# Forcing gender roles on young children



## minkajane (Jun 5, 2005)

I am shocked by how early children are forced to conform to traditional gender roles. My DS will be 2 in a couple of weeks and has recently begun doing pretend play, so I got him a dollhouse with three dolls for Christmas. Everyone laughed and scoffed when I told them what I got him. My sister said "Don't tell Chris <my uncle> about it." Because Chris would never shut up about how that's a girl's toy.

A few months ago, I was telling my coworkers about how DS found my friend's pumps and insisted on walking around in them. He was SO cute. My boss asked if it bothered me that he was wearing women's shoes.

DS has pink toenails right now. He handed the bottle to me and shoved his foot in my face until I painted them. I see no problem with it. DS just thought it was a pretty color. My dad and uncle made a huge deal out of it. "You just don't paint a boy's toenails!"

My family has decided I'm trying to turn DS gay. I gave him a baby doll when he was little, I don't plan on cutting his hair until he asks for it, I don't care what he wears, I got him a dollhouse, and I'm not devastated by the mere thought of my child being gay. I'm bi myself, so I couldn't care less who DS dates as long as he's happy.

I see this sort of thing everywhere. Girls' clothes are pink and purple and covered in flowers and kittens. Boys' clothes are darker, somber colors, and have sports pictures on the front. Girls are given Bratz and Barbies at an early age to show them how women dress and attract men. Boys are given GI Joes, weapons, and sports equipment to show them how manly men act.

How do you react to this? Do you try to counteract this cultural conditioning in any way?


----------



## ThreeBeans (Dec 2, 2006)

We just go with the flow.

DS is, as they say, all boy







He is fascinated by big trucks and cars. It had nothing to do with any 'conditioning'. Since he was 12 months old, he loved standing at the window and pointing a shrieking when a big truck went by.

He also has a doll-baby that he got for Christmas last year, when I was 7 months pregnant with DD. He still loves his doll-baby, rocks it, nurses it







, and cuddles it to 'night-night'.

He loves pretending to 'cook', so Santa brought a wooden toy kitchen. He's thrilled to pieces









You can't 'turn' someone gay. People are born with their sexual identity pre-programmed. If he's gay, he's gay and if he's straight, he's straight. We'll love him just the same.


----------



## guest9921 (Nov 3, 2005)

I saw your post in 'talk amongst yourselves' and had to find this thread.

This is a huge issue to me - everyone usually tells me I am overreacting, etc - but I really do not want my son to grow up with a masculinity complex.

I understand and know that children love GI Joes, etc - but I will not have them in my house for the very reason that they're promoting violence. Granted, the Army is a very real part of our lives - but their only job is to 'protect' us, and they use that word 'protect' to do unspeakable things.
Okay, Okay - I may be projecting a little here.









But you get the point - it's a violence thing. Same with guns, to me.

No Destroyer Robots.
No giant cars with angry teeth and flames.

I will have to deal with this in the future, I am sure - but really - I will stand up for saving my sons tiny bit of gentlenature he has.

I wanted a sweet, loving, gentle boy.
I got a very loud, frisky, and aggressive boy. (I have dents in my head from blocks hah.







)
I do not want to embrace the aggressive side, and shame the gentle one.
I'll do my best to direct his aggression into passion and aggression for love. (Think, more hugs - less fists.)

This is for a different thread - but my older brother lives in our house.
He is not of the highest intelligence, is absolutely obsessed with killing things, and exploiting those killed things.
For example, when asked why he kills things, he says he does it because he's "bored" and it's "awesome."
He freaked out when I decided to exchange a really inappropriate gift given to us this holiday - and screamed that I was taking away his boytoys and I was cruel, going to try to make him a '***' etc.

Suffice it to say - I love my brother, but he will not live with us next year when DS is of an age where he can mimic and understand such concepts completely.

I guess I get a lot of eyerolls - because, really, I do not care about gender roles.
DS wears pink (though his pink is usually those frat boy polos from OldNavy - it is So hard to find clothing for him that is not a dark green, blue, red, or orange.)
In his dark obviously 'boysideofOldNavy' clothes - he gets mistaken for a girl, EverySingleDay.
It may be the long shiny curly hair, that I refuse to cut.









Anyways - when I say his name, therefore saying it's a he not really a she - they almost always apologize profusely, as if I would be terribly offended.
I just smile and say "it just mean's he's really pretty."

Also - when those tell me that I am going to turn him gay - I just do that same smile and say "I hope so, then I can join PFLAG with more passion."


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

oh maan. i will tell you thoough it has gotten easier now that dd is 4 because she will outright tell you so. for instance for her 4th bday i sent out superhero invitations. what does she get all girly stuff. i mean i have told people how much she loves spiderman. do they get it no.

i have gotten her boys underwear because of her favourte characters. she even wears boys clothes because how come there are no fierce alligators and dinosaurs in girls clothes.

i get all teh roll eyes and some looks. but when my dd shouts she wants to be a superhero princess - who fights and saves all - you can see none of the normal things will do.

all that i know is that my dd has personality. she really does. she always shines where she is - whether others like it or not. all i know i truly enjoy who my child is.

i have faced all the what is a girl playing with trucks, cars, etc. why is she interested in construction (bob the builder) mostly thankfuly from strangers and i just shrugg them off.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

It's easier to fight it in our home.
I fell for the whole, "Every boy needs to watch football!" one year. So, I got a TV (never had one before) and I got the TV guide and marked our calender for every football game that season.

Who ended up watching and having a blast? Not my son! He hid behind the couch and played with the dolls. My oldest dd and I watched football and she is STILL a fan! She plays better than most kids her size! And in a tutu and Princess crown to boot!









It's other people and other children who make it hard, though. Other girls have snatched dolls from my ds and said things like, "That's for girls, not boys!"
Or the other boys will make fun of my ds for wanting to play with girls.


----------



## mamamaris (Jul 12, 2006)

I have 2 & 5 y/o boys. I try to get cool non-gender toys (wedgits, domino rally, blocks) that lets them explore their creativity. we have more than our share of trucks from relatives, even a few transformers (yecch!) but the kids really like them (for a short time until the pieces are lost). The 2y/o also got a wooden kitchen with wooden food for Christmas and they have both enjoyed it immensely. They love art and the 5y/o really enjoys painting pottery. We also have a doll-baby and stroller set. We paint toe nails and sometimes fingernails and love a good mohawk.

I've received comments a few times on their choice in toys and my dh and I just state that "if they "turn" gay that's fine as long as they are caring and compassionate and good citizens of the world. We'd be much happier with that outcome than if they were straight and raging homophobic, insensitive a**holes." That has completely shut up the 2 family members that had the nerve to say anything









I am starting to notice the 5y/o pick up on others attitudes about gender roles/toys-mostly from school and tv commercials (we don't watch a lot of tv but it is very convincing to kids.) SO I combat it with talking to the kids about advertising and how toys are just toys, not for boys/girls but for anyone who likes to play. I sometimes feel like it's more accepted for girls to like "boy" stuff than vice versa. That is when it gets tough b/c why is it cool for a girl to be able to throw a football but a boy in ballet is snickered at. It's just tough. I figure since I am their most important role model, they will surely glean some of my righteous knowledge I am handing down!!


----------



## mamamaris (Jul 12, 2006)

mama in the boonies, the football part was not about your dd, I was taking forever to type and didn't see your post yet


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

It is a running joke in our family about whose latest present is going to turn my son gay.







It started when my mom got him pink receiving blankets from Target because the online registry screwed up (I registered for the neutral set). Then it was dolls, a pink bunny, pink shirts ... this year he got a pink Barbie karaoke keyboard which he LOVES. (He is 21 mos. and loves anything relating to pianos - doesn't care about Barbie.)

Obviously the pink stuff isn't going to make him gay, and we don't actually care about it. He likes pink stuff and dolls and he also likes trucks and blocks and banging things. I am happy with him just the way he is (although I confess to trying to nudge him toward more doll/stuffed animal play and to being more affectionate and gentle).

My parents are odd about this stuff, though. My dad is scary far-right-wing and has no tolerance for gay people at all. My mom personally doesn't care much, but she goes along with him. They're anti-liberal, anti-gay, anti-feminist, you name it. But at the same time, they don't care about gender roles. They thought it was fine when my brother played with dolls and I played with trucks, and they think it's cute when Corbin gets pink stuff. Heck, my dad was a SAHD in the '80s, back when it was unheard of. But if Corbin were actually GAY ... my dad might never speak to him again.

I guess my family is just weird.


----------



## Redifer (Nov 25, 2006)

I hear ya. After much argument and discussion with my IL's, this year they actually got DD things she enjoys instead of gender-forced toys.

She likes trucks tools and cars. I see nothing wrong with this, I was the same way. They insisted she HAD to play with "girl" toys, and were fighting to buy her this extensive doll set (complete with stroller, bassinet, crib, etc). I was opposed to this on two conditions: for one, dd doesn't play with dolls. She never shows any interest in them. For two, those are things we don't use in our household to nurture babes, and I don't really want her exposed to that just yet.

Well, DH's grandmother fought and fought with me about it. "She needs something to mommy; she needs girl toys; she needs to behave like a lady"...

DD is 2! I'm sorry, but she really doesn't recognize that certain things are for "boys" and others for "girls", nor do I want that philosophy pushed on her, ever. She HAS a toy she "mommies", her stuffed bear. If you want to get her a "girl" toy, at least get her something she can USE...

Finally, after three months, the argument ceased and Dd got a little cleaning cart with a working vaccuum and a mop, broom, bucket and garbage bag. Fine by me, she likes to "clean".

-- Coming from the mom who was an extreme tomboy at age 3, and who's paternal grandparents told my mother I would end up "gay if you don't put that girl in a dress and get her a doll"...


----------



## cappuccinosmom (Dec 28, 2003)

Well, we are counter-culture in a different way. We do believe in gender roles for religious reasons, but I can guarantee that GI Joe and war toys, nor Barbie/Bratz will ever be part of our children's play. Ick.







: We don't use make-up or nail polish or things like that, so it's not an issue. Don't have any fairy dresses and wings around either. Our boys also have stuffed toys and love to help me in the kitchen (and are encouraged to!), I don't even know why someone would feel manhood is "threatened" by those things.







: If we ever have a girl, she will have the opportunity to play with the trucks/blocks/gadgets that the boys have. It would be awfully hard to separate "boy things" and "girl things", especially when they're all little. I can't imagine trying to do that.


----------



## newmommy (Sep 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThreeBeans* 
DS is, as they say, all boy







He is fascinated by big trucks and cars. It had nothing to do with any 'conditioning'

Yeah, this is DS as well. All of his toys must come with *wheels* so even if I did buy him some sort of baby doll he won't touch it.

DH would freak if I did but I won't go there.


----------



## Tigerchild (Dec 2, 2001)

We don't force things either way.

As in, we don't try to be counterculture, nor do we bow to it.

Right now, my DD is very in to building 'machines' and things like that. I guess that is not stereotypical 'girl', but then again she knows lots of engineers and scientists that are women, so it's not like it's not girly either.

One of my boys is very nuturing. On the surface I grudingly agree that it's 'counterculture', but OTOH, his dad is a SAHD who gives 100 percent to parenting, so to HIM, that is something that both men and women do, whoopty-doo.

Right now all the kids are into knights and dragons. All of them like to dress up as princesses, princes, animals, ect. My daughter plays superhero with her friends at preschool (which happen to be mostly girls who tend to be friends with mostly boys). I'm not surprised that she likes that sort of thing, her father and I are gamer geeks.

We've gotten some comments from family members, but they don't live near us so for the most part we just shrug it off and so do our kids. My DH has always been an independent soul, I've always been an 'unconventional' girl much to the dismay of my family of origin. But I didn't want to give my daughter the impression that I disapproved of dresses, the color pink, and sparkly stuff (even though I'm not at all interested in it), and that she can mix and match as she likes--and she does.

I suspect it's easier for our family to do this than most. We're UUs, which means our spiritual community doesn't blink an eye at boys dressing up as princesses in the nursery (though I think my fellow UUs tend to go overboard being negative about 'stereotypical boy' stuff, which is annoying to me but I love them anyway). We live a very unconventional home life, with both parents staying at home (my DH telecommutes to Europe during the evenings). We openly discuss politics and social issues at the dinner table. I am sure at some point one or more kids will want to try 'stereotypical' stuff (how else could they rebel?) so with that in mind we do our best not to villify stereotypical roles, and treat them as just yet another role that one can choose to take. I have to say, from friends, I've been toasted just as much by non-traditionalists as traditionalists, because of our stance on this (not villifying the other side).

My mom has been giving barbies to my daughter, who doesn't like them--but it's not because I've raised her to be a good feminist; like me she doesn't care for dolls and would probably love Barbie's pets and horses. Her brothers might play with them but they're gigantic and don't fit into rescue hero trucks and are hard to dress up (the boys are more into polly pocket at the moment). The only toys we semi-outlaw in our home are the really annoying LOUD electronic kind--and even then their batteries just end up vanishing, and the kids use them for other things than they were intended anyway. They even have character toys, but very rarely know what they're from and just incorporate them into their imaginative play.

I'm not dissing people who choose to be more activist. It's just not the area that we choose to be. And the kids seem to be doing pretty good. They're all young though. As they get older and feel more pressure, we'll have more talks about it. I think that our main strength in giving our kids the most variety of choices in the roles they take is the fact that we're a very non-typical family that has a strong, unconventional spiritual community, not based on what toys they have. And I've noticed that when I keep my baggage out of it, my children always suprise me with how they play with certain toys that I (because of my upbringing and preconceived notions) find distasteful on the surface.


----------



## Liquesce (Nov 4, 2006)

If the people in your child's life want to influence who they will be as adults and see who they will be through a gendered lens, that's fine -- just sit down and have a talk with them suggesting ways they can get involved in the child's life in ways you can all support and which, above all, fit the child and the needs of healthy, whole-person child rearing. An in-law wants to encourage nurturing in a girl who detests dolls? Have them get her a kitten or a garden patch. An uncle wants to bond with a boy who likes things prettier than he likes them loud? Have him take him to the woods or a creek and learn with him about what's there.


----------



## Redifer (Nov 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Liquesce* 
An in-law wants to encourage nurturing in a girl who detests dolls? Have them get her a kitten or a garden patch.

This is the issue, though. Some IL's think the only way a girl can be nurturing is through a doll. This is the response I got when informing my IL's that dd IS nurturing, she nurtures her stuffed bear: "But that's NOT a babydoll".

I'm not saying I don't want dd to play with dolls, I don't really care either way: she can be interested in whatever she chooses to be. The thing is, she ISN'T interested in dolls. I'd rather she get a toy that she will enjoy than something that's going to sit around in a corner.

These are the same people that say our future babe, should he be a boy, will NOT get a doll. From them at least. Should our future son want to play with dolls and dress-up clothes, by all means he will do so.

DH's family can't fathom not "staying between the lines" when it comes to gender distinction. I get flack for mowing the lawn, shoveling the snow, or fixing my own car from them: those are MEN'S jobs, you shouldn't be doing them. Well, pardon me, but I enjoy doing them, and I AM going to do them, period. I fail to see why certain things are men's things and other's are women's. When DH was a SAHD after dd was just born, his family went BONKERS about it. That's just who they are.

As much as I try to reason with them, it doesn't work. It's so ingrained.


----------



## intorainbowz (Aug 16, 2006)

My brother got a Cabbage patch kid doll when he was 3. He hauled that doll everywhere. He even wore it in a baby backpack, just like he was carried around. My mom taught him to say to people who asked why he had a dolly that he was pratcing to be a daddy.

That doll did everything. Went to the beach, got filthy ripped off an arm climbing trees. We still call it the ugly yellow doll, because it's clothes long ago were yellow.


----------



## honeybee (Mar 12, 2004)

Yes, this drives me crazy, and I try to shelter my boys from it as much as I can while they are little. This is the main reason I do not let them watch television (we do watch some carefully selected videos). The toy commercials are so genderized. I also avoid the mainstream stores toy aisles with their segregated "pink" and "violent" aisles. If I do head down those aisles looking for something, I end up getting so disgusted that I end up ranting for days.







We shop at local, small toystores that are not so gender segregated. The clothes in stores drive me nuts too, especially baby clothes. There are other colors in the spectrum besides pink and blue!

We have toys in our house, not boy toys or girl toys. We have trucks, cars, and roads. We have anatomically correct boy dolls and clothes to wear. Ds got a small, basic wooden dollhouse for Christmas. We have a homemade kitchen I picked up at a garage sale, with food. Ds loves playing with all these things. We don't have a lot of pink about the house, but then I don't think we would if we had girls, either. (The pink aisle truly makes me want to vomit.)

If ds puts on my shoes, dh and I just laugh and smile. I did refuse to paint ds1's nails once, but that had nothing to do with gender. I just didn't want him putting toxic-coated nails in his mouth and nose!









I do try to avoid situations where someone will tell him that's a "girl" thing, because I don't want him getting those ideas. Once he was attrated to a pair of pink Dora shoes. I gently distracted him to another pair. I don't care if he wears pink Dora shoes, but I do want to shelter him a bit from the comments he'd get from perfect strangers if he wore them on the street. Kindergarten is time enough to have to fake the gender straitjacket our society puts on boys.

For more info on protecting boys from our culture's harmful gender stereotyping, check out the books "Rasing Cain" and "Real Boys."


----------



## MommytoTwo (Jun 20, 2004)

Well, yes and no. If my little boy wanted a dollhouse I would get him one. If he never expressed any desire for one then I wouldnt choose to get him one. If there is no preference, I would go with the "boys toys" ... I dress him in boy clothes (i.e; I would not let him wear a dress in public) and I cut his hair but if he wants to play with a doll I dont care. In other words, I encourage his "boyness" but I dont discourage femininity as well... if that makes any sense. There are differences between the genders and a child is a boy or a girl. I really dont see any harm in going with that and giving your girl a doll or givng your boy a truck. Currently my DD loves cars and dolls, so she has the best of both worlds I guess. LOL


----------



## marybethorama (Jun 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *minkajane* 
How do you react to this? Do you try to counteract this cultural conditioning in any way?

I let my boys play with whatever they want. They have dolls etc. We don't tell them to "be a man" or such nonsense. Oldest ds used to love makeup so I bought it for him.

We're very lucky that the family members who are stupid about gender roles don't live nearby so we don't have to hear crap too often.


