majority" themselves as well.

Tell me, how do you "stop" an asskicking by eight people?

Students don't carry guns, so that's not an option.

And by the time you tell a teacher, it's already happened.

So, tell me how. Time machine?

Tell me, how do you "stop" an asskicking by eight people?

Students don't carry guns, so that's not an option.

And by the time you tell a teacher, it's already happened.

So, tell me how. Time machine?
For those few and far between occurrences of actual physical violence, you get all their sorry asses thrown out of school and jailed for a year or two, with a judicial record.

You also get your kid to learn a self-defense martial art of some kind.

And just as an FYI, I've been that kid, even though I never had it fall down to knocking people down. Bullying is inexcusable and should be dealt with accordingly.

Conforming and denying who you are to avoid eventual, very hypothetical physical violence or threat of violence will not a happier kid make.

For those few and far between occurrences of actual physical violence, you get all their sorry asses thrown out of school and jailed for a year or two, with a judicial record.

You also get your kid to learn a self-defense martial art of some kind.

And just as an FYI, I've been that kid, even though I never had it fall down to knocking people down. Bullying is inexcusable and should be dealt with accordingly.

Conforming and denying who you are to avoid eventual, very hypothetical physical violence or threat of violence will not a happier kid make.

It's a myth that martial arts does any good against multiple attackers. Not unless you're some world-class martial artist, and even then it's doubtful.

Your solution doesn't "stop" the attack. It only deals with the aftermath, which is too late in my opinion. Way too late.

Bullying happens. In fact, it happens to non-gay kids a lot as well. It's not hypothetical to a great number of children. And current programs are not stopping it.

Coming from you, that's high praise.


If having your flaws shown to you is praise, then you have had praise.


Especially coming from somebody who clearly has his own issues with the truth calling me a liar.


I have no issues with the truth. I'd challenge you to search through my posts to find a single time I've misrepresented something... but you don't even seem to be able to highlight those flaws in your own posts.


That's just the thing I needed this morning to put a smile on my face. If, in the future, you feel an urge to distort anything else I've said, don't bother. I know a waste of my time when I see it.

This isn't the first thread where I've watched you take things I've said and turn them into something completely different.


I've distorted nothing. I don't know you - the only thing I can judge you on is what you say - and your talk doesn't match the walk.

Which seems to upset you.


I've wasted WAY too much time trying to clarify things for you. I don't think you've misunderstood me at all. I think you're doing it on purpose. I think you get some kind of sick rush from it.


Not at all. I'm just not going to indulge your false self-validation.


Even Jhahannam and I managed to reach some sort of common ground in that last thread. What's your excuse?


Jhahannam obviously cared to spare your feelings. I have no such compunctions. If you lie, I'll call you on it. If you are a hypocrite, I'll point it out. If you say something stupid, I'll not pussyfoot around it.

And, apparently - you don't like that. The 'common ground' is not all in my territory. :)

Jack Sparrow is a movie character so of COURSE he's covered with makeup. Are you saying that's ALL that appeals to the swooning fans?


I'm sure you're aware that, in reality, lots of women are attracted to men in make-up. Nothing to do with movies - hit a goth club some time.

Most boys could care less, and never ask.

What does that have to do with anything?

Good luck with that. It's called "dashing oneself at reality". In a world where the majority rules, the majority doesn't want men running around looking like princesses. You and I might think it would just be all in fun, but the majority would not, and there isn't anything we could say or do to stop them from shitting on the person dressed like a princess.

Maybe in some backwater of provincialism like Herndon, you have to deal with crap like this, and for that I pity you. I live in a civilised place, where biracial same-sex couples don't even get a second glance anymore. In my community, the majority would act to stop such bullying. This is because of the number of parents who believe as I do in my community.

Pretending is one thing - actively encouraging someone to always be something that one is not is a bad thing. You wouldn't tell a gay boy to be straight, now would you? "Oh, just pretend to be straight, will you?"...He doesn't seem to miss it, but I know he'll never forget how ugly "just doing whatever you wish you could" can get.[/QUOTE]

While I feel bad that your community acted like jackasses to your kid, I don't see how your little anecdote has anything to do with the questions I asked Neo B. Nor did I ever suggest that anyone should tell little boys to act like girls. Try to keep up.

It's a myth that martial arts does any good against multiple attackers. Not unless you're some world-class martial artist, and even then it's doubtful....Bullying happens. In fact, it happens to non-gay kids a lot as well. It's not hypothetical to a great number of children. And current programs are not stopping it.

I refuse to indoctrinate my kids with outdated gender roles simply so they can avoid the remote possibility of being attacked by multiple attackers. Besides, the amount of times I've had to do it is miniscule compared to the amount of times I have enjoyed the freedom of being myself. And looking back on it, I wouldn't have it any other way. One of the reasons is because now there is a space for people to be who they want to be. And the reason that space is there is precisely because people like me refused to be bullied by people like that.

What does that have to do with anything?

Maybe in some backwater of provincialism like Herndon, you have to deal with crap like this, and for that I pity you. I live in a civilised place, where biracial same-sex couples don't even get a second glance anymore. In my community, the majority would act to stop such bullying. This is because of the number of parents who believe as I do in my community.