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

Not all children are boys or girls, some lie between. The point is that perhaps our children deserve better than some sort of cultural gender crap that restricts them into binary roles, that decide who they should be. Loving wheels isn't genetic, being nurturing isn't genetic, these are cultural, we decide to reinforce these things, and can be more neutral about them so our children have more choice in the matter. Why can't we let children choose? Why can't we support all children learning to be nurturing? The words used to describe boys or girls are just words, no boy, no girl falls so neatly into cultural descriptions about what girls or boys should be like. I know brave and strong women, as well as nurturing and sensitive men, the myriad of ways that PEOPLE (not men, not women) fall along the spectrum of personality is interesting and varied, why reinforce cultural gender crap? Men and women can act the exact same way, but as a society we describe the behavior differently based on their gender, so being a strong leader in a boy, is manipulation and controlling in a girl, sensitive in a girl is labeled sissy in a boy. Get it? We reinforce this shit everyday, whether we realize it or not.

interesting article somewhat on topic for this thread
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/24/ma...pagewanted=all


----------



## Jilian (Jun 16, 2003)

I'm glad to hear that not all parents believe in defined gender roles. My DS LOVES girl stuff so much and I have no problem letting him play with my skirts or dolls or necklaces. My mother swears I am turning him gay and should discourage that behavior. I feel it is important to let DS be who he wants to be. I bought him a Dora doll and a pink Dora backpack for Christmas this year and they were his two favorite gifts. He asked for both of them several times before Christmas. I know his dad (my ex) would flip out if he found out but I refuse to contribute to forcing my son to behave "manly"


----------



## St. Margaret (May 19, 2006)

YES!!! I am adamant that we at least lessen the intense gender role messages society slams us with. We'll be doing this through the types of toys we have, the language we use with our kids (very interesting, how people speak differently to girls vs boys, and about them) and clothing, and treatment (I can't believe some of my students still have different rules vs their sisters/brothers-- like the 16 yo daughter can't go out while the boy could at that age, just b/c she's a girl... passe!) I'm glad we ended up not finding out the gender of this baby, so no one can go overboard with cutesy sports or flowery outfits. Sage green, baby!







all the way. Also, TV (esp commercials) is a huge factor in how strong gender roles become in a person's mindset. So that's my actual #1 reason for severely limiting TV. This issue is almost too big and important to me to just type about, but I am so glad others here feel the same way!


----------



## lalaland42 (Mar 12, 2006)

My DD loves cars and couldn't care less about dolls. That is fine with me, whatever she likes, right? The only thing that drives me absolutely nuts is that everyone thinks she is a boy. -She has blonde, curly hair. I am not sure why it drives me nuts though because intellectually I know it is *their* bad assumption and not anything about her but when someone calls her a 'him' I immediately get angry and correct them (politely). I don't dress her in a lot of blue or gender neutral colors because then more people would call her a 'him'. Besides, DD's favorite thing right now is butterflies and I dare you to find a lot of blue shirts with butterflies on it. As for toys, I just take DD to the toy store and let her pick out her own toys. She gets the best toys that way.


----------



## Jessy1019 (Aug 6, 2006)

We aim for gender neutrality . . . our daughter has always played with a mix of "girl" and "boy" toys. She's worn boy clothes and girl clothes, she loves to ride around on her quad and wants to work on cars when she grows up (like daddy). We do make an effort to be supportive of her less-feminine hobbies, and I am very vocal about there being no such thing as a girl's toy or a boy's toy . . . anyone in our house can wear or play with whatever they want. DD is actually really well rounded as she likes such a great mix of things.

DS is only ten months old, but he's already worn "girl" clothes and he loves the doll he got for xmas. His favorite toy in the house is the play kitchen, and he's so much more sensitive than his sister ever was.

Really, I want my kids to enjoy whatever it is they enjoy, without caring about social norms and expectations.


----------



## PrennaMama (Oct 10, 2005)

One poster said something about gender roles not being genetic, but rather that they are cultural. Medical Science has now revealed that it is during about the 5th month in utero that sexuality is defined. Genetalia have developed, but the brain is still "deciding", and the cells may go one way or another, but it happens in utero.

No amount of trucks, dolls, dresses or boots will define what our children define themselves as. Some may _condition_ their children or try to force inclinations _onto or out_ of them, but I find this abusive, as that kind of behavior or coercion registers on the psychological abuse scale...

My parents did the reverse enforcing... I had all my bro's hand-me-downs, clothes, toys, you name it... I had trucks, action-figures, etc. My mom loathed pink and purple, and constantly had me in over-alls, reds, blues, orange, etc... people thought I was a boy, because she kept my hair short. I _wanted_ pretty things, dresses, and dolls, barbies, etc... I got science kits, and practical school clothes.

My dd has a wooden kitchen and a Hello Kitty Apron, she has babies and pink and purple dresses. She ALSO loves trains and J.J. the Jet Plane. She tries to nurse and love on any little thing... "Oh, little Baaay-bee! Have some num..." she said to a piece of pickled ginger, the other day, bringing it to her chest to nurse... pickled ginger. She has big blue rubber boots that she likes to don and then go smush around the yard in the mud. She leads the way, and I facilitate her interests... whatever they may be. Anyone who tries to pigeon-hole her, gets an earful from me with a smile and a shrug.


----------



## pumpkingirl71 (Jul 12, 2005)

We definately confused my son









http://pumpkingirl71.livejournal.com/99568.html#cutid1


----------



## Finch (Mar 4, 2005)

Without having read anything but the OP, my response to the troglodytes in my life who have the "turning ds gay" paranoia:

1. You don't "turn" gay, you're born gay. It's biology, not psychology. Dollhouses and wearing your mom's shoes don't "turn" you gay anymore than reading Dobson can "turn" you straight.
2. Ds might be gay...so what? The problem with that is???.....If he's gay he's gay. Get over your homophobia, you knuckle-dragger.


----------



## swebster (Dec 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Tigerchild* 
And I've noticed that when I keep my baggage out of it, my children always suprise me with how they play with certain toys that I (because of my upbringing and preconceived notions) find distasteful on the surface.

I haven't had a chance to read through all the posts yet, but I just had to comment that this really hit home with me Tigerchild. DD is still young for all this, but it seems that lately, probably with all the holidays, I've been seeing those Bratz dolls everywhere and thinking alot about my own barbie/bratz aversion (er...well....disgust is more like it.) A bit of epiphany hit when I read your post....
of course I will trust my daughter (and in turn my own parenting) and allow her to explore toys that I find distasteful. She is brilliant and clever and imaginative and more so every day and I will love her even if she grows up to be a Las Vegas showgirl







.


----------



## Lula's Mom (Oct 29, 2003)

Ugh! I hate this pigeonholing so much. It makes me furious- probably more than it should, but I can't help thinking about the longterm effects. I have a hard time explaining calmly why it's important, when it comes up.

I see it especially with ds, and especially with DP's family. It's OK with everybody that my dd loves Mythbusters, hiking, bugs... and also fairies and princesses, pink and girly stuff. But from birth, ds was supposed to fit into the Boy Mold. As soon as he was born and they heard he was a boy, here came a big box of clothes from Puerto Rico. Onesies with basketballs, soccer balls, baseballs... 'MVP' and 'Lil Slugger', stripes. It was easy then because they never saw that he didn't wear those clothes, that I donated them straight to Goodwill.

But now they've all moved over here to be near us. MIL tries but she just doesn't get it! I know it's not an issue she has EVER encountered. She's just never even heard of 'forcing gender roles' on children. He's a boy, so he will have boy things and like it! Of course!









The latest was on Christmas. MIL mentioned that she almost bought ds a big plastic Thomas the Tank Engine-shaped box for him to carry around the trains that he is recently obsessed with. (Hey! The first 3 that he played with belonged to my daughter when she was his age! A novel concept)

I thought it was nice of her to think of that for him, and I said so. Until... she said the reason that she thought of it: "The other day I saw him putting them into Lula's pink backpack, and I knew that he needed something for a boy instead!"









I replied entirely too loudly, "SEE, I AM SO NOT INTO THAT WHOLE BOY/GIRL THING! HE LIKES THE PINK BACKPACK, AND THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT!!!"

She just stood there smiling uncertainly and looking confused.







I felt kind of bad, because I know she didn't mean anything by it, but this is so important to me! He's only 2 years old, and if they have their way he will soon be the one saying "I can't play with that, it's for girls." That would just break my heart.


----------



## bri276 (Mar 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jwebbal* 
Not all children are boys or girls, some lie between. The point is that perhaps our children deserve better than some sort of cultural gender crap that restricts them into binary roles, that decide who they should be. Loving wheels isn't genetic, being nurturing isn't genetic, these are cultural, we decide to reinforce these things, and can be more neutral about them so our children have more choice in the matter. Why can't we let children choose? Why can't we support all children learning to be nurturing? The words used to describe boys or girls are just words, no boy, no girl falls so neatly into cultural descriptions about what girls or boys should be like. I know brave and strong women, as well as nurturing and sensitive men, the myriad of ways that PEOPLE (not men, not women) fall along the spectrum of personality is interesting and varied, why reinforce cultural gender crap? Men and women can act the exact same way, but as a society we describe the behavior differently based on their gender, so being a strong leader in a boy, is manipulation and controlling in a girl, sensitive in a girl is labeled sissy in a boy. Get it? We reinforce this shit everyday, whether we realize it or not.

interesting article somewhat on topic for this thread
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/24/ma...pagewanted=all


that's your opinion, and there is a plethora of scientific research to refute it. I studied sociology at Brandeis. There are about 4 trillion books in any bookstore that could explain why these things are not purely cultural or social conditioning, and about four books that will say they are, and I guess you can believe who you want to believe.

FTR- I am ALL for giving children choices and not pressing the stereotypes on them, but to say something like "being nurturing isn't genetic" is a slap in the face to the incredibly accurate evidence to the contrary (not to mention common sense, heck just look at a mother chimpanzee). Unless I'm taking it the wrong way- absolutely, males can be nurturing, but that is still genetic, and in complex ways, men and women are different.


----------



## pumpkingirl71 (Jul 12, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bri276* 
I studied sociology at Brandeis. There are about 4 trillion books in any bookstore that could explain why these things are not purely cultural or social conditioning, and about four books that will say they are, and I guess you can believe who you want to believe.

I studied anthropology at Amherst and was trained to believe the opposite. So i guess it is all point of view. For the record, I don't believe what they taught me anymore. But still, plenty of academics still believe that gender is learned and there is evidence to support it.


----------



## BelgianSheepDog (Mar 31, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PrennaMama* 
One poster said something about gender roles not being genetic, but rather that they are cultural. Medical Science has now revealed that it is during about the 5th month in utero that sexuality is defined. Genetalia have developed, but the brain is still "deciding", and the cells may go one way or another, but it happens in utero.

"Medical science" has plenty of theories on this topic, but nothing at all as conclusive as what you just said.


----------



## Tigerchild (Dec 2, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *swebster* 
DD is still young for all this, but it seems that lately, probably with all the holidays, I've been seeing those Bratz dolls everywhere and thinking alot about my own barbie/bratz aversion (er...well....disgust is more like it.)

Yes, those things make my right eyeball twitch. I don't like Barbie particularly either, but for whatever reason those Bratz really REALLY irritate me. And I don't even know anything about them, other than their appearance. (Hmmm...there's some irony in there.)

However, I can only control so much. I know that some of my kiddos' friends have those things. My mother has had a hard on (for lack of a better term, sorry) to give my daughter barbies since the child was in utereo. And she (my mother) LOVES a fight and attention, so I just decided to shrug and leave it up to my kid whether or not she wants to play with them. As it happens, she plays with them like I played with them--not much, and not as intended (in our house, it's the bendy animals that wear the ridiculous high heels and miniskirts). I was angry at first, but then I remember what my barbies did (they were parachute paratroopers, as I really wanted GI Joes and those parachute guys but my parents wouldn't buy them so I made my own). My BF in 3rd grade turned her barbies into primal faerie people (we painted them with magic marker and gave them interesting haircuts and made clothing out of leaves and flowers and stuff for them. I have a suspicion, just based on women I know now, that quite a few of us didn't use even the most obnoxious gender-boxing toys in the way we were 'supposed' to. Some of my male friends growing up had GI Joes that liked to take care of animals and play house in the backyard, which given I'm a military brat probably would have made THEIR families shriek.









The only thing I absolutely will not allow in my home are toy guns that look like real ones (I think those are on their way to getting banned for real anyway, I hope). That includes most water pistols, though a lot of the supersoakers now don't look like the real thing. But that has nothing to do with gender, and everything to do with safety issues.

I think some of my favorite things in my parenting journey have been when I've kept my mouth shut about stuff like this and watched to see what my kids do, and not trip over myself anticipating a problem (not that I don't still do that.). Ironically, it's brought back so many memories for me about how I coped with/bucked the system myself, which is comforting. And it's nice to be able to find the humor in the horrific things that some of my relatives have given my kids, and gives me a secret thrill when I know that the toys are going to most likely be used diametrically opposite what the giver intended. ;>


----------



## Lula's Mom (Oct 29, 2003)

So does anybody have any links or books on this subject? I know DP's mother would read them if we gave them to her. I just am not going to be good at discussing this on my own.


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

I really don't see buying kids toys as forcing gender roles on them. Kids aren't going to play with something that they don't want to use. The old, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

You can buy a kid a toy, but you can't make him play with it.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PrennaMama* 
She tries to nurse and love on any little thing... "Oh, little Baaay-bee! Have some num..." she said to a piece of pickled ginger, the other day, bringing it to her chest to nurse... pickled ginger.

I've been reading this thread, but was going to avoid commenting, as I just find the whole thing too big to really address well.

But, this struck a chord. DD does this kind of thing. She's always trying to nurse things and tuck them gently into bed and give them little kisses...from her baby brother to a wood block to a piece of food to her Play Doh. It's adorable.

DS1 used to do that with his baby doll, too. But, he didn't have that same "cuddle everything" thing going on. DS2 does seem to have it, though...he has by far the most gentle, least aggressive temperament of my kids. DD has by far the most aggressive temperament, tucking broccoli into bed notwithstanding...


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

but if the only toys you buy your kid are strictly gender specific, don't you think thats so backward? Kids will play with anything, but I see this as putting our kids into little boxes and not letting them determine their own way. I offer all kinds of stuff to my boy, not just what is marketed to me as the parent of a son. I want my kid to be who he is, as well as me working to counteract some of the gender crap thrown at us by our culture and society.


----------



## Flor (Nov 19, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phathui5* 
I really don't see buying kids toys as forcing gender roles on them. Kids aren't going to play with something that they don't want to use. The old, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

You can buy a kid a toy, but you can't make him play with it.

Well, ds wouldn't pick out a baby doll in the store, but if I bought one he'd play with it. I really do have an effect on what they play with in two ways: 1 by what I offer (buy) and 2. what I chose to play with them. My sons has a kitchen toy that honestly he wouldn't use very often, but when he says "Mama, will you play with me?" I am drawn to the kitchen. I holds my attention longer then playing Mater and Lightening McQueen (AGAIN), so he does play with it more because of me.

Left to his own to pick out his own toys, ds would chose a truck 99% of the time. I have chosen most of his toys and I try to supply him with a mix: blocks, kitchens, trucks, dolls, animals, silks, etc. and he does play with them.

I have been shocked to see at such a young age (3) he is already making gernalizations for hims self. For example, I am a teacher and dh works in construction. My friend is a teacher and her husband is a teacher as well. Ds said, "But I thought only mommies were teachers and daddies went to work." Even though we try to raise him without these strict ideas of gender roles, I find him (and his brother before him) processing life by generalizing. I remember when dss was 5 and met my friend who played guitar. Dss said, "I thought only men played guitar," because dh and his grandpa play guitar.

It seems exhausting to "battle" the gender roles that the world wants to place on my child. . . and the ones they want to place on themselves. I am lucky to have a family who is fine with dolls for boys, etc.


----------



## Lula's Mom (Oct 29, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phathui5* 

You can buy a kid a toy, but you can't make him play with it.

No. But you can make him ashamed to play with his sister's toys that he previously enjoyed immensely, simply by telling him that pink is a color for girls, and that a boy needs a blue train box instead of a Hello Kitty backpack. Why does he NEED something else, when that served his purpose just fine?

It's not OK with me for others to try to mold him into conformity. He's only 2 years old. As he grows, I'll not be able to shield him from the delineated gender roles. He'll see it, he'll absorb it. But as far as he knows right now, pink is just one color of many, and Hello Kitty is just a cat, and it is just so wrong to tell him that he _should_ be playing with something _for boys._

I just think it's so damaging and limiting to boys and girls, to tell them this kind of stuff. It only expands into "this is a womans/man's job", which I also really dislike hearing.


----------



## St. Margaret (May 19, 2006)

Gender indoctrination messages can be very subtle, and soon manifest in seemingly "natural" behavior. I happen to believe that it's all an interplay of nature and nurture, but I can't ignore how society quietly and insistently projects these images/roles onto us/our children. Just searching for some darn neutral baby clothes is killing me-- the uber-girliness of the girls' clothes, the macho boys' clothes... yuck.


----------



## katiedidbug (Dec 16, 2006)

I both agree and disagree with what many of you are saying. I agree with the idea that children should be able to play with what ever toys they want to. However, I do believe that gender roles are defined for a reason, and I will be happy to teach these roles to my children. I think that men and women are different, and we should celebrate these differences, as opposed to showing how alike we are. We're not alike; we're different for good reasons. Women are biologically programmed for taking care and nurturing young (we have the breasts







). I also believe men have an innate desire to care for and provide for thier families. I feel that these differences are what make us great. That's not to say that every dad must work and every mom must stay at home. I work outside of the home, and DH watches the baby two days a week. I just think that we have obvious differences; they're there for a reason, and we should celebrate it, not try to ignore or forget about those differences.
When people tell you that you're going to turn your kid gay, ignore it. I highly doubt the toys a child plays with shapes his sexual identity.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *katiedidbug* 
I think that men and women are different, and we should celebrate these differences, as opposed to showing how alike we are. We're not alike; we're different for good reasons. Women are biologically programmed for taking care and nurturing young (we have the breasts







). I also believe men have an innate desire to care for and provide for thier families. I feel that these differences are what make us great. That's not to say that every dad must work and every mom must stay at home. I work outside of the home, and DH watches the baby two days a week. I just think that we have obvious differences; they're there for a reason, and we should celebrate it, not try to ignore or forget about those differences.


I think that people are different, and I'm more interested in finding out what interests my kids, and working with that, than I am in telling dd that her job is looking after her family, and telling ds1 that it's his job to provide for his. I provided for my son for years - I did both the 'male' job of bringing home a paycheque and the 'female' job of nurturing.

I do think that, _in general_, women are more nurturing and empathetic, while men are more solution focussed. I'm not interested in trying to prove that men are the same as women. But, I'm also not interested in trying to emphasize, teach or celebrate gender differences...because I think that's how the innate differences between _most_ men and _most_ women become cultural/societal rules. I don't want to be part of making a sensitive boy or aggressive girl feel like even more of a freak than they already do. DH says that men have a love of power tools built into the Y chromosome. That may be true, but I'll be damned if I'm going to "teach" those rules to ds1. That's just setting him up to feel like he's less of a man if he doesn't fit into the norm for his gender.

As far as clothes go...dd wears a lot of 'girl stuff', but nothing really over-the-top with pink and frills, just because I can't stand that stuff. She also wears a lot of hand-me-downs from her big brother, including Spider-Man and Garfield sweatsuits and various other 'boy' clothes. I don't think she really knows the difference. DS2 has 'boy' clothes, mostly - but right now, he's wearing a red t-shirt with a frog on it. I'd have bought the same for dd.


----------



## karenixxi (Jun 26, 2006)

I'm surprised at how fast my ds started acting like a boy. At 9 months he has been in awe of anything with wheels since he could push one. He loves trains, cars, and even the fish with wheels he got for Christmas. He also loves stroking the hair of a doll I have. I am strongly considering getting him a doll of his own for his birthday.

I think it does more damage to say "no, that it is for girls" than to just let them like what they like. How many men are dads? Chefs or janitors or fashion designers or hair stylists? Why shouldn't they play these skills while young?

I saw a horrible display of this at the store one day. Little boy around 2 yrs. with his mom. She says "Which ones do you want?" Pointing to training pants "And don't say the Dora ones" He points at the Dora ones. She says, "Those are for girls". It went back and forth like this for a while. Being that he was 2, do you think he would remember he wore pink training pants? Maybe he just liked Dora more than the other 2 designs. Do you think if he was going to remember anything it might be his mother making a huge deal out of something that wasn't?


----------



## paisleypoet (Nov 17, 2006)

I was just going to post a thread about this. My 6-year-old ds has been playing with "girl toys" since about age 2, when we bought him a Barbie he wanted, thinking he would grown out of it eventually. He has now moved on to Bratz dolls (which I HATE), he loves movies like The Little Mermaid, and loves singing and dancing. He's very artistic, and very sensitive and sweet. He is also very boy-like in many ways, he loves sports and rough play with his brother. He is fearless, athletic and will climb anything and jump off anything. He just told me the other day that he really likes trucks, which surprised me. I have never discouraged him from playing with whatever he wants to play with, I believe in letting him be himself. My dh has been great, too, and just wants him to be happy. However I do get worried at times about him getting picked on at school. He hasn't yet, and if anyone says anything, he handles it really well. We do have family members that are very opposed to this though. They think he will turn out gay because I let him play with girl stuff. One person has actually said things to him and made him cry. He is now afraid to be around that person (his step-grandma) for fear of being ridiculed. I think that's ridiculous, and if he is gay, he was born that way. And I really don't care. We live in a small town, though, that it very conservative and mainstream and this is just another way that I don't fit in. I think that my ds is a very bright, unique, wonderful child and should not be discouraged. I also worry about school....his current teacher said I should have him play with boys more often as many of his best friends are girls. He doesn't fit into the normal stereotype of a boy, and that makes people nervous. My other ds is more of a typical boy, and loves things like cars and superheroes and guys. But I don't push gender roles on them. If my dd turns out to be a tomboy, will anyone think that is odd? No, it will be fine. So why can't ds play with a doll? There's nothing wrong with him.


----------



## witchbaby (Apr 17, 2003)

if only it were that EASY to turn a little boy gay!








k has played with everything she comes into contact with. this morning, she was dressed in a pink and purple tulle dress up skirt, a fuzzy scarf and a crown while she built with quatro blocks. m, while he seems to be drawn to anything with wheels, is VERY fond of the heart-shaped wand with ribbons from the dress-up box. they both love food and cooking toys.
i don't care what either of them play with or like. it's never really occured to me TO care, i suppose. it's odd, because i find myself having to snap out of "boy's clothes" and "girl's clothes" but mannerisms and behaviors don't have a gender to me. heh.


----------



## Lula's Mom (Oct 29, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *karenixxi* 
I'm surprised at how fast my ds started acting like a boy. At 9 months he has been in awe of anything with wheels since he could push one. He loves trains, cars, and even the fish with wheels he got for Christmas. He also loves stroking the hair of a doll I have. I am strongly considering getting him a doll of his own for his birthday.

It's funny that you say that the things he likes are boy things, though. My daughter was into all of that for her first 3 years, too. She liked Matchbox cars, and planes. She was soooo into Thomas the Tank Engine. We took her to see the big real train Thomas in Chattanooga, and she had little trains. I never thought of it as a boy thing AT ALL- it's a talking train, it's for KIDS, right??? Until she wanted Thomas panties, and I discovered they don't make them in girl styles. They only had briefs, with the little fly-front and all. I bought them for her anyway.

Her brother just turned two, and now they're his! He has really not gotten much in the way of new toys in his life, just played with her stuff. She has moved on to fairies, princesses and mermaids, mostly. But it's just the indoctrination that gets me, to use someone else's word. If she hadn't realized, through the magic of marketing and fairytales and peer pressure, that girls are 'supposed' to go for this stuff, would she? Or would she have stuck with cars and trains? I dunno.


----------



## WinterBaby (Oct 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Tigerchild* 
Yes, those things make my right eyeball twitch. I don't like Barbie particularly either, but for whatever reason those Bratz really REALLY irritate me. And I don't even know anything about them, other than their appearance. (Hmmm...there's some irony in there.)

I've that same visceral reation to Bratz. They look like sexualized 12 year olds to me, which I find disturbing on so many levels. My 4yo daughter's been asking for them, and we've had several toy aisle discussions about mama not buying them. I consented to a yard sale barbie doll as a sort of alternative. Barbie doesn't get me the same way, at least appearing to be a grown woman. (Barbie generally remains naked and plays the role of Mrs. Weasly for dd's Harry Potter adventures, lol.) But as for the gender roles... I'm expecting a boy which has brought this up in my mind more. DD is not conventionally girly. She generally plays involved fantasy games around characters like Speed Racer, Harry Potter, Diego, etc where she's always a boy. -My efforts to find exciting female characters that do things notwithstanding (a task in itself.) I was worried she gravitates towards the boys because they obviously do all the cool stuff, but girls doing cool stuff simply don't enchant her the same way. She enjoys a number of sports, can be pretty rough, in your face, and adventurous. But she's girly too. I don't criticize the pink and princess stuff even when it bugs me because I don't want her to get the message that there's anything wrong with "girly" things. She's cuddly, nurturing, and loving (before she thwaps you in the head.) She'll play all those other games in princess crowns and tutus if she feels like it. If you mention getting ready for a party and she runs to her closet to pick her prettiest, frilliest dresses gleefully. She'll announce things like she's a boy, only with a vulva and have it greeted with no more than a benign neutrality.

But a boy - I had to discuss this with my husband, because I think the allowable behaviors are so much narrower for boys. A boy that gender bends in the fashion that my daughter does, I fear would encounter so much more censure. And maybe it's me, but boys options seem to become more confined as girls' grow wider. The clothes seem ever darker and more somber. The gender neutral toys given over to girls - like the easy bake oven my daughter wanted. When I was little, mine was red and there were a boy and girl on the box. I looked today and the same oven is pink and purple with a girl on the box. I had to move up to a Real Meal oven to get blue with a girl and boy on the box. Apparently boys can cook today, but not bake. I needed to be sure that my husband considers the free reign given to our dd in play and gender expression is also extended for a boy. Because it's something he needs to make considered judgements in advance on - I know his gut reaction to many similar behaviors from a boy would be negative. I want my daughter's choices to be broad and unlimited. But I also want this for a son, ya know?


----------



## hobbitsmama (Aug 19, 2003)

i am so happy to have found this thread. this has been on my mind very often lately. i have a 4 year old dd and a 1.5 year old ds. as my dd gets older, i find that the expectations placed on her get harder for her to ignore. and being an anthropologist, i did a little experiment when my dd was little. i took her to the library all decked out in pink and the librarian said in a horribly sweet voice "oh, hello. aren't you so pretty? you are so sweet. what a cutie." etc. then i took her back dressed in all blue with trucks. same librarian. did not notice me .. just looked at the baby and said in a much deeper and adult voice "hey buddy. are you helping your mom pick out books? little guy." nothing about appearance. no cutesies. and this was when she was only 4 months old. i think of all the times she is exsposed to something as banal as a trip to the library. now we have years of exposure to all kinds of sources. my dd is obsessed with the images that come with the sunday paper. princesses. disney and the marketing machine.
thank you to whoever posted the link to the new york times article. i read that last week and think it is really interesting. i have been trying hard not to let my bias show to my dd against the pink frilly do-nothing princesses and it was so nice to read an article on that. i was interested to see the idea that if we come down too hard against the pink princess thing .. that it may translate to my dd as me not wanting her to be a girl (since she associates all those things with being a girl.) both my kids love trucks and trains and dolls and their new pretend kitchen. and i say yes when my ds asks to dress up in the princess dress too.
written stream of consciousness with 2 kids hanging on me.
looking forward to reading more responses.


----------



## HappyHelpmate (Dec 20, 2006)

I know my parents tried to always make sure we had options on the types of toys and activities we had available when I and my brothers were growing up - dolls and things for the boys and cars and trucks for the girls, we were all in gymnastics and dance classes, and all played a variety of sports, etc, but what ended up happening? We did play with all the toys, but tended more toward the toys more "appropriate" for our genders, and my brothers ultimately chose to play soccer while I pursued dance and gymnastics. My conclusion: it doesn't really matter. No, you shouldn't dictate that a boy child CAN NOT wear pink or play with dolls or be sensitive, etc, but I think it would be just as hard on a child in a home where they're overly-encouraged to stay OUT of gender roles. I think we do have gender roles for a purpose, so I wouldn't want to discourage the development of that, either. Is it really so *bad* to be a "girly" girl or a "boyish" boy? I don't think so, but I don't think the opposite is true either. It would be just fine if my boys are sweet and sensitive and my girls are rough and tumble, but I also don't feel like these characteristics mutually exclude the qualities I feel make a "feminine" woman or a "masculine" man. I just don't buy into gender roles being a big "problem" imposed on us by society that we ought to try to "protect" our children from. Yes, I think there is somewhat a nurture element in gender roles, but I think it's mostly nature that predisposes a person to be "girly" or "boyish." I think the most important thing is to focus on your child's strengths and interests, and just disregard whether it's "masculine" or "feminine" and your child is a boy or a girl. Of course, I don't want ANY of my children playing with Barbies or Bratz, but that's for other reasons altogether.


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HappyHelpmate* 
I know my parents tried to always make sure we had options on the types of toys and activities we had available when I and my brothers were growing up - dolls and things for the boys and cars and trucks for the girls, we were all in gymnastics and dance classes, and all played a variety of sports, etc, but what ended up happening? We did play with all the toys, but tended more toward the toys more "appropriate" for our genders, and my brothers ultimately chose to play soccer while I pursued dance and gymnastics. My conclusion: it doesn't really matter.

Right, but it isn't like you were raised on an island alone without cultural influences. What we know is that even parents who make efforts at practicing nonsexist childrearing still are operating from the conditioning of their own youth and are still raising children in a culture that by and large doesn't support this objective. And, of course it is silly to try to base everything on experiences as one person's just as well cancels out another. Our child has made many choices that wouldn't be typical for his gender, but we did more than just have a diversity of toys available as well. The real ultimate point is that all children should have choice to be the people they are meant to be and we are so very, very, very far from that being reality.


----------



## HappyHelpmate (Dec 20, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Roar* 
Right, but it isn't like you were raised on an island alone without cultural influences. What we know is that even parents who make efforts at practicing nonsexist childrearing still are operating from the conditioning of their own youth and are still raising children in a culture that by and large doesn't support this objective. And, of course it is silly to try to base everything on experiences as one person's just as well cancels out another. Our child has made many choices that wouldn't be typical for his gender, but we did more than just have a diversity of toys available as well. The real ultimate point is that all children should have choice to be the people they are meant to be and we are so very, very, very far from that being reality.

You're right. I definitely agree that the ultimate point is that all children should have the choice to be the people they are meant to be. And I know my prev. post just expresses my own experience, but all I'm saying is I do think it's important to be supportive of all personal preference choices our children make, and not impose on them any stereotype. Yet, I don't think there's anything wrong if a child happens to fall into a stereotype. After all, stereotypes usually do have a basis in reality.

I guess I'm just saying I think it's important not to go overboard trying to AVOID "gender roles," because I think my own parents were even a little disappointed that we didn't end up more gender-neutral despite their best efforts. There are always going to be cultural impositions placed on us, whether it's the current gender-role standards or something else, and children are always going to find something about themselves that makes them feel "different." It's just a part of growing up. So going back to children having the right to be the people they are meant to be, I think the most important thing we can do is just love them and support them unconditionally and encourage them to do what they love. I just don't think the gender role issue is a real "problem," because as soon as it's "overcome", there will be another issue to take its place that parents will feel hinder their children's development.


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

I totally struggle with this. My in-laws raise their kids in the most gendered way possible- girls hardly play sports, boys are given toy guns. I don't even want my son playing around them as he gets older. I mean, we are not Waldorf educating, anti-TV, completely gender neutrals toys, etc etc. (wish we were in a way.) And yet the norms out there completely freak me out. FREAK ME OUT. It scares me as he gets older that he's going to be overly influenced by this stuff in school and with playmates.


----------



## DavinaT (Jun 28, 2005)

I do not believe in gender roles - culturally, societally or otherwise proscribed as they lead to stereotypes which is just plain wrong.
Tho' I suppose I was an unusual child compared to many of my peers growing up in 1970's rural-ish Ireland.
I liked climbing trees (climbing anything really) and sports and refuted the "Tomboy" label, claiming I was a "TomGirl"!
I had heaps of baby dolls - in pristine condition as I barely looked at them never mind played with them but loved animals (and still do). Apparently this was acceptable with my extended family when it was kittens and puppies but less so when it was snakes, spiders and caterpillars!
I absolutely hated frills and flounces in clothes but would wear anything with animals or trains on it. These tho, were always in darker colours and intended for boys but that never bothered me and certainly didn't bother my mother
I loved construction toys (mecano and lego) and blocks and was fascinated with trains and liked playing with cars. My favourite 'play area' was in our big overgrown, muddy, puddle filled garden tho'.
On what some would condiser the flip-side, I also loved playing with my barbie and really enjoyed cookery based toys (or more often old throw-out kitchen utensils which were dicarded) and make-up (or the remains of old make up my mother would be ready to throw away.)

My grandmother, a very conservative but nonetheless sweet lady declared one day that my chershed train set was 'boy's toy' and my mothers response was one I hadn't forgetten.
- There are no boy's toys any more than there are Catholic toys (my grandma was a catholic) or caucasian toys.
I thought that was a very interestign comment.

On what could be considered the gender neutral side, I also loved reading (still do), jigsaws and playing office (the latter consisted of a toy cash register, "papers" - i.e junk mail flyers, old paper files and a set ofd coloured pencils.

One toy that was never allowed in out house tho' was toy guns.


----------



## karinasusy (Jul 12, 2005)

I couldn't resist a response here. Whatever my son is interested in, I encourage it.

He was never interested in dolls _per se_, but he does get quite fond of some of his stuffies (right now it's a small pink pig). He is very much a *boy* though.

His daycare painted his nails and did his hair up with gel a couple times when he was in kindergarten. I commented on how nice he looks and how fancy his nails were. I never took the polish off, it just chipped away until it was gone. Parents of a friend of his took the polish off that day. They seemed uncomfortable that their son had nailpolish on, but maybe they rethought things when I told them it didn't bother me.


----------



## littlemizflava (Oct 8, 2006)

i have seen boys that are allowed to play with dolls and " girl toys" are gentler with babys other kids also it is skills for life they will have a family one day they will need the skills to even cooking, clean is put to girls well not in my family there is no girl/boy rules i will put my ds in any color but pink unless it is like a dress shirt for going out couldnt stand the coments i live in canada (i would have to mouth off everyone cause i am very out spoken) but he has wore pink in the house







but i think it is the what you are allowed to play with and what you are taught from early


----------



## cchrissyy (Apr 22, 2003)

"I am shocked by how early children are forced to conform to traditional gender roles."

me too.


----------



## beckyand3littlemonsters (Sep 16, 2006)

*My ds cameron likes to play with dolls and prams, he also likes to play dress up with his older sisters shoes, both chloe and caitlin like playing with cars, they all play with each others toys and i don't see it problem with its not being gay for a boy to want to play with dolls its just being a kid and tbh i wouldn't care if he is gay when hes older as long hes happy same with my girls too there m,y children and i love them no matter what.*


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

I have not read this whole thread, but honestly, I feel these types of things are all part of an incredibly misguided belief which is VERY prevalent in our culture (and others) that you can (and should) control what kind of a person your child is going to be by being a certain kind of parent.

There are some things that are inherent (more than we probably think) and sexuality is one of them. Many other things are not inherent but since children pay a lot more attention to what we do, rather than what we say, the influences there are somewhat inevitable.

If someone told me they thought I was going to "turn my child gay" or something stupid along those lines, my response would be... "So?"


----------



## eilonwy (Apr 3, 2003)

For some time now, my sisters have said that I'm trying to make my son "queer," because his favorite color is pink and I don't really make any effort to change that. The fact is, he's always liked pink. When he was tiny and I was buying all of his clothing, it was all decidedly masculine because he was a very "pretty" boy and I felt the need to counter that. As soon as he started making preferences known, he wanted pink.









A few months ago, I pointed out to my mother and one of my sisters that while BeanBean would rather wear pink sparkly clothing than just about anything else, he's also very clearly a very masculine child. I also said that if he was, in fact, gay, we'd probably know it by now (he's four years old) and I still wouldn't care.







As it is, I suspect a slight tendancy toward androgyny/bisexuality, but it's completely unimportant. What is important is that my son is happy and comfortable in his own skin. If he's most comfortable dressed in pink from head to toe and growing his hair long, who am I to argue with him?