Adults here don't get a second glance. It's the kids that are experiencing the astonishing peer-pressure and bullying, even though there are quite progressive education programs in the schools.

While I feel bad that your community acted like jackasses to your kid, I don't see how your little anecdote has anything to do with the questions I asked Neo B. Nor did I ever suggest that anyone should tell little boys to act like girls. Try to keep up.

It's the kids, not the adults here, who are doing that.

I refuse to indoctrinate my kids with outdated gender roles simply so they can avoid the remote possibility of being attacked by multiple attackers. Besides, the amount of times I've had to do it is miniscule compared to the amount of times I have enjoyed the freedom of being myself. And looking back on it, I wouldn't have it any other way. One of the reasons is because now there is a space for people to be who they want to be. And the reason that space is there is precisely because people like me refused to be bullied by people like that.

I haven't been indoctrinating my kids with "outdated gender roles". It's the kids in the community.

And my oldest boy doesn't have an aggressive bone in his body - not even to defend himself. Part of not having an "outdated gender role" instilled in him I suppose. I believe that anyone, regardless of gender, should actively pursue and believe in their own self-worth, to the point of being willing to defend themselves by means of violence where necessary - and he just can't find it in himself to do it.

So despite my encouraging - despite the adults in the community having educational programs to encourage him - despite anti-bullying programs - there is still bullying and still violence and still hatred from other children.

Telling him it will all be better one day, after a long struggle, is not comforting him in the slightest.

The adults in your community are either not trying hard enough, or not going about it the right way.

Because there are plenty of places where bullying is dealt with in a very satisfactory manner, to the point where this phenomenon nearly disappears.

Children are, amongst other things, a reflection of the society they live in. In a place where all adults are respectful towards each other and where violence is not tolerated, children will not be beating each other senseless.

Tell me, how do you "stop" an asskicking by eight people?

Students don't carry guns, so that's not an option.

And by the time you tell a teacher, it's already happened.

So, tell me how. Time machine?

Clearly you're not from Prince George's County. :D

The adults in your community are either not trying hard enough, or not going about it the right way.

Because there are plenty of places where bullying is dealt with in a very satisfactory manner, to the point where this phenomenon nearly disappears.

Children are, amongst other things, a reflection of the society they live in. In a place where all adults are respectful towards each other and where violence is not tolerated, children will not be beating each other senseless.

I think a lot of the adults are of the mind, "I'm accepting of gay people, as long as it's not my kid". They act as though it's something that's catching, rather than something that just occurs naturally at random.

My oldest boy really suffers at school. Sometimes I get the impression that some of the other parents are "wow, I'm glad it's not my kid".

<snip, to keep the daily bullshit quota down>
And, apparently - you don't like that. The 'common ground' is not all in my territory. :)

Bullshit and smugness never impress me.

I tried, in that last thread where you and I went a few rounds, to figure out what went wrong so we could actually communicate. J did it and I highly doubt it was to spare feelings. He actually seemed interested in *gasp* communication. I extended the very same to you and you blew it off. That, coupled with your nonsense here, tells me pretty much what I need.

I find it interesting how fast you decided to start calling me a liar. I find that usually people who do that are ones who see themselves in others. Seems fairly consistent with what I've noticed in your posts.

I'm done with the pissing match now. If you want to talk to me, then drop the finger pointing holier than thou crap and we can talk. If you're not able to do that, then don't hold your breath for me to respond.

Tell me, how do you "stop" an asskicking by eight people?

Students don't carry guns, so that's not an option.

And by the time you tell a teacher, it's already happened.

So, tell me how. Time machine?

With all the crazy stuff going on at schools, I might take to carrying a small, one shot magnetic accelerator. Not going to beat me up after a steel marble ricochets off your skull. And as to the multiple people, I can run while the gun recharges and I reload.

I think a lot of the adults are of the mind, "I'm accepting of gay people, as long as it's not my kid". They act as though it's something that's catching, rather than something that just occurs naturally at random.

My oldest boy really suffers at school. Sometimes I get the impression that some of the other parents are "wow, I'm glad it's not my kid".
Then you need to either: a) move him to a better school where he'll get less crap, while telling him the reason you're changing him is to make sure he can feel free to be himself without all the crap he's going through, and that you support him or b) raise all kinds of hell until the school authorities figure out that if they don't address the issue of your kid's security, you will make it so that their lives are turned into endless nightmares of filling up paperwork, explaining themselves to the cops and PTAs and school boards and state authorities and whatnot.

Or, I could make a magnetic shotgun....

It's a myth that martial arts does any good against multiple attackers. Not unless you're some world-class martial artist, and even then it's doubtful.

Your solution doesn't "stop" the attack. It only deals with the aftermath, which is too late in my opinion. Way too late.

Bullying happens. In fact, it happens to non-gay kids a lot as well. It's not hypothetical to a great number of children. And current programs are not stopping it.

My daughter did cope with multiple antagonists once. Her handling of the situation pretty much stopped them cold. She (5'3", 100#) zeroed in on the largest one, grabbed his hair and rammed him head first into the side of a dumpster - this takes a certain amount of courage and the element of surprise. It worked out well for her, they left her alone after that. I'm not, however, recommending this as a course of action for everyone, because not all attackers are as apparently stupid as those who tried to take on my daughter.

This reply is for everybody but I think once should be enough to adequately reach anyone who needs it.

Here's the thing, and I'm really serious about this. I think on some level you guys are feeding off of each other. I'm not saying that to be snarky, but when multiple people keep accusing me of saying something that I KNOW I haven't said, then the only explanation I can think of is either 1)I've been grossly unclear or 2)The posters in question are sort of riding each other's momentum.

The reason I think it's the latter rather than the former is because oftimes like when you accused me of carrying an argument against child cross dressing when I know for a fact that while I did mention it once, I didn't take it any further because I know it's a weak argument... But you accused me of it AGAIN even when I clarified this point.

So that leaves me wondering what's really going on here. I'm not saying anybody here is a liar, but I do think there's a certain amount of carelessness going on when people mistake an argument, then expect me to repeat it over and over. (This is especially aggravating when each of 4 posters wants their own copy of my answer.)

I'm not doing it. If you honestly, truly feel like despite my assertions to the contrary I have not responded to something you've said, when I've insisted that I have, then kindly go double check. Allow for the possibility that you misunderstood my reply. If, after doing this, you STILL feel I haven't replied, then quote the relevant section and explain to me where I've erred.

But, and this is important, if it's a case where I have answered and you dismiss it because you just don't like the answer or you feel you've refuted it, that is not the same as my not answering so do me a favor and call it what it is.

Do you notice that ONCE AGAIN, this is a non-answer. Why do you have more time to explain why you refuse to answer than to just give a clear and concise answer?

I'm insisting the only argument you've made is that a child will be attacked in some way for not conforming. You've admitted to making that argument but claimed it is not your chief reason. You've offered no others.

So, you can offer others NOW or you can continue to whine about how everyone is picking on you.

Adults here don't get a second glance. It's the kids that are experiencing the astonishing peer-pressure and bullying, even though there are quite progressive education programs in the schools.....

...Telling him it will all be better one day, after a long struggle, is not comforting him in the slightest.

Again, I am sorry that the people in your community, of whatever age, are being idiots to your son. Hopefully, more parents in your community will try to raise their kids in a more respectful fashion and you won't have to worry about it anymore.

It's a myth that martial arts does any good against multiple attackers. Not unless you're some world-class martial artist, and even then it's doubtful.

Your solution doesn't "stop" the attack. It only deals with the aftermath, which is too late in my opinion. Way too late.

Bullying happens. In fact, it happens to non-gay kids a lot as well. It's not hypothetical to a great number of children. And current programs are not stopping it.

About 95% of people don't know how to fight at all. I've dealt with multiple attackers on multiple occasions. I took some licks because I'm not Bruce Lee and I'm certainly not world class, but we don't live in a world where the majority of people can put you down with one punch (unlike what movies would have YOU believe) and most people can get hit a lot and be fine. This gives the advantage to the guy who simply has to hit or twist anything in range.

The only real thing you need to know is how to break a hold and it doesn't matter how many attackers there are, there is a very small amount who can actually attack you at once. And it wasn't even martial arts that taught me how to free myself, it was 9 years of wrestling. Unsuprisingly, other than grabbing you or wildly flailing at you, most attacks don't really know what to do.

Does this mean I'd want to bank on this, however? Nope. I'm 33. If I got in a fight with one person today I probably wouldn't be able to get out of bed tomorrow. I certainly wouldn't want to play that game. I would not, however, be inspired to back down from what I believe in because you and your friends aren't smart enough to know I'm not your huckleberry.

I think a lot of the adults are of the mind, "I'm accepting of gay people, as long as it's not my kid". They act as though it's something that's catching, rather than something that just occurs naturally at random.

My oldest boy really suffers at school. Sometimes I get the impression that some of the other parents are "wow, I'm glad it's not my kid".

No one wants their kid to suffer at school, but it's not limited to the kids who act out of the social norm. Schools are tough and it's the responsibility of the schools themselves to make sure the load of crap that so many children get isn't dangerous to them.

Unsurprisingly, the vast, vast majority of children who suffer bullying in school grow up to be strong and effective adults. If my child is bullied, I'll explain to him that I was as well, and that none of those kids are laughing now, then I'll get him in a self-defense class.

As much as you want to paint it that way, it's hardly ever the case that mobs of children are fighting one kid and it's utterly unbelievable that the school is ignoring that. Given the source, I'm calling bullshit.

Bullshit and smugness never impress me.


Ah, I get it.

Your own posts disappoint you, and that's somehow my fault. Gotcha.


I tried, in that last thread where you and I went a few rounds, to figure out what went wrong so we could actually communicate.


No, you didn't.

I happened across the second half of a thread, spotted some interesting concepts to pick up on and asked about them. You got defensive, first - and then offensive. And it made me pay closer attention to the actual content of the posts, where I found out that you were contradicting yourself - a trend I notice continuing in this thread.

We didn't 'go a few rounds'. I asked some questions, and pointed some things out, and you got mad. That's not the same thing. In your version, it was some kind of competition.


J did it and I highly doubt it was to spare feelings. He actually seemed interested in *gasp* communication. I extended the very same to you and you blew it off. That, coupled with your nonsense here, tells me pretty much what I need.