The fact is that the majority of negative comments I've received have been from family. Non-family members are always very impressed with Bean's self-confidence, and he's gotten many compliments on his pink clothing from men, women, and older children. Occasionally a younger (4-9 year old) child will say, "I thought you were a girl" or "Pink is a girly color!" Each time, BeanBean will say something simple like, "Boys can wear pink if they like. Pink is my favorite color." Many adults have commented to me that BeanBean is very confident and self-assurred, and applauded me for allowing him to make his own decisions even when they clash with societal expectations (if only they knew that I used to have purple hair







).


----------



## Robert Goodman (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *minkajane* 
My family has decided I'm trying to turn DS gay.

That subject in itself is fascinating to me, because I don't know if anyone has even made a dent in figuring out the process by which humans come to seek sexual intercourse, let alone a preference for a particular sex as an object of affection. All we can say is that it doesn't seem to be instinctual as in other animals. Meanwhile 3Beans wrote:

Quote:

You can't 'turn' someone gay. People are born with their sexual identity pre-programmed.
You got evidence of that? It's Nobel material if you do! I doubt it myself. Back to minkajane:

Quote:

I see this sort of thing everywhere. Girls' clothes are pink and purple and covered in flowers and kittens. Boys' clothes are darker, somber colors, and have sports pictures on the front. Girls are given Bratz and Barbies at an early age to show them how women dress and attract men. Boys are given GI Joes, weapons, and sports equipment to show them how manly men act.

How do you react to this?
It has commercial implications for me. I'm trying to market a nonirritating formula I invented (if you're interested, http://users.bestweb.net/~robgood/lather.html ) suitable for bath foam, and I'm thankful for the marketing work that was done ca. 1960+ that broke the sex stereotype there. From their invention ca. 1940 until 1960, although parents had used bubble baths occasionally on their children of both sexes, there had been a sexual stereotype of the product produced largely by feature films, in which (prior to the current ratings scheme) glamorous women were given the appearance of nudity in the bathtub by covering them with foam. The rest of the stereotype was part of a larger one that fancy cosmetics & toiletries are seen as women's products, especially as vehicles for perfume. So there was a stigma on bubble baths as being exclusively feminine -- which turned out to be ironic, considering the greater susceptibility of females than males to genito-urinary irritation from soaps (which problem my invention was directed at)! (_Double irony -- it's not a problem with bubble bath per se, but of soap and other surfactants in general, although bar soap never developed as bad a reputation as it deserved in that respect_.)

That stereotype was blasted to smithereens with a years-long advertising blitz once we got mass marketing of unscented (or only lightly fragranced) foaming bath products pitched towards children of both sexes, but especially boys, beginning about 1960. (Parents were pitched to additionally on the basis of the products' preventing bathtub ring -- true -- and cleaning without additional soap -- probably false at that dilution.) After about a decade of such paid propaganda, the culture had changed such that such products are now used routinely on boys as well as girls, even though you hardly saw them advertised any more after 1970 (and even less as the years went by).

So the market for a product like mine is bigger thanks to my predecessors' ads that eliminated shame of boys in using them, or of parents in using them on boys. Which shows that these things are pretty arbitrary in the culture to begin with.

Robert


----------



## Robert Goodman (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Finch* 
1. You don't "turn" gay, you're born gay. It's biology, not psychology.

Paisley Poet:

Quote:

if he is gay, he was born that way.
Sure seems to be a lot of people asserting that -- maybe the idea comforts people -- but...*evidence*??


----------



## Robert Goodman (Mar 13, 2006)

Coming into this thread late, I find the most amazing stuff!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eilonwy* 
I also said that if he was, in fact, gay, we'd probably know it by now (he's four years old)

I've heard claims of "gaydar", but knowing a 4 YO's preference for sex of sex partner?! How could you possibly know which sex he'd rather have sexual intercourse with, when he probably doesn't even know what that is? I mean, at that age my preference was for the pillow, and I can't imagine he'd be so precocious as to have formed a preference for human sex partner.

I could see only one possible, very weak, indicator of a boy's sexual preference at that age. You'd have to have observed that the people he likes to have around him when he masturbates are more likely to be of one sex, while the people he likes for company under other circumstances aren't of that sex -- that is, a shift in preference for company while he engages in sex play compared to other forms of play. And the odds would still be that some other factor led to his preference of company, such as that certain people would be more tolerant than others of a child's acting sexually.

Robert


----------



## green betty (Jun 13, 2004)

The OP asked what we do to counteract this cultural conditioning. One of my answers has been to change my language to include gender only when it is relevant to the context. Which it hardly ever is. I find myself saying "Look at that... person! riding the bike!" and stuff like that. If it doesn't matter what age or sex or gender or perceived race, etc that person is, I just say "person". The reason I'm pointing them out is because of the bike--dc, 2, is bananas about bikes--so that's the emphasis in my statement. It felt awkward when I started doing it but has now become comfortable and habitual.

PS My above use of the word "them" is, imho, a necessary evil. Sloppy, but both widely understood and gender neutral and therefore extremely useful.

PPS I had to come back and edit this to change "ds" to "dc", which I've been trying to do for the same reasons. Still a work in progress!


----------



## teachma (Dec 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *green betty* 
The OP asked what we do to counteract this cultural conditioning. One of my answers has been to change my language to include gender only when it is relevant to the context. Which it hardly ever is. I find myself saying "Look at that... person! riding the bike!" and stuff like that. If it doesn't matter what age or sex or gender or perceived race, etc that person is, I just say "person". The reason I'm pointing them out is because of the bike--dc, 2, is bananas about bikes--so that's the emphasis in my statement. It felt awkward when I started doing it but has now become comfortable and habitual.

PS My above use of the word "them" is, imho, a necessary evil. Sloppy, but both widely understood and gender neutral and therefore extremely useful.

PPS I had to come back and edit this to change "ds" to "dc", which I've been trying to do for the same reasons. Still a work in progress!

This reminds me that teachers can also make an impact by no longer using "girls" and "boys" as an arbitrary way to split a class in half. You know, like if the students need to be walking in 2 lines, why not just _two lines_ rather than a girls' line and a boys' line? Or playing a game in the classroom? Don't divide teams by gender. Just make 'em even. The gender division in schools is still huge, and even younger teachers use it. It's handy and quick-- "Girls on that side of the room, boys on the other." But so unnecesary, and so reinforcing of the gender difference when it is totally avoidable.


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Robert Goodman* 
I've heard claims of "gaydar", but knowing a 4 YO's preference for sex of sex partner?! How could you possibly know which sex he'd rather have sexual intercourse with, when he probably doesn't even know what that is?

Surely you're aware that sexual preference is about much more than intercourse! When I was 7, I had no idea what sex was, but I knew that I really, really liked boys, and the thought of kissing a boy made me weak in the knees. Anyone who knew me could have told you I was straight.


----------



## Robert Goodman (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pookel* 
Surely you're aware that sexual preference is about much more than intercourse! When I was 7, I had no idea what sex was, but I knew that I really, really liked boys, and the thought of kissing a boy made me weak in the knees. Anyone who knew me could have told you I was straight.

I don't think thoughts like that at that age "count" or are predictive of sexual preference in adulthood, rather than just indicative of affection. Did you have brothers you felt that way about more than sisters? When you kissed a boy cousin, was it more satisfying than kissing a girl cousin?

The trouble is that since only a tiny minority become homosexual, it's hard to say any examples like yours are confirmatory; the law of averages would say on the basis of mere wild guess that you'd turn out preferring men. Do we have evidence that wanting (in the weak-in-the-knees sense) to kiss at age 7 those of the same sex predicts homosexuality?

Robert (who enjoyed any excuse to kiss anybody at age 7)


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Robert Goodman* 
I don't think thoughts like that at that age "count" or are predictive of sexual preference in adulthood, rather than just indicative of affection. Did you have brothers you felt that way about more than sisters? When you kissed a boy cousin, was it more satisfying than kissing a girl cousin?

Um, brothers? Boy cousins? EW!

I'm talking about crushes, romantic feelings, the kind of feelings a normal person doesn't have for siblings (even at 6 or 7 the thought would have been icky to me). I have had them for boys and, later, men, at least since I was 7. The feelings of having a crush that I had then are no different from the feelings I have now if I have a crush on someone, except that as an adult I know more about sexuality and might be interested in sex with someone and not just kissing.

Maybe you developed late in that area. That doesn't mean everyone does. Being gay is about love and romance, not just sex, and those feelings come before sexual interest for most people.


----------



## Robert Goodman (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pookel* 
Um, brothers? Boy cousins? EW!

I'm talking about crushes, romantic feelings, the kind of feelings a normal person doesn't have for siblings (even at 6 or 7 the thought would have been icky to me). I have had them for boys and, later, men, at least since I was 7. The feelings of having a crush that I had then are no different from the feelings I have now if I have a crush on someone, except that as an adult I know more about sexuality and might be interested in sex with someone and not just kissing.

So...in what way could you have said to have matured romantically? I'm having trouble believing a 6-7 YOs "icky" feelings about relatives somehow relate to adult norms about incest, which it seems one would have to learn from the wider culture. I also have trouble conceiving of an adult's "crush" as being the same type of thought she would've had as a little kid. We need to do some thought experimentation.

Let me ask this one first -- would you be romantically attracted now to a 7 YO boy? If not, hasn't something changed about your romantic feelings?

And...could you, now have a "crush" on another adult that did not involve any sexual ideas, the same as when you were a child? If not, let's say you knew to start with that the object of your "crush" was permanently incapable of any kind of sexual intercourse with you, but was willing & able to have sex with everyone else in the world. If that doesn't work either, does that mean sex, or the awareness of it, changes everything?

I joined this thread with a little anecdote showing that commercial advertising can break down sexual stereotypes, but now the thread has turned in a fascinating direction showing how foreign the goings on in someone else's head can be. If we were together we might each have a look of amazement at the other.

Robert


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

Robert - regarding the "nature vs. nurture" nature of homosexuality, here is an article which sums up some of the evidence found for homsexuality's origins :

http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html

Personally, I believe the question of whether homosexuality is a "choice" is, quite frankly, moot at best and silly at worst. To define homosexuality as a choice would be to say that heterosexuality is a choice, being the opposite side of the coin.

In addition, to say that homosexuality would be a CHOICE just defies logic. Why would anyone CHOOSE a sexual orientation which almost universally ostracizes them in our culture (unfortunately)? Why would someone choose to be discriminated against, spat on, considered immoral or unable to have a relationship with god (all current beliefs by many yahoo individuals in the world). Why would someone choose a setup whereby their partner gets royally screwed in all matters of medical privacy, inheritance, parenting, and so on (all areas where we openly discriminate against homosexuals)? It defies logic. I hope in the future our society can choose people of all sexual orientations equally, but unfortunately right now we are not especially progressive (although admittedly we're doing better than in some past ages).

Also, if it was a "choice" (as in a conscious choice), then wouldn't there somewhere be documented cases of a homosexual CHOOSING to be hetero again? Yet there are no documented cases where this has happened, without the former homosexual eventually regressing. If sexuality were simply a choice, we could go from one extreme to another, or lay somewhere in the middle, depending on what we felt like doing. But it doesn't really seem to work that way, does it?


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

P.S. - I have to agree with Robert here that, at age 4, I don't personally believe homosexuality would most likely have manifested itself. The most I have heard of in that area is that some boys who grow up to be gay show more interest in girly-type things as a child, although that's certainly not a definite relationship by ANY means.


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Robert Goodman* 
I'm having trouble believing a 6-7 YOs "icky" feelings about relatives somehow relate to adult norms about incest, which it seems one would have to learn from the wider culture.

And a 6-7 yo has been experiencing that culture for 6-7 years. Ask your average first-grader if he or she thinks it's OK for brothers and sisters to marry each other, and I'm pretty sure you'll hear an overwhelming "no" answer.

Quote:

Let me ask this one first -- would you be romantically attracted now to a 7 YO boy? If not, hasn't something changed about your romantic feelings?
This kind of question is just plain ridiculous. When I was 7 I was attracted to 7-year-olds. When I was 12 I was attracted to 12-year-olds. Now that I'm 29, I'm attracted to men in their 20s and 30s. I imagine that when I'm 80 I'll still be attracted to my 82-year-old husband in a way that I can't imagine being attracted to an 82-year-old now. That doesn't mean that I'm somehow immature in my romantic feelings now. It just means that people are usually (and appropriately) attracted to people in their own age group.

Quote:

And...could you, now have a "crush" on another adult that did not involve any sexual ideas, the same as when you were a child?
The only reason there weren't sexual ideas when I was a child is that I didn't understand what those urges were about. 6-7 yos can have sexual desires, too (please don't tell me you weren't aware of that). Just because they don't understand the logistics of what those desires mean for adults doesn't mean they don't feel them.


----------



## PrennaMama (Oct 10, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BelgianSheepDog* 
"Medical science" has plenty of theories on this topic, but nothing at all as conclusive as what you just said.

http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html < this really WAS an awesome article. And, my schooling and reading material on neurological development in utero plus neo-natal neuro-genetics, say there IS conclusive evidence that development of **** and transexuality occurs in the brain architecture around the 5th month.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Lula's Mom* 
So does anybody have any links or books on this subject? I know DP's mother would read them if we gave them to her. I just am not going to be good at discussing this on my own.

Tomorrow's Baby by Thomas Verny has some great case-studies on the topic. It's about the brain's development and how affected it is by the environment plus genetics, in utero...

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
But, this struck a chord. DD does this kind of thing. She's always trying to nurse things and tuck them gently into bed and give them little kisses...from her baby brother to a wood block to a piece of food to her Play Doh. It's adorable.

DS1 used to do that with his baby doll, too. But, he didn't have that same "cuddle everything" thing going on. DS2 does seem to have it, though...he has by far the most gentle, least aggressive temperament of my kids. DD has by far the most aggressive temperament, tucking broccoli into bed notwithstanding...

Aaw!! StormBride, my dh thinks it's SO cute, too... we just melt when she does this... I mean, to ANYTHING. The book I mentioned above also discusses how some of these behaviors are MUCH more likely in gender specific scenarios, ie, girls are more _apt_ to play nurturing games with a variety of different toys (or food, in OUR little ones' cases!), while boys are more _apt_ to play "automobile" or "go" with any kinda toy, like making a block into a car, etc.

I've also been learning about language and guided play, being used to counteract some of the cultural paradigms set up by generations before us... Apparently, boys are more likely to be engaged in active conversations from babyhood on, by adults/care-givers, and girls are more likely to have to seek out active conversation... it looks like this:

A boy will crawl or toddle up, and mom or dad will say, "Hey kiddo! What are you doing? You coming to see me?" etc, whereas, studies show, a girl who toddles up is more likely to receive a "Hi, honey." with no leading conversation to follow. The result is that our boys model 'leader' behavior, our girls practice 'emotional repair' by seeking out interaction.

So it's advised that we make conscious efforts to encourage our boys to 'feel' their way, and seek out a bit, teaching them that same emotional awareness (maybe making them gay!







) and that we encourage leader qualities in our girls by actively engaging them, like that. I learned about this in an Emotioanl Availability course. Truly illuminating...


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

I don't think there's anything wrong with gender roles, but I agree they shouldn't be forced on children (or anyone). I think gender roles can be presented to children in a way that doesn't stifle them as individuals.


----------



## woobysma (Apr 20, 2004)

OK - I haven't been able to read the whole thread. (I'll come back to it after some sleep) but for the OP - I do try to combat gender roles by just following the natural leads of my boys. Both kids are kind of "rough and tumble" types, but DS2 does love vacuuming and babies, so he got a toy vacuum for his birthday and a doll and stroller for x-mas. Yes, the toy stroller is pink, but he *loves* pushing his "baby" around the house in it, so it's all good with me









My goal is to produce two men who know how to keep a house, tuck a baby into bed and play football. "gender roles" be damned!!


----------



## wemoon (Aug 31, 2002)

Sexuality is fluid and ever changing. In referencing Kinsey's scale, only a small amount of the population (10% on either side) are considered 100% homosexual or 100% heterosexual. Both homosexual and heterosexual behaviors can be nutured or through nature. One could have been in a heterosexual role for years upon years to all of the sudden one day realize that this isn't working for them and then to become involved in homosexual relationships. Society nutures heterosexuality.

Notice how the gender stereotypes in this thread seem to relate mostly to boys? It seems much more problematic that a boy would be playing with dolls and painting their nails than it is for a girl to play with a football and wanting to wear bibs with no shirts.


----------



## teachma (Dec 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *woobysma* 

My goal is to produce two men who know how to keep a house, tuck a baby into bed and play football. "gender roles" be damned!!









And when they grow up, let's get together and introduce them to my daughter. Or my son.


----------



## eilonwy (Apr 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pookel* 
Surely you're aware that sexual preference is about much more than intercourse! When I was 7, I had no idea what sex was, but I knew that I really, really liked boys, and the thought of kissing a boy made me weak in the knees. Anyone who knew me could have told you I was straight.









:

And I disagree with the idea that children are asexual beings; I've encountered many homosexual and heterosexual people who say that they've always known that they were whatever orientation, from the time they can remember. I've met small children who were decidedly hetero or homosexual in orientation, despite the fact that they were most assuredly not looking for sexual partners. What, you think it just spontaneously happens when the kids are 12/14/16? Please.







The kids know, the parents know, long before they're thinking about dating or kissing or any such thing. Sexual orientation has to do with a lot more than intercourse, and it's determined long before intercourse becomes a viable option.


----------



## Robert Goodman (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KristiMetz* 
Personally, I believe the question of whether homosexuality is a "choice" is, quite frankly, moot at best and silly at worst.

As long as we're discussing desires and not behavior, it is silly, because it's self-evident that preferences of any kind are not chosen. Our desires are not of our own deliberate making. That goes whether it's preference for vanilla vs. chocolate, Fords vs. Chevies, or toilet paper over or under. In some cases we can give reasons for our preferences, but those reasons are in turn based on other preferences, etc.

If sexuality is more narrowly construed as a behavior pattern, then you can say it's a choice the same way pursuing any of our desires is a choice. You could even behave sexually a certain way without liking it, just to please someone else; but then you have to ask why you choose to please a particular person, or even other people in general.

Robert


----------



## Robert Goodman (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pookel* 
This kind of question is just plain ridiculous. When I was 7 I was attracted to 7-year-olds. When I was 12 I was attracted to 12-year-olds. Now that I'm 29, I'm attracted to men in their 20s and 30s. I imagine that when I'm 80 I'll still be attracted to my 82-year-old husband in a way that I can't imagine being attracted to an 82-year-old now. That doesn't mean that I'm somehow immature in my romantic feelings now. It just means that people are usually (and appropriately) attracted to people in their own age group.

You may think the question ridiculous, but it's not. Among men there's a strong tendency to prefer their women young, regardless of the men's own age. The ideal age of female sex partner many men would prefer might even be a compromise between pedophilia and desire for a sexually mature partner.

Quote:

The only reason there weren't sexual ideas when I was a child is that I didn't understand what those urges were about. 6-7 yos can have sexual desires, too (please don't tell me you weren't aware of that). Just because they don't understand the logistics of what those desires mean for adults doesn't mean they don't feel them.
I have my doubts that sincere feelings like that exist on the continuum you think they do. Possibly children who say they feel such things are just acting out a role, or just curious about the opposite sex. But that doesn't explain your feeling now that your feelings at that age were "sexual" in some way related to how adults mean it.

When I was 3.5 YO and my parents went to the hospital to "get" another baby, I was asked whether I wanted a baby brother, a baby sister, or a baby dog. I considered carefully (and remember doing so) before asking for a baby sister. (They said they'd try to get me one, but couldn't be sure. I was very pleased when they did.) I figured I was a boy, so we "had" a boy already, and a girl would be complementary, and a person would be more fun than a dog. Maybe I wanted to know more about the opposite sex too, but in any event I thought the experience would somehow be more interesting. However, I wouldn't state that in terms of attraction to the opposite sex. I felt equally affectionate toward just about everybody, and loved hugging and kissing and being kissed, as well as petting dogs & cats.

I'd say I was a few years older than you when I first knew somebody who could make me "melt", and it so happened that she was a girl at school, Claudia, who liked to play ball with the boys. I think it may have been coincidental that she was a girl, and that I might've known other people of both sexes who could produce that feeling in me, but she's the one I remember. Come to think of it, Daddy could have that effect on me too sometimes. However, I now have a friend Nadine who reminds me of Claudia in the way she sounds, and when she eats or chews gum while talking to me on the phone, I get that feeling of "melting". It doesn't go with sexual arousal at all, however.

BTW, Daddy eventually married someone my sister's age. Because he could, I think.

Robert


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Robert Goodman* 
But that doesn't explain your feeling now that your feelings at that age were "sexual" in some way related to how adults mean it.

The feelings I'm talking about included physical sexual arousal. How much more detailed do I need to get before you understand what I'm talking about?


----------



## Robert Goodman (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pookel* 
The feelings I'm talking about included physical sexual arousal. How much more detailed do I need to get before you understand what I'm talking about?

Oh, I understand; the trouble is believing!

What you're describing is, if you'll pardon the pun, exciting, in terms of the science. Presumably you're describing the sorts of physiologic changes centered in the groin that go with sexual desire, but you're describing them in a person (yourself) whom you recall as knowing nothing about the possibility of sexual intercourse, but had those changes triggered by the sight and/or thought of the approach of persons of the opposite sex. If this recollection is correct, it could mean one of only a few possible things:

a response to non-cognitive signals sent by members of the same species of opposite sex, such as the mating pheromones certain species emit;
a genetically programmed response to recognition of the opposite sex; or
unconscious and correct guessing that a penis would be a good item to stimulate a vagina with (assuming you already knew what penises were and had experienced masturbation).
Either of the first two would be a major finding in human physiology. The last would say that the intelligence can develop in the unconscious far ahead of its development in conscious thought, which would also be astounding.

So you should understand why I'm skeptical.

Robert


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Robert Goodman* 
As long as we're discussing desires and not behavior, it is silly, because it's self-evident that preferences of any kind are not chosen. Our desires are not of our own deliberate making. That goes whether it's preference for vanilla vs. chocolate, Fords vs. Chevies, or toilet paper over or under. In some cases we can give reasons for our preferences, but those reasons are in turn based on other preferences, etc.

If sexuality is more narrowly construed as a behavior pattern, then you can say it's a choice the same way pursuing any of our desires is a choice. You could even behave sexually a certain way without liking it, just to please someone else; but then you have to ask why you choose to please a particular person, or even other people in general.

Robert

I'm not sure where you're going with this idea. If we agree that sexual orientation is not a "choice" in the terms we're discussing it, I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me, or what.







Please clarify.

Oh, also, I just want to add... I do believe there are quite a few individuals who are simply bisexual, and choose one sex or the other at a different time in their life due to changing needs. That seems to make sense and I've seen people IRL who have done that, a time or two.

However, I do not believe that someone's sexuality itself is fluid and everchanging, as the previous poster stated. I know very few lesbians who suddenly woke up one day to find they had become heterosexuals.


----------



## lovebunnies (Jun 10, 2003)

what does frosted and toasted mean? I keep seeing it on people's signatures.
-Cyndi


----------



## woobysma (Apr 20, 2004)

(LB - check your PM box)


----------



## wemoon (Aug 31, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KristiMetz* 

Oh, also, I just want to add... I do believe there are quite a few individuals who are simply bisexual, and choose one sex or the other at a different time in their life due to changing needs. That seems to make sense and I've seen people IRL who have done that, a time or two.

However, I do not believe that someone's sexuality itself is fluid and everchanging, as the previous poster stated. I know very few lesbians who suddenly woke up one day to find they had become heterosexuals.


Your first paragraph is a great example of your disbelief in sexuality being fluid and everchanging stated in your second paragraph. And I do know many self-identified lesbians who are now married to a man with kids and I know many who identified as straight who are now in lesbian relationships.


----------



## Robert Goodman (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KristiMetz* 
Robert - regarding the "nature vs. nurture" nature of homosexuality, here is an article which sums up some of the evidence found for homsexuality's origins :

http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html

Interesting link, thanks, Kay. About a decade ago I went to a talk at UMDNJ by someone who gave a plausible account, as well as some evidence, of a genetic factor in homosexuality, if "homosexuality" be construed partway between desire and behavior. There is evidence that alleles at a certain locus are involved in propensity to avoid risk, and that being homosexual involves risk taking. People who have less aversion to the social risk of disapproval are more likely to act on homosexual impulses if they have them to begin with. The more likely they are to act on them, the more likely they are to identify that way.

Robert


----------



## Robert Goodman (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KristiMetz* 
If we agree that sexual orientation is not a "choice" in the terms we're discussing it, I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me, or what.







Please clarify.

I don't know how I can be any clearer! I'll just restate, and maybe it comes out clearer, maybe not.

Desires, preferences...they're not chosen. None of them are chosen, whether they relate to sexuality or to any other field in which a person prefers A to B. You can't make yourself like or dislike anything; you might be able to get used to something or jaded or blase about it, but that only affects your degree of enthusiasm or aversion. People usually understand that tastes are involuntary, but somehow sexuality is singled out as a special, mysterious case among tastes, which it's not.

Robert


----------



## PrennaMama (Oct 10, 2005)

Dh and I often debate about behavior vs. character, or "self". He thinks when someone asks him to change a behavior (let's say, using the word "Dude" is the behavior) that he is being asked to change who he is. But this is not the case.

There is a HUGE gulf of difference between behavior and character. What exists, on a cellular level, in the human brain changes, on a cellular level, ONLY when catalystc agents are introduced. Example, a typical "chemically balanced" individual may test as one with Bi-polar disorder, after 5 years as a cocaine addict, because cocaine has a catalystic effect on the chemical balance in the brain, and can permanently upset that balance. Same with methamphetamine. But, other than through the introduction of and prolonged exposure to such chemicals (some meds fall into this category) there is no way to change the genetic/cellular make-up of the brain.

HOWEVER, one can chose to BEHAVE in a way that is diametrically opposed to the brain's blue-print. Hence the transexual man who innately desires to live as woman, feels yearnings to be a mother, to marry a man, to have sex with her husband, etc, but CHOOSES to live as a man, burying his true "self" because of any number of reason, not the least of which is fear.

Likewise, the "straight" girl in college who BEHAVES in a homosexual way after a few wine-coolers. She is not homosexual, her brain defined her sexuality in utero, she yearns to have sex with men, and someday to get married and have a child or 4, or whatever, but she also gets tipsy enough to be brave and get it on with her room mate. It is a BEHAVIOR, until she has her own personal realization that this behavior is more than that, perhaps a "truer" expression of her "actual" desires, and therefor an expression of her "self". Thereby, do we see the formerly "straight" individual come out of the closet, so to speak.

Point is, there is no ONE FLAT TRUTH, there are a myriad different mixes of behavior and character that pan out into gender ROLES and ACTUAL gender. The only facts are that we're finally in a place where we have the ability to start mapping out the process of sexual assignment. and it's becoming VERY clear that it is NOT just simply a choice. Sexual assignment, GENDER, as new studies show, since 2000, is far more likely to be caused by brain architecture in the womb, chemical signature. This will not account for personal behaviors individuals exhibit due to fear, or conditioning, their actual internal workings notwithstanding.

No one can TURN a kid gay.


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

As far as the colors go, I think boys look cutest in those colors and that girls look cutest in pinks and purples. It has nothing to do with programming them for me. I let my boy stomp around in my heels all the time, and if he wants to play with girl toys, fine. However, I just want to point out that the traditional boy/girl toys don't exist to program them to be boys or girls or behave a certain way. There are differences between boys and girls, period. This is not always true. Many boys will always love dolls; many girls will always love cars. However, the reason certain toys are marketted to boys and certain ones to girls is because those are the toys that those genders are most likely to like and enjoy. My son would MUCH rather play with cars than barbies, so that's what we buy him. The girls that come here for daycare always go straight for the 'girl' toys like stuffed animals and dolls. I don't believe in forcing gender roles upon children, but I also don't agree that dressing them in certain colors or giving them the toys that they are most likely to enjoy based on their gender is doing that. What does pink vs red have to do with gender roles anyway? Are girls supposed to act pink and boys act blue?







I know some people don't believe there are differences between genders, but if you want proof, take a look of the story of the little boy whose circumcision was botched and then was raised as a girl. He knew he was a boy; he always liked 'boy toys.' He eventually shot himself. We shouldn't force the gender roles on children but we shouldn't be concerned about people who do have children who like toys associated with specific genders and who thus buy those toys for their children.

As far as being gay goes, I think that has a lot more to do with biology and possibly what is acceptable/fashionable in society (I say that because, throughout history, if you look at the culture, what is considered beautiful does affect sexuality; men were seen as objects of beaty in ancient Greece, and homosexuality was common...then later in Greece, women were seen more as the creatures of beauty, and homosexuality decreased...just an observation) than with what colors a kid wears or what toys/activities they do. I don't believe homosexuality is a choice, but I do believe it is fluid and is affected by many factors. Being gay isn't about washing dishes vs fixing cars anyway. You can't turn a kid gay. Sexuality is way too complex for a person to be able to make a kid gay by having them do things that aren't 'traditional roles' for their gender. Besides, as a bi but married woman, I wouldn't mind my son being gay. My issue would be with the way the world decided to treat him as a result.

I'm always irked by people who preach about buying only gender neutral toys... my son loves 'boy' toys. He rarely has as much fun with wooden rattles as he does with big red tonka trucks.


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wemoon* 
Your first paragraph is a great example of your disbelief in sexuality being fluid and everchanging stated in your second paragraph. And I do know many self-identified lesbians who are now married to a man with kids and I know many who identified as straight who are now in lesbian relationships.

People who already have bisexual tendencies may change their situations over time, but the important distinction here is that these people were already bisexual... their innate sexual orientation did not change.

No, sexual orientation is not fluid. I strongly disagree with that. I'm really surprised to hear that coming from you. If sexual orientation were so "fluid" then these gay-conversion camps would have SOME level of success... but they don't, because as much as some of those people would like to change the fact that they are gay, they simply cannot.

Many people's sexuality already falls somewhere in the spectrum between being completely hetro and completely **** -sexual, yes, I agree. But as far as it actually changing, no, I do not believe that is true, and have never seen any evidence that it is so. You may know lesbians who later got married, but I can't imagine that women suddenly started grossing them out, and I can't imagine that they previously thought men were icky, unless it was an issue brought on by their experiences in life.


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Robert Goodman* 
I don't know how I can be any clearer! I'll just restate, and maybe it comes out clearer, maybe not.


I'm sorry... you're being kind of rude, so I've lost interest in the conversation now. Too much like my ex-husband.


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Robert Goodman* 
Either of the first two would be a major finding in human physiology. The last would say that the intelligence can develop in the unconscious far ahead of its development in conscious thought, which would also be astounding.

Citations, please?


----------



## Robert Goodman (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pookel* 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman
Either of the first two would be a major finding in human physiology. The last would say that the intelligence can develop in the unconscious far ahead of its development in conscious thought, which would also be astounding.
Citations, please?

Huh? How can I cite the absence of evidence? I'm saying that nobody has published a finding like hers before; it would be news. So what are you asking me to cite?

Robert


----------



## Robert Goodman (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KristiMetz* 
I'm sorry... you're being kind of rude, so I've lost interest in the conversation now.

Yet you were moved to write that you'd lost interest. Hey, I did what you asked, and you reamed me for it.


----------



## Flor (Nov 19, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *teachma* 
This reminds me that teachers can also make an impact by no longer using "girls" and "boys" as an arbitrary way to split a class in half. You know, like if the students need to be walking in 2 lines, why not just _two lines_ rather than a girls' line and a boys' line? Or playing a game in the classroom? Don't divide teams by gender. Just make 'em even. The gender division in schools is still huge, and even younger teachers use it. It's handy and quick-- "Girls on that side of the room, boys on the other." But so unnecesary, and so reinforcing of the gender difference when it is totally avoidable.

When I am pointing out gender in my classroom, it is to counteract what my students do to themselves. If we have "popcorn" (uncalled on, volunteer) reading, ONLY the boys will read. So now we first do a boys only popcorn read, then a girls only popcorn read. If the students are calling on each other to answer problems, the girls will only call on girls and the boys will only call on boys. . . so, new rule, boys call on a girl and girls call on a boy. Utterly annoying. I don't like to pigeon-hole the kids. Who an I to say what gender they identify with? I'm just trying to hear more voices in the classroom.


----------



## Flor (Nov 19, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eilonwy* 







:

And I disagree with the idea that children are asexual beings; I've encountered many homosexual and heterosexual people who say that they've always known that they were whatever orientation, from the time they can remember. I've met small children who were decidedly hetero or homosexual in orientation, despite the fact that they were most assuredly not looking for sexual partners. What, you think it just spontaneously happens when the kids are 12/14/16? Please.







The kids know, the parents know, long before they're thinking about dating or kissing or any such thing. Sexual orientation has to do with a lot more than intercourse, and it's determined long before intercourse becomes a viable option.

I totally agree with you there. Children often know at a very young age, from experience with family.

What was I watching, some 20/20 or Barbara Walters or something that spoke of that article about sexual orientation being determined en utero and the interviewed parents of the LBTG folks all knew their kids were not hetero at a VERY young age. Some said 18 months.


----------



## Robert Goodman (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KristiMetz* 
No, sexual orientation is not fluid. I strongly disagree with that. I'm really surprised to hear that coming from you. If sexual orientation were so "fluid" then these gay-conversion camps would have SOME level of success... but they don't, because as much as some of those people would like to change the fact that they are gay, they simply cannot.

So sexual orientation is unlike orientation regarding anything other than sex? (Because orientation concerning other things can surely change over the course of one's life.) And the evidence for that is just the failure of some cockamamie camps to deliberately change anyone's sex preference?

Regarding other tastes, do you know of any other successes deliberately changing someone's preferences in them? Not just overlaying an aversion or suppressing action, but actually changing what someone likes to a different, deliberately chosen pattern? And not just persuading someone with facts about something? (I mean you can persuade someone to choose A over B by presenting facts that A is better than B. But I'm referring here to matters of taste, not fact-based preferences.)

Was there ever anything you liked a lot, but got tired of thru repeated exposure? And then switched to something else? Could you not imagine someone going thru that process with sexuality?

Robert


----------



## wemoon (Aug 31, 2002)

Kristi, I am a perfect example of sexuality (complete with mindset) changing. It actually goes back to what I originally said, that sexuality is a social construct. I only dated boys in high school, dated boys in college, was in a relationship with a man that I had kids with, because that is what I was 'supposed' to do. I've now identified as a lesbian for the past 2 years and have had a wonderful girlfriend for most of that. I am completely disgusted by the thought of ever being with a man again, even though I spent years upon years of my life being with men. I don't know if this is just something I didn't realize young or what, but I do know that my attraction to men was just as real as my attraction to women now.

I do know of others with experiences very similar or of the exact opposite. This is one big reason why I say that sexuality is fluid. You are not set for life in one role and it is OK to come out later in life after having a completely heterosexual life thus far and it is also OK to start having heterosexual relationships after only being in homosexual ones your whole life. The key is, is that this is each person's own desire. That is why camps like you described don't work. It's horrible that such places even exist. People should be allowed to express their sexuality in whatever manner fits them.


----------



## Demeter9 (Nov 14, 2006)

My girls are very girly, and always have been.

They have barbies, because my oldest asked for them. So I got a series of used barbies and clothes, and made sure to pick up barbies that are not just white blondes.

I also found all the female rescue heroes for them to play with.

They have Doras. I hate Dora, she yells and you can't turn anything down. They have a Dora CD player, and it has a volume button that works for every function except Dora's voice! But at least Dora is an adventurer.

They have their own brooms, and a kitchen set, and go to dance classes. And she plays mini-tyke lacrosse. I understand the other mothers started calling her the lacrosse princess. She wants to go to Martial Arts classes.

We go to the library and the oldest looks for books with girls in them. Sometimes they are girly-girls, and sometimes not.


----------



## Jmo780 (May 3, 2006)

My 11 yo son wanted his toenails painted pink until he was about 4.

Both of my boys and my Dh let me give them peidcures monthly-I trim their toenails (yuck, yes







) and paint them with clear coats...

My boys both wore my dresses and pumps for years-I have a picture of Ds in my Dds dress, I have to find that and post it







(He was 6 at the time!)

My Dd loves to play with the boys toys, just as much as she loves playing with her dolls.

My 7yo Ds's favorite color is pink. My mom made the kids scarves and she asked them all what color they wanted....Ds 11 said green. dd said blue and Ds7 said pink. Mom would NOT make him a pink scarf b/c she said "The kids at school will tease him and I won't be a part of that..."