I'm interested in communication, but - in my lexicon - 'communication' doesn't equal 'accepting bullshit'.


I find it interesting how fast you decided to start calling me a liar.


You lied. I call you a liar.

It's not that interesting, really.


I find that usually people who do that are ones who see themselves in others. Seems fairly consistent with what I've noticed in your posts.


And yet, you can't show me lying.


I'm done with the pissing match now.


There was no pissing match. You lied, you were a hypocrite, and you pushed a bullshit agenda. I called you on it. No pissing. No match.

To you, that's a pissing match? To me - that's you being called on your crap, and there's no 'you and me'.

If you want to talk to me, then drop the finger pointing holier than thou crap and we can talk. If you're not able to do that, then don't hold your breath for me to respond.

I don't particularly want to talk to you. There's nothing to be gained from discussion when you won't even be honest. On the other hand, I'll continue to point out the flaws in your posts, just as I do with anyone else.

Feel free to put me on ignore, if you don't want to see your faults. But it won't make them go away.

Tell me, how do you "stop" an asskicking by eight people?


In my case, it was absolute calm, combined with a determination that every single hit was going to stop the events continuing.

Most people don't stand up for each other, or even themselves. Most violence melts away immediately in the face of absolute and sure resistance.

I got the shit beat out of me for years before I learned it, though.

In my case, it was absolute calm, combined with a determination that every single hit was going to stop the events continuing.

Most people don't stand up for each other, or even themselves. Most violence melts away immediately in the face of absolute and sure resistance.

I got the shit beat out of me for years before I learned it, though.

This is correct. But getting someone to stand up for themselves is something they have to do for themselves - telling them that this will work isn't enough.

Most people don't stand up for each other, or even themselves. Most violence melts away immediately in the face of absolute and sure resistance.

Correct, and I confirm the bolded part. I've held my own against five young men, all taller than heavier than I am, simply by staying calm and unwavering, whilst letting know in no uncertain terms that any aggression on their part was not only unwelcome, but that I would stand up against it and make sure they would not walk away without having to deal with the consequences.

Bullies are the worst of cowards.

This is correct. But getting someone to stand up for themselves is something they have to do for themselves - telling them that this will work isn't enough.

On the other hand, people could just front-up and stop shit like that happening to other people. Kids get beat up at school because, for the most part, other people let it happen. Bullies don't care who the resistance comes from - they melt in the presence of opposition from 'the audience', just like they do from victims-pushed-too-far.

Conclusion: bitching about 'our kids' getting beaten up if we 'let them dress funny' is an excuse, and the coward's way out.

Correct, and I confirm the bolded part. I've held my own against five young men, all taller than heavier than I am, simply by staying calm and unwavering, whilst letting know in no uncertain terms that any aggression on their part was not only unwelcome, but that I would stand up against it and make sure they would not walk away without having to deal with the consequences.

Bullies are the worst of cowards.

Very much in line with what I taught my kids. They were never, under any conditions to start a fight, however, if they were physically attacked they were to respond and finish the fight. I also taught them that if they kept their heads and didn't panic, they had the advantage.

My son never had the problems my daughter had with bullying, she's always been small and frail-appearing, so she was considered a target for a time. One incident I discussed earlier in the thread, another one took place on the school ground (the teachers, for whatever reason, ignored bullying). The bully got her down on the ground before she knew what happened, but she kept her head, got one hand free, grabbed a rock and clouted the bully. She got in trouble for it, but the bullies at that school never bothered her again.

Do you notice that ONCE AGAIN, this is a non-answer. Why do you have more time to explain why you refuse to answer than to just give a clear and concise answer?

I'm insisting the only argument you've made is that a child will be attacked in some way for not conforming. You've admitted to making that argument but claimed it is not your chief reason. You've offered no others.

So, you can offer others NOW or you can continue to whine about how everyone is picking on you.

No other arguments? Really? (This is the last time I do the legwork for you. Next time, you can do it yourself or keep your trap shut.)

Let me see... at first I was arguing for nothing more than recognition of my point of view (Yes, I know that was silly of me but hey, a guy can hope) but most people absolutely insisted that we talk about what an evil, bigoted, sexist homophobe I am so we had to keep going on and on about why I find it illogical to dress a boy as a princess and so I gradually began to put my reasons out there. (This would be where you get caught in your error.)


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.


1)I don't see this as a bad thing. I think kids that are artificially put in an environment where there is no sexual identity (I hate to say 'gender' in this context. 'Gender' is a grammatical term to describe the femininity or masculinity of a noun in languages that have that structure. Words have a gender. Living things have a sex.) can become confused without some kind of anchor.

2)Why do I say artificially? Because of that study I mentioned a couple pages back (I haven't had the time to look for a link yet) in which toddlers who had been raised without being encouraged toward one sex or the other were placed in a room with a box of 'boy' toys and a box of 'girl' toys. The boys all went straight for the cars, trucks, bulldozers, etc and the girls all went for the dolls and dress up clothes. Seems to me there's a certain amount of sexual identity built in naturally.



From what I've observed, self esteem can be a problem. socialization can be a problem, confidence can be a problem.



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.

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.

That's not logic. You've not demonstrated why pretending to be famale when you're male is different than pretending to be a bear. In fact, you avoid the question. So much for that crap about want to apply logic to your beliefs.

(I included this post of yours because I noticed it as I was scrolling along and I included it as a reminder of a specific wrong accusation)

I see what you're getting at, and it is a very good question so I took some time to think about it. The answer is this: Clothing, on some level, is an expression of our identity. Who we are is expressed partly in how we choose to dress. By guiding my sons to dress as boys and my daughters to dress as girls I am instructing them on HOW to express themselves. What do boys wear? What do girls wear? How shall I dress to express who I am? These are the questions I answer whenever I buy clothing for my kids. (Remember, this was in the case of a whim as opposed to a deeper desire, which I'd approach differently.)

In the case of a costume of a bear vs. a princess, the difference is that a bear costume is enough of a departure from reality as to truly be a costume to transform someone into an utterly different entity. A princess costume, at its most basic level, is nothing but a fancy dress cut in a medieval style.


At any rate, I know what you're saying, but I feel I've addressed that question already in response to Dempublicents1. Letting a kid dress as a bear or a robot or a vampire etc. doesn't undermine their learning about what the cultural norms are in terms of male and female dress. It's that simple. It is completely illogical to undermine one's own teaching. As I've said before, if my son grow up to be a cross dresser then that's his life, but at least he will be able to make that decision based on a foundation of knowing what is and what isn't normal for our culture. If he chooses to go against that grain as he matures then so be it, but my j ob is to tech him what those norms are. It really is that simple.
...
As parents, our job is to provide a framework for our kids, to teach them not only the obvious right and wrong but also provide a stable base upon which they'll go on to build their life. Part of that base is an understanding of our culture and the norms associated with it. Like it or not, it is not considered normal for boys to wear dresses in our culture. You can question that all you want but that's the way it is, by whatever means that came to be. Letting a young boy wear a dress undermines the teaching of that foundation in a way that a bear costume or robot costume does not, namely, sex identity. That's my approach. That's why it's my approach. Simple.


That's not all of them, and yes it looks like I overlooked the peer reaction comment but I already acknowledged that I'd mentioned it once. if you still want to insist there were more than once from me you go find them yourself. Not like I can prove a negative anyway.

At any rate, agree or disagree with my arguments this is for EVERYBODY bitching at me that I never made any.

My bad. Sorry.

NP.

I would appreciate it if you would do the same when you claim to have said something other people apparently missed.

If you're going to quote me, quote me completely. What you left out makes a difference. You think I just typed that out to exercise my fingers?

I did link the entire post, did I not?

I quoted the relevant portion. The rest was, as far as I could tell, wild speculation to elaborate on the point. It was also dependent on the "that's just the way it is" assumption.

See what I mean? You might still disagree with me but what I actually said has a helluva lot more to say than "That's just the way it is." Disagree? Let's debate the point but don't leave that stuff out.

But you did say "that's just the way it is" as if it was self-evident. The rest of what you said relied upon that assumption.

Elaboration is not the same thing as saying something different.

It matters because: I said GENERALLY, which is true.

How many women have you asked? How many men have put on makeup to try it out?

I'm not talking about other societies, I've been specifically talking about our culture

If there are and have been societies in which women find men in makeup attractive, it doesn't make sense to say, "Men don't wear makeup in this culture because women just don't find it attractive." If anything, you've got your cause and effect backwards. Since it is clear that women do sometimes find makeup attractive, assuming that there is something different about the women in our culture is silly. It's much more likely that women who don't find it attractive have a problem with it because "men just don't do it."

The problem here is that your explanation is circular.

"Men don't wear makeup."
"Why?"
"That's just the way it is. Women don't find it attractive."
"How do you know?"
"Because men don't wear makeup."
"Why don't they?"
"That's just the way it is......."

And so on.

And, since I've seen plenty of evidence that women do find men in makeup attractive, even that doesn't fly.

Jack Sparrow is a movie character so of COURSE he's covered with makeup. Are you saying that's ALL that appeals to the swooning fans?

Most movie makeup isn't so obvious. You generally can't tell that a man is wearing eyeliner in the movies, even if it is true.

And yes, I do think it's a big part of the swooning. Do you know how many women I've heard go on and on about how awesome Johnny Depp looks in dark eyeliner?

Can you see why this makes it look to me like my posts aren't being read? This one looks like you read the first line, thought of a reply, then disregarded the rest. Is that what happened? Can you see why it looks that way to me?

No. In fact, since I answered the rest, I can't see how it would look that way at all.

This is why I'm starting to think I may as well post the recipe for roast chicken for all the likelihood it'll get read.

In case you didn't notice, I've now responded to that particular paragraph, in its entirety, twice. So don't try and pretend it didn't get read.


I do that yes. But it doesn't really help the hurt in the long run. There are a lot of mouthbreathers.

I think maybe you've got that backwards. It doesn't help in the short run. It won't help immediately.

In the long run, however, when a child grows up and has been working on that understanding his whole life, it will help quite a bit.

I can't tell you how many times I've said, "Look, the people who are teasing you are mindless jackasses. You do what you think is right, and you do what you do naturally - don't let other people tell you you're strange or wrong, and stop trying to please people - please yourself first, and if that doesn't please others, then fuck 'em."