Whatever, I'll buy him a shirt with pink stirpes, I don't care









**off to search for the picture of Ds in a skirt now


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

Quote:

firemoon, I can't say it any plainer than this, most of what you wrote is just utter bs. Seriously, it's not even worth arguing over. You obviously just don't get it.
Are you talking to me? I'm moonfirefaery, not firemoon. If you were talking to someone by that name, rather than me, I'm sorry.

The point wasn't for me to "get" anything; it was for me to express how I feel about the subject. That I disagree with whatever you or anyone else may think doesn't mean that I "don't get it."

What exactly that I wrote was BS? Is it BS for me personally to think my son looks cutest in blue and green, being that's what his eyecolor is? If colors are so much to do with gender identity and behavior, why don't you explain to me why? How does a girl act pink or a boy act blue? How do pink and blue influence behavior? I wear pink all the time because I love it. Consequently my son enjoys prancing around in my pink clothes. Does that mean I am trying to program him to be a girl, to be gay? Right now he's wearing blue, because that's just what I picked out for him to wear. Am I trying to program him to like or act blue by doing so? WOW, I must be confusing the hell out of hiim from dressing him in pink and blue and so many other colors, if we are to believe that putting a child in a certain color is going to program them to favor that color or act a certain way.

Is it BS that I buy my son cars because that is what he likes to play with? Am I lying about that? I don't see how you'd know as much about MY son and his interests as me, but whatever. Am I lying when I say that the girls who come here go straight for the 'girl' toys, even the babies? Is that BS? Again, considering that is MY experience, I don't see how you'd know more about it than me but again--whatever.

Do you disagree that boys and girls are different? Do you think they are the same? Am I lying about the little boy raised as a girl, programmed as a girl, whose boy personality prevailed? That story is true; he is a living example that boys and girls are different, that gender identity is programmed from birth. Go google it; the child eventually shot himself because the doctor kept proclaiming the experiment a success.

Do you disagree that boys usually like toys generally created for boys and girls usually like toys created for boys, hence the reason those toys were created? Not EVERYTHING in our society that has come to be is about programming; life isn't only about conspiracy. I am sure some people give their children toys to program them into their roles, but the toy companies create and aim toys at specific genders because that is what, statistically and according to their studies and focus groups, kids of that specific gender will enjoy. Go read any child development book, and it will graze upon the fact that boys usually like toys they can push around, cars, things they can do stuff with while girls are usually more attracted to dolls, stuffed animals, and books even in the toddler years. My son happens to LOVE his play kitchen, just as much as he loves his trike, but when little girls come here, it's usually the first thing they go for--even the babies. That is my experience, and it's also the result of lots of research and careful PAYING ATTENTION not just only on my part.

Or is it my feelings on sexuality, that biology and various other factors influence that--not what colors a kid is dressed in or what activities parents have him or her do? Am I turning my kid gay by letting him stomp around in high heels? Or do you think it's BS for me not to mind if my son is gay? Do you believe biology doesn't influence it, or that it is the only factor? What? Let's consider ages ago, when fat women were considered to be more attractive because it meant they were rich. That was desirable. Men desired larger women. The exact opposite is true today; men desire skinnier women. That is what is fashionable. There are still men who are just born to love big women. Many people's tastes are totally uninfluenced by fashion and society; however, it is still true that the sexuality of a population, overall, is related to what is seen as fashionable and desirable by the society.

If you disagree, that's fine, but rather than call my opinion and theory BS, why not be respectful, acknowledge it, and then state your own? Which part EXACTLY do you think is BS, my PERSONAL feelings and experiences that are to do with MY child or that which I state is fact and is unrelated to MY son?


----------



## minkajane (Jun 5, 2005)

Quote:

Do you disagree that boys and girls are different? Do you think they are the same? Am I lying about the little boy raised as a girl, programmed as a girl, whose boy personality prevailed? That story is true; he is a living example that boys and girls are different, that gender identity is programmed from birth. Go google it; the child eventually shot himself because the doctor kept proclaiming the experiment a success
His name is David Riemer, born Bruce, then raised as Brenda when his penis was destroyed by an electrocautery device during a circumcision at the age of eight months for "phimosis." He committed suicide after years of depression and suicide attempts after his twin brother was killed in a car accident.


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

Yep, that's him.







He committed suicide after his brother's death by shooting himself in the head. However, in an earlier interview, he said something to this effect "What do I have to do to make hiim stop? What is it going to take? Do I have to shoot myself in the head?" in reference to the doctor. This man had severe emotional trauma because of what he went through as a child and that is probably what ultimately led to his suicide. Many people lose their loved ones, but not everyone commits suicide. He was depressed LONG before his brother died, even when he was a child because he didn't fit in. He wanted to be a boy; he was one...and they wanted him to be a girl, so he fit in nowhere. That is a problem; forcing gender roles on children is a problem, especially if we are encouraging them to fight who they are. I just disagree that buying boy toys for boys and girl toys for girls is doing that, unless you KNOW your little boy would rather be playing with Disney princesses and buy him the boy stuff instead to try and encourage him not to.

I agree that most boys aren't "totally boy" in terms of how our society thinks of boys, and the same is true of girls. I don't think, however, that buying a child cars because that's what he likes is the same as programming him to be a boy in terms of what our culture thinks of boys as being. Rather than buy gender neutral stuff, I buy my son whatever I see that I, in my knowledge of him, think he'll enjoy. That may be a fairy wand or a big red ball, a shiny tiara or a monster truck. There are differences betwen boys or girls, but no child is "all boy" or "all girl" in terms of expectations. Some girls love soccer, and some boys love dress up.

We can let them chose without pushing them away from something because it is seen as a cultural norm for feminine behavior. I'm not going to NOT buy my son trucks because it's cultures way of brainwashing him to be a big tough man. I'm not going to NOT let my daughter wear dresses for the same sort of reason. I'm going to let them wear and play with what they want, rather than take away 'gender specific' toys because I'm afraid it might influence their interests and behaviors. However, the point I'm trying to make is that toy companies probably don't care about gender roles. They make toys for specific genders because that's what those kids are most likely to like and the parents most likely to buy. Some parents I'm sure buy their kids big monster trucks so they'll be big tough men, but the toy companies manufacture them because that's what, in general, little boys like. There are girls who like to crash trucks, too, but there are probably a lot more boys out there like that. My brother had all kinds of boy toys and toy guns and so on, and while I used to play with them now and again for fun, I personally enjoyed my barbie and stuff animal soap operas a lot more. That's just me though.

For the record, I refrain from telling my son that "x" is for boys and "y" is for girls, and I don't allow others to do so either. There are some things I do see as 'forcing gender roles on young children,' and some things I don't. I really think it depends on the circumstances and your intent. If you're buying your barbie-loving little boy a bunch of tonka trucks, that's forcing gender roles on him. If you're buying your tonka truck-loving little boy a tonka truck, that's not. I just want everyone to think before they judge someone as 'forcing gender roles on young children' and understand that might not be their goal. Maybe their son just likes blue. Maybe he just likes cars. Like mine.

If we're going to assume that having them play with certain toys influences their interests, behavior, and gender identity, then I have to assume I am confusing the crap out of my son by letting hiim play with toys associated with both roles.


----------



## lisalou (May 20, 2005)

Isn't there a difference between cultural or marketing gender stereotypes and actual gender/sexuality?

You can have a girl that plays with all of the stereotypical toys that girls are supposed to want who can still not act like the girl gender stereotype. She could turn out to be a mathemtician lesbian who is not wilting and doesn't giggle madly when boys are around. I sort of feel that regardless of how I dress my dd or what toys I give her if she's a lesbian I can't stop that nor can I make her one by giving her certain toys or dressing her a certain way. Or even make her one by playing the Indigo Girls all of the time. (No, DH, really you can't)

I think the far greater danger as a parent is making sure you don't fall into stereotypes if you do have a dd who prefers to play with dolls and wear pink. Then you have to make sure she doesn't feel that she can't be good at math or she needs a boyfriend to be whole. Or a son that wants to play with trucks and wear dinosaur t-shirts. Then you have to make sure that it's ok if he's in touch with his emotions and wants to do ballet. Or whatever.

I've seen parents go to the extreme with gender neutral like giving their son a traditionally girls name and dressing him in dresses. Although technically I wouldn't call that gender neutral. But I don't see how that does anything but reinforce stereotypes. If you force your dd to not play with dolls or wear pink what are you really saying with that? Or if you force your ds to play with dolls and not play with trucks? It's really no better than forcing your ds to not like dolls or your dd to wear pink. To me, the goal should really be that all options are open.


----------



## loraxc (Aug 14, 2003)

Everyone I knew told me that I would "give up" my ideas about raising kids without excessive gender-role-pushing once I had kids. "Oh, I thought that too, and then I had my boy and he just loved cars, so I was proved wrong..." "I thought that too, and then I had my girl and she just went crazy for princesses and pink, so I knew there was truth to it..."

To which I say: have you no awareness of the power of marketing, television, and peers? Do you really believe that boys have a biological preference for blue and girls for pink? Where in the hell would that come from, evolutionarily? Yes, children identify themselves by gender and often tend to choose things that are marketed to their genders. This certainly does NOT mean that every "gendered" preference has a real biological basis. There's probably something to the sociobiological idea that men tend to be more aggressive and women tend to be more nurturing--but in no way does this translate to a "truth" that everything "boyish" or "girly" at this particular moment in 21st century American pop culture must be truly biologically "boyish" or "girly." To believe otherwise shows a lack of critical thinking skills.

Incidentally, my 3yo girl asked for cars and a doll for Christmas. Her favorite color is green. She doesn't give a damn about princesses because we haven't bothered to introduce her to them. Her interests are not gendered one way or the other--she likes lots of things on both sides of the divide. We don't allow TV, we don't talk up gender roles, we encourage all kinds of play and toys, and by happenstance her peer group does not includes kids who are really into the gendered stuff. I think adults play a huge role in gender-socializing their kids, especially the youngest ones, and I'm not surprised at all by where DD is on this now. Will it change as she gets older? Perhaps, but we've certainly made it this far without her "coincidentally" becoming obsessed with the girl toys and trappings that are pushed by corporations and pop culture.


----------



## loraxc (Aug 14, 2003)

Quote:

However, the point I'm trying to make is that toy companies probably don't care about gender roles.
I couldn't disagree more. When you can make two versions of everything and make it so boys can't use the girls' version and vice versa, you make more money.


----------



## chfriend (Aug 29, 2002)

I was just explaining this point to dd1 the other day. Ditto the character thing. If you get a Barbie fishing pole now, and a year from now you don't like Barbie anymore, then you want to get a new fishing pole with a better character on it.

I told her that their job is to get as much of her money as possible. Her job is to get the things she wants while keeping as much of her money as possible.


----------



## Doodlebugsmom (Aug 1, 2002)

I started out not buying gender specific toys for either child. However, when they were around age two, I started letting them choose their own toys. Sometimes they choose gender specific things, sometimes not. My ds loves tractors, trucks, motorcycles and superheros. He also loves Barbies, stuffed animals, and wearing lip gloss and nail polish. (He's 2.5) Dd really likes the more "girly" stuff, but she also likes snakes, lizards and sports. I fully believe that when they're old enough to choose their own toys, they should be able to do just that. I can understand parents wanting to have a variety of toys including "boy" things and "girl" things.


----------



## PrennaMama (Oct 10, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KristiMetz* 
People who already have bisexual tendencies may change their situations over time, but the important distinction here is that these people were already bisexual... their innate sexual orientation did not change.
... some of those people would like to change the fact that they are gay, they simply cannot.

Many people's sexuality already falls somewhere in the spectrum between being completely hetro and completely **** -sexual, yes, I agree. But as far as it actually changing, no, I do not believe that is true...

Exactly. Brain structure does not change, without trauma, or or chemical change... BUT, _BEHAVIOR_ *IS* fluid.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Flor* 
I totally agree with you there. Children often know at a very young age, from experience with family.

What was I watching, some 20/20 or Barbara Walters or something that spoke of that article about sexual orientation being determined en utero and the interviewed parents of the LBTG folks all knew their kids were not hetero at a VERY young age. Some said 18 months.

This 20/20 set used some of the study-data that I referred to earlier.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Robert Goodman* 
So sexual orientation is unlike orientation regarding anything other than sex? (Because orientation concerning other things can surely change over the course of one's life.) And the evidence for that is just the failure of some cockamamie camps to deliberately change anyone's sex preference?

Regarding other tastes, do you know of any other successes deliberately changing someone's preferences in them? Not just overlaying an aversion or suppressing action, but actually changing what someone likes to a different, deliberately chosen pattern? And not just persuading someone with facts about something? (I mean you can persuade someone to choose A over B by presenting facts that A is better than B. But I'm referring here to matters of taste, not fact-based preferences.)

Was there ever anything you liked a lot, but got tired of thru repeated exposure? And then switched to something else? Could you not imagine someone going thru that process with sexuality?

Robert

Robert, yes, one can change their MIND... but not their BRAIN. Lets' try looking at this in a really rudimentary way. I suspect you may have a man's plumbing. In utero, your plumbing was defined, and developed around the 4th and 5th month, and your brain architecture, and chemical signature was also developing right about then, assigning you your sexuality. Do you thnk at some point you might "change your mind" about having a man's plumbing? And then, thru changing your mind, that said plumbing will just metamorphose on its own into a woman's plumbing? Some amphibians can do this, through the drive to procreate and when there are limited mates, but humans, unfortunately, cannot.

In the same respect, we cannot elect to change our sexuality. We CAN change our behavior, often to reflect social norms, conditioning, pressure, etc. But it has nothing to do with the actual wiring. Just like my hair color was defined in the womb, to orient on the darker end of the spectrum, so then is my sexuality oriented on the straighter end of the spectrum... I can chose to dye my hair, but I'm still a brunette. I can chose to kiss girls (and like to sometimes) but I'm still hetero.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wemoon* 
Kristi, I am a perfect example of sexuality (complete with mindset) changing. It actually goes back to what I originally said, that sexuality is a social construct....

...I do know of others with experiences very similar or of the exact opposite. This is one big reason why I say that sexuality is fluid. You are not set for life in one role and it is OK to come out later in life after having a completely heterosexual life thus far and it is also OK to start having heterosexual relationships after only being in homosexual ones your whole life. The key is, is that this is each person's own desire.

*wemoon* you are a perfect example of the _fluidity_ of BEHAVIOR. Your sexual assignment, in neurological terms, might likely fall smack in the middle of the sexual-assignment-spectrum. But your personal preferences, as defined by your personal experiences, allow you the adaptability to adjust your own behavior to fit your desires. Your wiring, inside, however, remains a constant, regardless of behavior.


----------



## eilonwy (Apr 3, 2003)

The toy thing is complicated. We don't watch much television, and while my daughter's preferred toys are (mostly) gender neutral, my son vastly prefers "boy toys." He's been asking for a toy gun for the past six months at least (shudder). Now, that doesn't change the fact that his favorite color is pink, and that given the choice he would wear nothing but pink day in and day out. I was chatting this morning with a school staff member and another parent and I mentioned that BeanBean seemed ridiculously masculine for a child dressed all in pink. The staff member nodded and said, "He is, and it's very interesting." The kid likes pink because it's pretty, not because he thinks he's a girl or wants to be a girl. He enjoys being a boy, he just thinks that boys generally get a raw deal when it comes to clothing and hair.







I'm inclined to agree in terms of color and style, but when it comes to value boys have it better. Girl's clothing doesn't seem to be designed to stand up to the play of a very rugged little boy.







:


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

Quote:

Isn't there a difference between cultural or marketing gender stereotypes and actual gender/sexuality?
Yes! Exactly. You are born with your gender imprinted into your DNA. We can't reprogram people to be a certain gender or sexuality; however, we can teach them to supress their true identity by how we treat them and even little things we say. I'm not going to encourage my son to play only with cars. On the other hand, I won't be encouraging him to play with barbies either. If he wants them, I'll buy them. I'm not going to tell him he can't have a toy because it's too boyish and is a "tool used by our oppressionist society to program you into their ideal man." The stereotypes are marketed not because they were created, however, to make boys boyish and girls girly, but because that's what each gender is more apt to like. We've come to associate things with boys or girls because of observing their differences. No one just suddenly one day said "Boys should like cars, and girls like dolls. Let's make it so!" It's not just about gender either, but also about personality types. Your personality has as much to do with your toy preferences as your gender, if not more.

Quote:

Do you really believe that boys have a biological preference for blue and girls for pink?
I sure don't, but at the same time, I don't believe in putting boys in blue or girls in pink because you as the parent think they look cute in them, or to help strangers tell them apart, or whatever reason, is going to make them prefer one over the other. Associating a color with something doesn't mean you're going to make a child favor that color or associate that color with ALL people of one gender. Blue is also associated with calmness. Maybe we associate boys with blue because they're rowdy and need to calm down? Mine sure does









Quote:

"in no way does this translate to a "truth" that everything "boyish" or "girly" at this particular moment in 21st century American pop culture must be truly biologically "boyish" or "girly.""
I totally agree. No boy or girl displays every quality that society overall seems to associate with specific genders. I've said repeatedly that my son's favorite thing is his cars...but he also loves to stomp around in my heels! He's definitely biologically a boy, but he certainly could care a less about being the 'perfect boy.'









I do agree that society does have expectations for boys and girls and that this is dangerous and unfortunate. I'm not going to encourage my son to rebel against 'normal boyness' for the sake of it anymore than I'm going to parade him around town in frilly dresses. I'll expose him to everything I can that is not inappropriate and let him decide who he is. It would be a shame if I never introduced monster trucks because they were too 'boyish,' and it turns out those would be like his favorite thing in the world but we never know, and he never gets to learn that or learns it too late. Know what I mean?

Quote:

" When you can make two versions of everything and make it so boys can't use the girls' version and vice versa, you make more money."
What toys out there for girls CAN'T be used by boys and vice versa? Boys can play with just about everything girls can and vice versa, unless you're thinking of training bras.

The two different versions are made to appeal to two different tastes. Not all little girls are going to want a pink frilly thing, and not all little boys are going to want something all red and blue. Usually, what is created for girls is done so because girls tend to favor that item and vice versa for boys. However, making TWO versions of something means that they double their profits, yes. Not because they care about gender roles but because they care about appealing to two different personality types, and that's not necessarily even to do with gender. Some boys will turn their noses up at certain 'boy toys' and liking the 'girl version' better. I just don't think EVERYTHING is a conspiracy. What could toy companies care about gender roles? They care about MONEY.