It doesn't help as much as you might think.

I think you're underestimating the effect in can have.

As a child, there were plenty of people who told me I couldn't do certain things or enjoy certain subjects, etc. because I was a girl. Yes, that hurt. And it pissed me off. But I always had my mother and others to fall back to - people who told me that being a girl didn't limit me in those ways. And now, I am eternally grateful for their support.

NP.

I would appreciate it if you would do the same when you claim to have said something other people apparently missed.


See my reply to Jocabia.

Just so you know, it's not as easy for me as it is for you to go digging through posts. In this case, you're arguing with just me, for the most part and it's easier to focus. I, on the other hand, can stay consistently busy just answering posts from as many as 4 or 5 different people in some cases, all demanding their very own customized answers. It's a LOT more work and a lot more material I have to go back through. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to look for themselves unless they're in the same position as I am.


I did link the entire post, did I not?

I quoted the relevant portion. The rest was, as far as I could tell, wild speculation to elaborate on the point. It was also dependent on the "that's just the way it is" assumption.
But you did say "that's just the way it is" as if it was self-evident. The rest of what you said relied upon that assumption.


I have a very big problem with this. You appear to be dismissing the rest of that post just because you don't immediately see the relevance. The rest of what I said did not RELY on it. If it seemed that way to you I'd prefer that you just asked me about it rather than blow it off. You say you answered the rest, but... How can you expect that to be clear when all you had to do was highlight a couple more lines of text. It was apparently worth the effort to quote it in the first place.

Sorry, but I thought we had a better understanding than this. I don't want to keep going in circles, arguing over what was said and what wasn't.

Not being snarky, just really aggravated. Gonna send a TG 'cause I think I'm done with this thread.

I'm sure you're aware that, in reality, lots of women are attracted to men in make-up. Nothing to do with movies - hit a goth club some time.

I actually can't think of a single woman I've talked to about it who didn't like some makeup on a man. As a general rule, none of us like horribly applied or camp makeup, but that's quite another thing.

On a guy with nice eyes, a little eyeliner can be amazing.

I'm insisting the only argument you've made is that a child will be attacked in some way for not conforming. You've admitted to making that argument but claimed it is not your chief reason. You've offered no others.

To be fair, that hasn't been his main argument.

His main argument, as far as I can tell, has been that gendered clothing is somehow necessary, and thus it is a parent's job to avoid confusion by enforcing such restrictions.

He has compared teaching a boy not to wear a dress to, say, teaching children not to wait for the bus in their underwear.

That's not all of them, and yes it looks like I overlooked the peer reaction comment but I already acknowledged that I'd mentioned it once. if you still want to insist there were more than once from me you go find them yourself. Not like I can prove a negative anyway.

At any rate, agree or disagree with my arguments this is for EVERYBODY bitching at me that I never made any.

It isn't that you never made any arguments. It's that you won't back them up.

For instance, bringing up the toy studies. What they showed was that boys and girls allowed to choose their own toys tended to choose different toys. This doesn't explain why children who choose otherwise - who go outside the gender norms - should be pushed to conform.

The one example you have brought up of a "gender neutral" household was not, by your own description, one in which the child was left to choose his own gender identity. Instead, he was encouraged to equally play with both "masculine" and "feminine" toys. We can't know if he would have wanted to play with the toys associated with girls on his own.

You have yet to answer my questions about why clothing should be considered an expression of our gender identity when so many other expressions of identity are not gendered. Why should arbitrary standards that are fairly randomly assigned to male and female (as evidenced by the fact that they switch) be considered an expression of identity? Why should we teach children to tie their identity to something as trivial (your word here) as clothing?

And here's the big one, how is conformity to such arbitrary standards an expression of identity? Isn't identity an individual thing? And isn't that something we find when we explore our own likes, dislikes, beliefs, etc. rather than simply taking on those others expect of us?

In a very real way, isn't a transvestite expressing his own identity more than a man who likes makeup, but won't wear it because it just isn't something men do?

It isn't that you never made any arguments. It's that you won't back them up.

1)That's not what he accused me of
2)When have I had the time with all the side arguments? I can barely keep up with that as it is.

But when you start talking about wearing dresses and such, or a princess costume where not only would the boy be wearing the clothing of a girl, but actually pretending to BE one, then you're not talking about the same thing at all. The women building battleships were not pretending to be men. Soldiers sewing up a hole in a field jacket or cooking a pot of soup over a sterno can weren't pretending to be women. That's the difference.


So, do you think boys should not pretend to be females? Do you think wearing a princess costume is pretending to be female?

It would seem as if you believe these two things, but I would like some clarification.

EDIT: By the way, thanks for summarising your points upthread. Makes it easier for me to follow your logic.

Just so you know, it's not as easy for me as it is for you to go digging through posts. In this case, you're arguing with just me, for the most part and it's easier to focus. I, on the other hand, can stay consistently busy just answering posts from as many as 4 or 5 different people in some cases, all demanding their very own customized answers

There are different questions that different people are asking, yes.

But if you have the time to reply to nearly every post with a long description of how you're being put upon, you could refrain from doing that and quote the posts in question instead.

It's a LOT more work and a lot more material I have to go back through. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to look for themselves unless they're in the same position as I am.