Quote:

"you are a perfect example of the fluidity of BEHAVIOR. Your sexual assignment, in neurological terms, might likely fall smack in the middle of the sexual-assignment-spectrum. But your personal preferences, as defined by your personal experiences, allow you the adaptability to adjust your own behavior to fit your desires. Your wiring, inside, however, remains a constant, regardless of behavior."
For one, I think it is presumptious to tell another person about herself. Secondly, personal preference isn't always a matter of experience. We are wired to like chocolate or vanilla and just don't know it until we experience it, for example. I think this is a contradiction. Either you are born with certain preferences and desires, or you're not. Your DNA is constant, but the way your brain functions can indeed change over time...and I think that has as much to do with sexuality as your DNA does. I go back and forth between like men more, women more, and liking them equally, always have. It really just depends on my way of thinking at the time. IF one can change their way of thinking, which is neurological, then obviously the sexual-assignment-spectrum, at least the part of it associated with our neurons, is fluid, too.


----------



## Demeter9 (Nov 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *green betty* 
The OP asked what we do to counteract this cultural conditioning. One of my answers has been to change my language to include gender only when it is relevant to the context. Which it hardly ever is. I find myself saying "Look at that... person! riding the bike!" and stuff like that. If it doesn't matter what age or sex or gender or perceived race, etc that person is, I just say "person". The reason I'm pointing them out is because of the bike--dc, 2, is bananas about bikes--so that's the emphasis in my statement. It felt awkward when I started doing it but has now become comfortable and habitual.

PS My above use of the word "them" is, imho, a necessary evil. Sloppy, but both widely understood and gender neutral and therefore extremely useful.

PPS I had to come back and edit this to change "ds" to "dc", which I've been trying to do for the same reasons. Still a work in progress!

My biggest pet peeve about the english language. There is no single person gender neutral pronoun.


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

Quote:

My biggest pet peeve about the english language. There is no single person gender neutral pronoun
That's a good point. We need one of those. We can't use 'them' because that's for multiple persons, and using 'it' isn't exactly respectful or accurate either. We should create one and start using it


----------



## PrennaMama (Oct 10, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery* 

For one, I think it is presumptious to tell another person about herself. Secondly, personal preference isn't always a matter of experience. We are wired to like chocolate or vanilla and just don't know it until we experience it, for example. I think this is a contradiction. Either you are born with certain preferences and desires, or you're not. Your DNA is constant, but the way your brain functions can indeed change over time...and I think that has as much to do with sexuality as your DNA does. I go back and forth between like men more, women more, and liking them equally, always have. It really just depends on my way of thinking at the time. IF one can change their way of thinking, which is neurological, then obviously the sexual-assignment-spectrum, at least the part of it associated with our neurons, is fluid, too.

moonfirefaery, I never presumed to tell her about herself, what so ever... but rather, expaned on her own comment about herself, that she finds herself to be an example of the way sexuality can change, merely pointing out that, speaking purely of brain architecture, no, sexuality does NOT CHANGE, but that sexual BEHAVIOR can change, which, if I'm not mistaken,. actually supports your own statements.... so we all agree.


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

I think our brain is continually changing, especially considering supposedly simplying breathing in ozone results in our brain cells dying. Regardless of whether architecture changes, the way we use our brains can change, and that can have an effect on not just our behavior but our desires and preferences as well. The way we think does change. The paths the neurons take can change. Moreover, look at sexuality throughout history. It is apparent that it is not completely dependant on the way our brains are constructed. Yes, sexual behavior does change, but I also believe sexuality is fluid as well. What is sexuality but what it is we desire in our physical relationships and partners?


----------



## wemoon (Aug 31, 2002)

I will agree with the comment about the behavior being fluid. Definitely that is true. But I'm still going to go with sexuality being fluid as well. To say that it is all wired in you at birth is to assume that sexuality is just not the whole picture. I do panels on campus about LGBT folk and when we get the question about if we are "born with it" or is it a "choice" there is people on both ends. Some feel they were absolutely born with this sexuality and others who feel it was a choice. It is a little scarey to even put it out there as it is absolutely something in the DNA that you are born with, because that gives science in an "in" to find the "gay gene" and then "help" parents make sure their kid isn't gay. I won't deny that there is some sort of "born with it" _something_ but I don't want to back myself or anyone else into a corner either. I think there has to be an element of choice, and thus fluidity.


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

I'm with *wemoon*.

As for 'choice' vs 'born with it,' I tend to think it is a little of both, depending on the individual person. I think there are many factors, and I think that as those factors change, so does sexuality. While your wiring inside does not change, factors influencing your behavior and desires do. What we find attractive and desirable is based on more than just our DNA and our brain architecture. Sexuality is more than just what gender a person identifies with; it also involves what sort of sexual activity a person pursues, what their sexual interests are, etc. While our genders certainly do not change, not on their own anyway, the other side of our sexuality can and does.

In high school I was equally attracted to men and women. That is not a behavior. If my interest and desires, which are a part of sexuality, can change, then that is in and of itself my sexuality, at least one part of it, changing. I think we are influenced by our brain architecture, the balance of chemicals, society, even our connections with other people. I know a lot of same-sex couples that, before having met, never would have considered a relationship with the same sex. Does that mean their sexual orientation is straight, or that they were lesbians all along without having known? I think it means that their sexuality is fluid, based upon more than brain structure.

You can be attracted to someone for so many reasons, from love to simply liking a certain shade of hair. You can be attracted to someone because they remind you of someone else. While some people are definitely born with a preference for brown haired women, that preference can be changed by experience, society, etc. I think it those sexual preferences are as much a part of sexuality as gender. I do agree there is a 'born with it' -something- in many people. I think I was definitely born bisexual, because I remember enjoying the nude female form as much as the male one long before I even began dating or even knew what a lesbian was. I just don't think it's as simple as all that. I think there is more to it.


----------



## Robert Goodman (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery* 
Do you disagree that boys and girls are different? Do you think they are the same? Am I lying about the little boy raised as a girl, programmed as a girl, whose boy personality prevailed? That story is true; he is a living example that boys and girls are different, that gender identity is programmed from birth.

Boys do act differently in several ways from girls (on average) and the evidence is overwhelming that the cause of many of those differences is sex-based genetics. However, so much of what we think of as "male" and "female" is a matter not of sex, but of gender (i.e. arbitrary division into 2 types) that it's hard to find firm ground for a genetic role in "sex identity" because what people usually mean by that is a kind of gender identity. Sex is biologic, gender is cultural.

My friend Nadine has a good analogy from language. In French the words for "key" and "lock" are feminine and masculine, gender-wise, respectively, even though the key resembles a penis and the keyhole a vagina. That's because it happens that the nouns referring to male & female humans are assigned to those genders, so that the sex becomes associated with a gender, even though the gender concept has nothing to do with sex.

Robert


----------



## Robert Goodman (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery* 
However, the point I'm trying to make is that toy companies probably don't care about gender roles. They make toys for specific genders because that's what those kids are most likely to like and the parents most likely to buy.

Indeed, I wrote earlier in this thread about how the makers of bubble baths fought the gender roles by advertising from about 1960 to about 1970, and succeeded! In that case it really was a gender, not a sex role -- if anything, the biology would tend the opposite way.

Robert


----------



## Robert Goodman (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loraxc* 
When you can make two versions of everything and make it so boys can't use the girls' version and vice versa, you make more money.

That works for some things but not others. It works when it's a durable item that you're induced to buy two of when they could've shared one because of the above. It works when you get more shelf space or placement in different stores because of your two versions. It doesn't work when it's an item that siblings wouldn't've shared (so you'd've sold two to the family anyway), and having to make different versions increases your mfg. cost. And it definitely doesn't work when it's a type of product that one sex is discouraged from using entirely, as in my example of bath foams before the 1960s.

You think builders like having to put in separate men's & ladies' rooms? Unisex bathrooms would save establishments a lot. It sure saved them a bundle when they stopped having to supply separate "colored" & "white" rest facilities!

Robert


----------



## St. Margaret (May 19, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loraxc* 
Everyone I knew told me that I would "give up" my ideas about raising kids without excessive gender-role-pushing once I had kids. "Oh, I thought that too, and then I had my boy and he just loved cars, so I was proved wrong..." "I thought that too, and then I had my girl and she just went crazy for princesses and pink, so I knew there was truth to it..."

To which I say: have you no awareness of the power of marketing, television, and peers? Do you really believe that boys have a biological preference for blue and girls for pink? Where in the hell would that come from, evolutionarily? Yes, children identify themselves by gender and often tend to choose things that are marketed to their genders. This certainly does NOT mean that every "gendered" preference has a real biological basis. There's probably something to the sociobiological idea that men tend to be more aggressive and women tend to be more nurturing--but in no way does this translate to a "truth" that everything "boyish" or "girly" at this particular moment in 21st century American pop culture must be truly biologically "boyish" or "girly." To believe otherwise shows a lack of critical thinking skills.



Yup yup yup!


----------



## Robert Goodman (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PrennaMama* 
Robert, yes, one can change their MIND... but not their BRAIN. Lets' try looking at this in a really rudimentary way. I suspect you may have a man's plumbing. In utero, your plumbing was defined, and developed around the 4th and 5th month, and your brain architecture, and chemical signature was also developing right about then, assigning you your sexuality. Do you thnk at some point you might "change your mind" about having a man's plumbing? And then, thru changing your mind, that said plumbing will just metamorphose on its own into a woman's plumbing?

To put it glibly, yes. I'm sure that once we look hard enough, we will find differences in brains that correlate to preference for chocolate vs. vanilla ice cream, etc., yet we know that people sometimes do change preferences about various things over time. Is the brain changing? Yeah, probably, in those respects.

Quote:

Some amphibians can do this, through the drive to procreate and when there are limited mates, but humans, unfortunately, cannot.
But you assume the differences in brain architecture that have been seen account for the differences in preference. How do you know it's not some more subtle difference in the brain that accounts for those differences?

Quote:

In the same respect, we cannot elect to change our sexuality.
You just slid over from something's changing to someone's electing to change something, which is entirely different. Our preferences are involuntary. They can change involuntarily, but we can't change them deliberately.

Robert


----------



## Robert Goodman (Mar 13, 2006)

For Demeter9, I'll just write that I've been using "s/he" and "hir" for years. Don't work in speech, though.

But on the other subject, the commercial involvement in sex-aligned genders, I'll say the causal chains are complex. I'd like to examine the example I came in with:

Bath foam was invented for a play, _The Women_, in 1936. It was useful then, and later in movies, for having women appear to bathe naked without actually showing them in the entire. We see the interplay of different factors:

social:
People aren't supposed to be shown the naked parts they want to see.
There is money to be made in getting as close to possible to breaking the rules without actually breaking them.

biologic/physical:
Women have body parts men want to see (breasts) that are relatively high on the body and hence hard to hide under water.
Water is transparent.
Foam lies on top of water and is opaque.
(probably biologic) Men are more interested than women in sexy stuff.

Then it spread beyond the stage & screen:

social:
Entertainment turns out (accidentally in some cases) to be advertising for products & practices.
What's seen on stage or screen is taken as glamorous & hence desirable.
Because of factors listed above, it was women who were shown nearly exclusively using the material.
(probably social, but see below) Fancier and broader variety of toiletries are used by women than men.

biologic/physical:
Shape of women's crotch makes it more difficult than men's to wet & clean thoroughly in shower, hence preference for tub baths.
(*countervailing*): Females are more prone than males to urogenital irritation from soap. (Not countervailing in those cases where bubble bath is tolerated better than bar soap.)

So that's what the makers of Matey, Bub, Mr. Bubble, Soaky, etc. were up against ca. 1960 when it seemed half the population was discouraged from such products. One of the ways (albeit a minor one) they fought back was via stereotypes of their own: that boys needed more inducement than girls to bathe, and that boys got dirtier than girls!

Robert


----------



## DavinaT (Jun 28, 2005)

Somebody, I think it was Kristi, mentioned "gay-conversion camps". Please, please tell me you are joking? It sounds like either a tragi-comedy of some sort or something from the 1950's or 1930's or further back in time.
Did people actually sign up for these - presumably due to family to societal pressure?
To me, that sounds like having a 'white-conversion camp', to try to make white-skinned people into some other skin colour
- No offense to anyone's skin colour intended whatsoever.

It's upsetting tho', to think that the presence of a 'gay gene', would give science in an "in" to find it and then "help" parents make sure their kid isn't gay...







:
Science would need to have some pretty twisted agenda to do that, imo and as for parents wanted to "help" their child not to be gay.
Next perhaps we'll want to 'help' children not to have grey eyes or freckles or curly hair.


----------



## minkajane (Jun 5, 2005)

Unfortunately, she's not kidding. There are camps and support groups, both voluntary and involuntary. Teens and young adults who come out to their parents are being forced and pressured into attending this camps to try and "overcome the sin of homosexuality." It is SO wrong.


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

Quote:

Sex is biologic, gender is cultural.
You need to clarify. When you say sex, do you mean sexual intercourse and orientation, or what sex a person is? Because sex and gender are the same in one sense of that word.

Quote:

However, so much of what we think of as "male" and "female" is a matter not of sex, but of gender (i.e. arbitrary division into 2 types) that it's hard to find firm ground for a genetic role in "sex identity" because what people usually mean by that is a kind of gender identity.
I don't think that sexual identity is a kind of gender identity. I am a bisexual woman, but I am most certainly a woman. I know many lesbian women who are gay but are most certainly women. Now in one sense of the word, yes, sex IS gender. However, your sexual identity in as far as your sexual preferences and tastes is not the same as your gender identity. If it was then there wouldn't be any bisexual or homosexual people in this world.

Quote:

I think it was Kristi, mentioned "gay-conversion camps".
Sadly, they exist.









Quote:

To me, that sounds like having a 'white-conversion camp', to try to make white-skinned people into some other skin colour
I disagree. I'm not saying that I support gay conversion camps or even that they work, especially with the way they are set up. I do, however, believe that while skin color is a constant, sexuality is fluid and can change. Moreover, skin color can go from white to tan with a day in the sun. Some things can have a similar effect on sexuality.

I keep bringing up culture over the centuries. When homosexuality is fashionable, homosexuality is common. When it does not, it is hidden and less abundant. A lot of our desires, as a society, are dependant upon what is fashionable in society. In the 80s we thought big hair was totally rad. Now, most people think it's stupid.

While I definitely agree that your sexual preferences do have quite a bit to do with your biology and brain architecture, I maintain that they are influenced by other factors from culture to peer pressure. Everyone is different, but some people are very easily molded by society and are especially susceptible to, well, being controlled. There are people who, when placed in a school with only lesbians, may become a lesbian. First it may be pretend just to fit in, but it may become more than that. There are also people whose sexuality would be totally unaffected by having peers that are mostly lesbians, like my mother-in-law.









While I don't think that reprogramming gender roles will make a gay person straight, I do think that when something is fashionable it can become desirable. When something is common and the norm it can become part of a person's identity because of that. Gender roles and homosexuality are completely unrelated. Just as there are girls who hate dresses and love sports, there are gay men who love Broadway and/or dress in drag...and there are gay men who love to watch WWF and drive sports cars, like my grandpa. Obviously our roles in so far as gender have little to do with our roles in our relationships, especially today. Just look at me and my husband. I definitely wear the pants.







Mwahaha.


----------



## wemoon (Aug 31, 2002)

I'd have to say that sex and gender are not the same. Sex is man, woman, intersex. Gender is male, female... and really nothing else. Sex is the biological parts we have. Gender is the role we play. I could have the parts of a woman, but may lead a very masculine (or male) role... "butch" is the slang word for that. In the same way, a man will have a penis, but may prefer the female gender role. The gender roles are socially created. Sex is biological.


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

While I do partially agree, I don't think that all gender 'roles' are created by society. My son was born with his preferences for rolling things around and beating things, which is associated with males because males are more likely to enjoy those things. I do agree that sex, as in your physical sex, and gender are two different things, and while I do agree that some parts of gender roles are created by society (like, in tiimes of old, when women were to cook and clean while men did the work), others are biological. The two are definitely not the same, but not everything associated with gender is created by society.


----------



## Robert Goodman (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:



Quote:

Sex is biologic, gender is cultural.
You need to clarify. When you say sex, do you mean sexual
intercourse and orientation, or what sex a person is?
The first and the third, depending on the context. Sexual orientation does not define a sex per se.

Quote:

Because sex and gender are the same in one sense of that word.
Not in any sense I'd want to use.

"Gender" means "kind". In many languages, nouns are classified as to 2 or 3 kinds called genders. Because it has been useful to have separate pronouns for male & female persons and inanimate objects ("he", "she", "it"), those commonly are put into different genders, and the genders of all the other nouns are referred to as "masculine", "feminine", and (in those languages having it) "neuter" -- even though the origin of those noun types had nothing to do with sex. The assignment of genders is arbitrary. For all practical purposes today, English has no genders, but does have sex-based pronouns.

Similarly, we have a number of other divisions in society that are arbitrary. One example is the color preferences mentioned in this thread. These divisions similarly become associated with sex, so I consider them to be genders as well, by analogy with those in language. It is important to not confuse gender with sex.

A couple years ago or so I was in a Yahoo group discussion about a case in which a 6 YO girl thought she was a boy or maybe vice versa, I forgot. What it amounted to was that the kid preferred the opposite gender -- in terms of clothing, toys, friends, etc. Yet adults were seriously considering the child's case as one of mis-assigned sex, although there was no biologic reason to think so, and even anticipated a sex change operation when the child matured. I thought the whole thing was ridiculous. You might as well think a Caucasian was assigned to the wrong race because s/he preferred Chinese food!

Robert


----------



## Robert Goodman (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery* 
While I do partially agree, I don't think that all gender 'roles' are created by society. My son was born with his preferences for rolling things around and beating things, which is associated with males because males are more likely to enjoy those things. I do agree that sex, as in your physical sex, and gender are two different things, and while I do agree that some parts of gender roles are created by society (like, in tiimes of old, when women were to cook and clean while men did the work), others are biological. The two are definitely not the same, but not everything associated with gender is created by society.

The easiest way to tell, albeit not completely reliable, is to look across cultures & time to see which elements of gender are sex-based (i.e. biologic).