The problem, of course, is when people do look for themselves and still don't find what they're looking for. What then?

I have a very big problem with this. You appear to be dismissing the rest of that post just because you don't immediately see the relevance.

Again, no. I've responded to that post in its entirety. I've responded to that section of the post twice now.

I quoted the part that was immediately relevant to what I was saying and linked the rest for context.

The rest of what I said did not RELY on it. If it seemed that way to you I'd prefer that you just asked me about it rather than blow it off. You say you answered the rest, but... How can you expect that to be clear when all you had to do was highlight a couple more lines of text. It was apparently worth the effort to quote it in the first place.

Well, you know, linking the entire post and responding to the rest of that paragraph by paraphrasing what you said would generally be enough.

In fact, it's enough for college professors. You can quote a small portion and then have something like, "He goes on to say that...."

Sorry, but I thought we had a better understanding than this. I don't want to keep going in circles, arguing over what was said and what wasn't.

Then don't! Just link what was said that you think people missed. While you have been responding to many people, you don't really have any more posts in this thread than I do. I've gone back through both my own posts and yours. I don't see why you can't simply do it with yours.

I actually can't think of a single woman I've talked to about it who didn't like some makeup on a man. As a general rule, none of us like horribly applied or camp makeup, but that's quite another thing.

On a guy with nice eyes, a little eyeliner can be amazing.


Agreed. I'm not sure how it is seriously being proposed this isn't the case. Apparently, guys only wear make-up to hide blemishes (which, by extension, means women don't do that?), and the other options seem to be about being gender-confused or 'pretending'.

Which leaves me wondering about me, and quite a lot of guys I know... who just happen to wear some make-up, sometimes, because we like to look good.

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?

Well hey! If you don't want grandchildren, great idea!

Sorry, that was uncalled for, I just couldn't resist. No, seriously, I think it's good you want your children to be tolerant. I am sure some parents would say that you are endangering your children by sexualising them; it's a well-known psychological fact that children do not associate sexual and selfish attraction with their biological parents and with hetarosexual relationships ("mummy" and "daddy") until they are much older, whereas children really start to wonder with homosexuality, for obvious reasons.

I just think you're doing what you think is right, and raising your children healthily to be tolerant, and to learn to accept themselves if they do turn out to be anything other than hetarosexual, and that makes you a very good parent.

Which leaves me wondering about me, and quite a lot of guys I know... who just happen to wear some make-up, sometimes, because we like to look good.

Real men look good without makeup ;)

Real men look good without makeup ;)

Agreed. Just like 'real women'. That doesn't mean they can't look good (maybe even better?) with some.

The idea that men can't, don't or shouldn't wear make-up, based on some preconception of what is 'the way it is' (like that should matter), and some mumbling about acceptable gender roles... laughable.

Real men look good without makeup ;)

Real men look good with makeup, too. :p

Real men look good with makeup, too. :pYou lie like a rug! :mad: =P

Agreed. Just like 'real women'.

Agreed. I'm just not a big fan of makeup in general, be it worn by men OR women.

I like mah peoplez au natural.

Real men look good with makeup, too. :p
Touché, m'lady.

You lie like a rug! :mad: =P

Can I lie like a rug underneath him?

http://www.philippalmer.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/captain-jack-sparrow.jpg

;)

Can I lie like a rug underneath him?

http://www.philippalmer.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/captain-jack-sparrow.jpg

;)


phwoar

Originally Posted by Post 181
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.

Excellent example of how this actually doesn't logically support your claim. The study you're discussing shows a tendency, much like there is a tendency for boys to like girls and girls to like boys. What it doesn't show is the absolutes you're trying to support. In fact, it actively calls them into dispute.

However, even ignoring that, how does a tendency to head for a particular toybox justify preventing a child from going to the other?

By the way, I read a study of the number of children who would willing bite a child on the neck and suck their blood till they die approaches zero. Yet, you have no issue with children pretending that. The logic issue there is obviously lost on you, but it pretty thoroughly makes your entire argument nonsense.

Originally Posted by Post 225
1)I don't see this as a bad thing. I think kids that are artificially put in an environment where there is no sexual identity (I hate to say 'gender' in this context. 'Gender' is a grammatical term to describe the femininity or masculinity of a noun in languages that have that structure. Words have a gender. Living things have a sex.) can become confused without some kind of anchor.

This is of course factually untrue. The usage of gender you're dismissing has been in use for 7 centuries. Do you regularly respond to scientific designations by just pretending they don't exist. Sex is a description of a particular physical attribute. It's been scientifically shown that while their is a correllation between that attribute and certain features, that it's not causal, rather the cause is a seperate physical attribute relating to hormones. As such, they are referenced two different ways. That you want to ignore the difference because it destroys your argument is illogical.

Just in case you've not heard this before, some words have more than one meaning. The gender of a word is no the only definition of the word and it comes from the idea of gender in living beings, not the other way around.


2)Why do I say artificially? Because of that study I mentioned a couple pages back (I haven't had the time to look for a link yet) in which toddlers who had been raised without being encouraged toward one sex or the other were placed in a room with a box of 'boy' toys and a box of 'girl' toys. The boys all went straight for the cars, trucks, bulldozers, etc and the girls all went for the dolls and dress up clothes. Seems to me there's a certain amount of sexual identity built in naturally.

All? Link this study please. I recall a very similar study and it showed a tendency, not the absolute you're pulling from a rather dark and smelly area.

Meanwhile, that some sexual identity is built in naturally, doesn't mean that it always corresponds the way you want it to. You want it to be an absolute, girls do "girl" things and boys do "boy" things, but not only have I never seen a study that concluded that, but your own testimony shows that you have to regulate and teach in order to make sure your boy does "boy" things and girl does "girl" things.

Post 229
From what I've observed, self esteem can be a problem. socialization can be a problem, confidence can be a problem.

Again, doesn't address the issue. These are assertions that you don't support and rely on the original assertion being true. You're not supporting your assertions, you're extending them.


Originally Posted by Post 242
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.

Ah, anecdotes.

In all cases where I see children raised in stringently gender-forced environments they grow up to be rapists.

My argument is as good as yours or, more appropriately, as ludicrous and unsupported.

Originally Posted by Post 496
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.
As I pointed out, people like you were making the same arguments about jobs 50 years ago. Why is it different?


YOUR Post 607
That's not logic. You've not demonstrated why pretending to be famale when you're male is different than pretending to be a bear. In fact, you avoid the question. So much for that crap about want to apply logic to your beliefs.

(I included this post of yours because I noticed it as I was scrolling along and I included it as a reminder of a specific wrong accusation)

You're arguing that it's illogical for your child to dress as a female. You've admitted that the argument doesn't apply to pretending to be a bear, or an alien creature that lifts things with it's mind, or a blood-sucking creature, or any number of other things your child isn't.


Originally Posted by Post505
I see what you're getting at, and it is a very good question so I took some time to think about it. The answer is this: Clothing, on some level, is an expression of our identity. Who we are is expressed partly in how we choose to dress. By guiding my sons to dress as boys and my daughters to dress as girls I am instructing them on HOW to express themselves. What do boys wear? What do girls wear? How shall I dress to express who I am? These are the questions I answer whenever I buy clothing for my kids. (Remember, this was in the case of a whim as opposed to a deeper desire, which I'd approach differently.)

If your boys wish to wear something that is not traditionally boys clothes (something you claimed couldn't happen since you claimed a study shows that they inherently only express themselves as boys) that is how they are expressing their identity. You're forcing them to express their identity differently because you don't want their identity to be their natural identity but one that makes you more comfortable.

Amusingly, if your claim from the study were true, the teaching you're describing here would be utterly unnecessary.

Let's keep in mind, you still aren't actually making an argument. You're continuing to make your claim, expanding on it, but this isn't actually showing any support. The closest you've shown for support thus far is a study you're misrepresenting and haven't sourced.

In the case of a costume of a bear vs. a princess, the difference is that a bear costume is enough of a departure from reality as to truly be a costume to transform someone into an utterly different entity. A princess costume, at its most basic level, is nothing but a fancy dress cut in a medieval style.

Uh, what? You think this passes for logic? They put on a furry suit and they know they're just pretending, but they put on a dress and suddenly they're confused. Are your children special? I'm quite certain none of the children in my family would have a problem recognizing whether they're actually dressing up or not. That a particular costume requires more imagination than the other has very little to do with whether or not it's a costume. As I remember it my Lone ranger costume was part of a plate with eye holes.

"I don't know what happened. First, my nephew dressed up as me, then he forgot who he was and drove my car to the store. This dress up thing is dangerous. How can children actually know they're not people unless they pretend to be people who don't exist and are from an alternate reality."

Amusingly, by this argument, you'd rather your sons dress as Princess Leia than as Luke Skywalker. Clearly, them dresses as Princess Leia is more departed from reality.



Originally Posted by Post 568
At any rate, I know what you're saying, but I feel I've addressed that question already in response to Dempublicents1. Letting a kid dress as a bear or a robot or a vampire etc. doesn't undermine their learning about what the cultural norms are in terms of male and female dress. It's that simple. It is completely illogical to undermine one's own teaching. As I've said before, if my son grow up to be a cross dresser then that's his life, but at least he will be able to make that decision based on a foundation of knowing what is and what isn't normal for our culture. If he chooses to go against that grain as he matures then so be it, but my j ob is to tech him what those norms are. It really is that simple.
...
As parents, our job is to provide a framework for our kids, to teach them not only the obvious right and wrong but also provide a stable base upon which they'll go on to build their life. Part of that base is an understanding of our culture and the norms associated with it. Like it or not, it is not considered normal for boys to wear dresses in our culture. You can question that all you want but that's the way it is, by whatever means that came to be. Letting a young boy wear a dress undermines the teaching of that foundation in a way that a bear costume or robot costume does not, namely, sex identity. That's my approach. That's why it's my approach. Simple.

Again, this doesn't support your claim. It extends it. It's circular logic.

"Why do you teach your children to adhere to gender roles?"
"Because gender roles are right."
"Why are they right?"
"Because society teaches children to adhere to them."
And so on.

Again, the mention of the study is attempt at breaking out of that circle and actually offer support, but given you've not actually sourced that study and that it doesn't actually support an absolute, it's not actually a valid argument.