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

Quote:

Sexual orientation does not define a sex per se
Neither does gender role, although many characteristics associated with different genders are biological. Sex and gender are about more than biology, but about society, brain architecture, and so much more.


----------



## Lis (Dec 26, 2006)

I have been following this thread with much interest.

I am of the opinion that we need a radical rethinking of gender, sexuality and sexual identity for ourselves and about our children.

Many of our assumptions about appropriate gendered choices and sexual practices produce (and are produced by) mainstream ideas about gender, sexual identity and sexuality. The expectations, demands, and constraints produced when heterosexuality is taken as 'normal' within a society (for example) also produce anxieties, feelings of shame, and a perceived lack of choices for individuals who do not fold neatly into socially imposed categories.

While the social world inscribes meanings onto our lives, informs our thinking, provides us with choices for sexual expression and determines how we will make those choices through the regulation and control of our individual and collective selves, we also have the ability to construct meanings - we neither operate within a vacume nor are we victims of society. In other words, we have the ability to manipulate ideas about gender, sexuality and appropriate sexual object choice even while these concepts appear fixed, static, natural, innate and/or chosen.

There are a multitude of sexualities neither named nor defined but are as real as they are performed. These performances, of course, expose and denaturalize notions of masculinity and femininity, heterosexuality and homosexuality and, normal and abnormal.

I have raised my child to "question everything". I suspect this sort of thinking will take my child far.

l.


----------



## PrennaMama (Oct 10, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Robert Goodman* 
You just slid over from something's changing to someone's electing to change something, which is entirely different. Our preferences are involuntary. They can change involuntarily, but we can't change them deliberately.

One's brain can change only when affected by the introduction of neural-toxins, drug-induced or illness. One *can* change one's sexual _behavior_ deliberately, to match perceived needs or pressures, societal or otherwise.

Quote:

To put it glibly, yes. I'm sure that once we look hard enough, we will find differences in brains that correlate to preference for chocolate vs. vanilla ice cream, etc., yet we know that people sometimes do change preferences about various things over time. Is the brain changing? Yeah, probably, in those respects.

But you assume the differences in brain architecture that have been seen account for the differences in preference. How do you know it's not some more subtle difference in the brain that accounts for those differences?

Robert
I _assume_ nothing. Robert, you keep asserting this 'preference' argument, as if sexual/gender assignment is something as menial as one's flavor preferences, as if humans are divided into flavors, and we just happen to like one flavor better than the other. However, the truth as far as neuro-chemistry, and brain construction is that one's brain _architecture_ (and I intentionally use this word for that is how it is referred to in neurology, so as to call up an image of structure, permanent design) is a constant, (albeit organic and therefore subject to aging, senility, disease, and influence from outside catalystic influence; see earlier posts about chemical imbalances, etc).

I have no doubt, to comment on your 'chocolate vs. vanilla' bit, that ALL preferences have the potential of being mapped out in the brain. But the anthropological, biological, neurological FACT is that what accounts for FOOD preference and SEXUAL GENDER come from *two different parts of the brain.* Food preference changes because we are wired to consume a diverse (and therefore, anthropologically speaking, a more nutritious) diet. It is part of our adaptability, intended to keep us from just eating that one thing we like, which enables us to thrive, as a species.

While some may find this a little hard to palate, findings suggest that "true" homosexuality or transgenderment (I say "true" because, as I have asserted already, there is a gulf of difference between the man that has the internal wiring of a woman, and the man who is curious about what it's like to kiss another guy, and then, curiosity satisfied, never again has the desire) is a cellular anomale, a mutation (red hair is also an anomale, as is human albino, and dwarfism). It is a naturally occuring, if rarely occuring, biological event, that happens when sexual assignment takes place in utero. The cells that define (let's call it) _'brain-gender'_ can go a number of different ways. And it happens _after_ the genitalia have already begun to form. USUALLY it's the homogenous "straight" placement, it just follows along in line with the genital-assignment as hormones wash over the developing fetal-brain; sometimes it's the homosexual placement; sometimes there is a 'mixed' distribution, thus bisexual folks ("true" bisexual folks, not to be confused with my friends who like to kiss girls when they're tipsy) and even more rarely there is genital assignment that is diametrically opposed to the cellular assignment that happens in the brain, after the genitalia have already begun to develope. It simply is not even comparable to 'chocolate vs. vanilla' and I resent (just a tad) the assertion that it is. It's a little like comparing your feet and your mouth. Sure, they're both part of your body, but the similarities end there. Why u chose to ignore that this _isn't_ just a random opinion of some chicks on Mothering.com, and continue to debate something that seems pretty clear-cut (tho lengthy in explanation) is a mystery.

Rather than debating about it, maybe we should all be asking questions like "Why is society at large kept ignorant regarding sexuality?" "In what ways does our society benefit from keeping the Every-Man & Woman in the dark about this subject, or any other gender issue?" "What purpose is served by disallowing equality and human-rights to all humans, regardless of nationality, sexuality, or religion?" "How do our actions, or inactions, affect our children and their future global community, when we are subject to being kept in the dark?"


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

One's brain architecture and chemistry cannot change. However, there is amounting research that we can rewire the neorological paths that messages transmit through, change our way of thinking, and alter the way one's brain works. There is a type of therapy (can't remember the name) that is designed to reconnect broken or disconnected 'passages' in the brain. It can help dyslexia and a variety of other problems, because it increases the functionality of the brain and changes the way the brain works. The way our brains function change over time, and the chemical balance of our brains change, too. Just look at the actions of a teenager vs a thirty-five year old man. Behavior isn't only about experience.


----------



## Inci (Apr 22, 2005)

I agree with nearly everything loraxc has said.

Also, I always think of the following quote by Kathy Najimy, which was her reply to someone who accused of her "going overboard" when she objected to her daughter playing with Barbie:

"Every second of the rest of the 90 years of her life, the world is going to bombard her with how perfect being thin is. My objection to it, my little drop in the thousands of drops she is going to be flooded with, is nothing. I have to be heavey-handed because I am not the world; I am just my one little voice to her. So I am going to be biased. I am. 'Cause the world is not going to be fair, If the world were objective and fair, I wouldn't have to work so hard. But I have to be really, really aware and sometimes intense just to have a chance in hell of something seeping in." (Ms. magazine)

I understand and agree with that. I don't think it's enough to try and parent in a "gender neutral" way, as if gender is irrelevant... in order for children not to conform to stereotypical gender roles by default, we need to actively and consciously counteract those gender stereotypes.

I find the see-saw analogy helpful -
If a boy is on one end and a girl is on the other, and currently the boy's side has all the weight (i.e. patriarchy), the only way to balance the see-saw is by putting lots of weight on the girl's side. If you instead try to be "equal, neutral, fair" by putting the weight exactly in the middle...the see-saw won't balance.
Likewise, if we just breezily say, "Let children be/do/like whatever they want, and support their choices regardless!", it sounds nice in theory... but it's not that easy. That's assuming they're being raised in a vaccuum. That's assuming they have true choices from the start, and I would argue that in the white supremacist capitalist patriarchy we live in, many "choices" are fixed choices.

I have heard several people mention, in this thread, that it seems like girls now have a wider range of options than boys; i.e. it's more acceptable for girls to step outside of their traditional gender role, than it is for boys to do so. It's generally socially acceptable for girls to wear pants, play with trucks, play football, like blue, and be tough, but it's NOT equally socially acceptable for boys to wear dresses, play with dollhouses, do ballet, wear pink, be very emotional, etc.
I've heard this frequently, for years, and oftentimes, people present it as evidence that girls/females now have it better than boys/males, and feminism is not only obsolete but harmful - i.e. it's "reverse sexism." I vehemently disagree. All it shows is that masculinity is still valued over femininity, to the point where it's great for boys to be boys and for girls to be boys, but being a girl? So not cool. It's like Madonna's lyrics:

"Girls can wear jeans
cut their hair short
wear shirts and boots
'cause it's okay to be a boy.
But for a boy to look like a girl is degrading,
'cause you think that _being_ a girl is degrading."

This, in part, is why I'm a feminist, and why feminism is still necessary.


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

Finally someone I can agree with! Thank you Inci





































I am doing my best to counteract all of this crap with my son, it is damn hard. Things like saying boys naturally like rolling cars and trains around, that pink is somehow a biological preference, that boys are this way and girls are this way are just so wrong on so many levels. Seriously people, read up, the differences between the male and female are so slight, we are talking single digits on tests. When they say one is more likely to be this way than the other, they are not talking black and white, they are talking minute chances of one being MORE like this than the other, not some blanket statement. I say to people over and over again, give me ONE trait that is inherent in just one and not the other, there simply isn't any. We should embrace people for who they are, not for how much they adhere to some societal expectation of how they should behave based on their gender.


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

Ditto.


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

> Quote:
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Inci*
> ...


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

Inci, I agree with you about the pressure on boys, but with lolala about girls. Men don't get told, when they are older, what to do with their lives, how to parent, and what they are doing wrong as fathers on a regular basis, nor are they called whores if they don't wear a shirt. Girls don't have a wide range of options. We are expected to be independant, strong, and "boyish" yet if we fart in public, we're disgusting. When a woman choses to be feminine she is ridiculed, and then women filling 'traditional gender roles' will tell women stepping out of them that they are wrong. I wouldn't call those options, just double-edged swords.


----------



## Demeter9 (Nov 14, 2006)

I had no idea that wanting to look your best was such a terrible thing. If that is feminity, my boy is going to be awfully feminine.


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Demeter9* 
I had no idea that wanting to look your best was such a terrible thing.

who said this?

And, to the second part of your statement - your 2 mo is interested in looking his best?


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

Look your best? What does that mean? Does it mean I only look decent if I style my hair, wear make up and wear dresses and heeled shoes? What about manicured hands? Long nails? Does my hair need to be long?

Sorry, but most days I do not fit into any kind of norm of femininity, and frankly I don't care. I don't fit into what society deems culturally appropriate for females and I don't plan to ever try. I find beauty in a woman no matter what she wears, how she fixes her face or hair, etc, etc, and find women who do what best serves them even if it doesn't fit societal expectations a heck of a lot more interesting.


----------



## Demeter9 (Nov 14, 2006)

And if that woman happened to like to pay attention to how she looked.....
The expectation that the concepts of feminity and capability are somehow exclusive is highly anti-woman.


----------



## Demeter9 (Nov 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
who said this?

And, to the second part of your statement - your 2 mo is interested in looking his best?

I imagine that the fact that I pay attention to it means that he will have some interest in it. His father showers twice a day, as he works construction. My father who also is in construction pays close attention to his appearance, as does my brother and bil who are also both in construction.

They are so vain and feminine.


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Demeter9* 
And if that woman happened to like to pay attention to how she looked.....
The expectation that the concepts of feminity and capability are somehow exclusive is highly anti-woman.

The point is that a woman who DOESN'T invest in her appearance, is often perceived as unfeminine.


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

> Quote:
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Demeter9*
> ...


----------



## Demeter9 (Nov 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
The point is that a woman who DOESN'T invest in her appearance, is often perceived as unfeminine.

And the one's who do are considered traitors. By other women. I'm tired of the idea that women who don't always wear birkenstocks and own hairdryers are somehow traitors to all women.

I may wear sandal in three feet of snow, but I'll be DAMNED if somone judges my 5 year old for wanting to wear pink. Or me, for the crime of letting my girls do so.

Judging children and parents based on a child's clothing is simply sexism from a different direction.

Truly honouring children would mean letting them be who they are, AND allowing it in all things. My girls are also good a MATH and you can't see that in a pink skirt.


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

Oh, I forgot a couple of others. Shaving legs, underarms, public area, and tweezing eyebrows and other facial hair.


----------



## Demeter9 (Nov 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jwebbal* 
Oh, I forgot a couple of others. Shaving legs, underarms, public area, and tweezing eyebrows and other facial hair.

Not caring about one's appearance isn't masculine or feminine.


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

> Quote:
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Demeter9*
> ...


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Demeter9* 
Not caring about one's appearance isn't masculine or feminine.

Maybe not, but it's much more acceptable in men.


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

Hmm, I don't see a lot of men worrying about stray hairs on their faces, shaving their legs, tweezing their eyebrows, etc, etc. And if they do, they are certainly looked down upon in our society. I know a very attractive man who wears mascara and it looks wonderful on him (he has to die for eyelashes already), however, he is looked at by men and most women to be a freak. He cares, but our society deems him to be TOO concerned about his appearance, and therefore NOT masculine.


----------



## Demeter9 (Nov 14, 2006)

Yes. I know of no men who shave daily.


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

Do you actually thinkt hat the amount of physical upkeep is the same for men and women, that the stringent beauty standards for women are really just about "looking your best?"


----------



## loraxc (Aug 14, 2003)

Quote:

Likewise, if we just breezily say, "Let children be/do/like whatever they want, and support their choices regardless!", it sounds nice in theory... but it's not that easy. That's assuming they're being raised in a vaccuum. That's assuming they have true choices from the start, and I would argue that in the white supremacist capitalist patriarchy we live in, many "choices" are fixed choices.
YES. That.

It sounds so easy, all that bit about just letting them be who they are. It sounds so reasonable. That's the problem.

I really feel that we are in an age where all this is getting worse, not getting better, at least in children's toys and children's socialization. It's like little girls and little boys aren't even supposed to be the same species any more. It's sort of creepy to me. Two friends of mine and I are having a joint birthday party for our kids--two girls and one boys. We are renting a bouncehouse. Guess what we got asked when we called to rent it? "Do you want the boy house or the girl house?" For god's sake.


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

It seems a lot of you are deciding that having boy toys and girl toys and designs for the different genders means programming boys to be one way and girls to be another. The toy companies are just trying to brainwash them into their gender roles, rather than creating toys & designs traditionally liked by each sex more to appeal to both genders more and two different personality types. *Could someone please explain to me why toy companies would really care about doing that?* They would sell just as many toys if boys and girls played with the same toys than if boys and girls play with toys for their respective genders; they would just sell more of the same toy, which because of its design might not appeal to certain genders as much as others anyway simply because of biological factors that do exist no matter how much we try to deny them. They are trying to appeal, not program. They don't sit around going "Oh what toy can we make today to make sure boys grow up big and strong and manly!" They care about what sells.

Moreover, if seeing girls playing with 'girl' toys and watching girls filling different kinds of gender roles is programming girls to act a certain way and vice-versa for boys, then am I programming my son to be a hermaphrodite by allowing him to play with boy toys and girl toys depending on what he feels like doing? Am I confusing him? No, I am no more doing that than allowing a girl who LIKES dressing up to play with a Barbie is programming a girl to be someone she isn't already.

I don't believe our children are exposed to fixed choices. Yes, there are traditional gender roles, and then there are new ones expected now in this mellineum. There are so many gender roles that I don't see how we could ever claim our children are being programmed into them. There's the tomboy, the CEO mom, the housewife, the girly girl, the college co-ed. Most women are a combination of 'roles' and go through many of them in our lifetimes. I turned out to be a housewife who only sometimes cares about her appearance. I have a friend who is a professional CEO mom and is obsessed with her appearance. We played with the same toys as children and grew up in the same society, so why are we so vastly different? Because we were exposed to many roles, without our parents even doing anything special, and were taught to listen to our inner voices to make sense of all the mixed messages. I had a play kitchen when I was growing up, and now I'm a housewife. Was I programmed into this role? No, I was encouraged to go to college. I also played with toy guns with my brother, but I didn't grow up to be a bank robber. I don't think our society is programming children into roles. If any child is programmed into one then far more was done to accomplish that than the subtle messages in the media that are so mixed. I think gender roles hardly even exist anymore, and I don't think we should be upset if someone does end up embodying the traditional female or modern female by choice or if they don't. Even if they do there are several roles for each gender now, and children are more than capable of growing up to decide who they want to become and which roles to fill.


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

Quote:

"Oh what toy can we make today to make sure boys grow up big and strong and manly!" They care about what sells.
getting ready to jump in the tub with my 3 yo, but a quick answer on just this part of your post. Kids don't buy toys, parents do! So parents decide which toy is for which gender. The companies are marketing their toys to US, not to the kids, and we come with all this gender baggage not them. The gender stuff sells because WE in collusion with the toy companies are putting our kids into these little boxes.

I keep saying it but you don't hear it, boys are not biologically ordained to play with trains and trucks, and girls to play with baby dolls and princess stuff. I mean seriously, look at baby clothes for that matter, who the heck cares what babies wear, but damn if you cannot buy clothes for a baby 6 months or older that are gender neutral! Why is this? Because we think boys need blue overalls and girls pink dresses, because we need to show everyone WHICH gender our child is. We are putting these things on them before they are even crawling. First question out of anyone's mouth when someone has a baby is "is it a boy or a girl?".


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

I never said they are biologically ordained, only that the types of activities they enjoy doing are _usually_ different. It is not a universal rule, but it is a generality that does apply to the majority. They say that boys enjoy toys they can push around and do things with, like toy cars and hammers. Lo and behold, of all the toys I have for either gender the toddler boys who come to my house prefer the cars and the baseball bats. I think you are mistaking the word usually for the word always, general for universal, etc. and are this misconstruing what I am saying.

Quote:

Because we think boys need blue overalls and girls pink dresses, because we need to show everyone WHICH gender our child is.
I certainly don't need to do this. Even when my son is dressed all in blue he is mistaken for a girl. I would like for people to know the difference, of course, because I don't want my son's identity to be altered by the statements of others. He is a boy, and he should be recognized as one. I don't think being called a girl all the time is that great of a thing, just as I don't think being encouraged to do 'boy' activities when he likes 'girl' ones is good. Boys are usually, especially in my family, more rambunctuous, and blue tends to be associated with calmness so perhaps we dress boys in blue in an attempt to curb some of their energy.









Quote:

First question out of anyone's mouth when someone has a baby is "is it a boy or a girl?".
What's so horrible about someone wanting to know whether the child will grow up to impregnate a woman or give birth, have a period or call the stain on the carpet woodglue? The truth is boys and girls are different, both biologically and mentally in various ways, and regardless of their 'gender role' in society, their experiences will be very different no matter what toys we have them play with or what colors we dress them in. They each have different concerns and different interests and while some aspects of this varies, others do not.


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery* 
It seems a lot of you are deciding that having boy toys and girl toys and designs for the different genders means programming boys to be one way and girls to be another. The toy companies are just trying to brainwash them into their gender roles, rather than creating toys & designs traditionally liked by each sex more to appeal to both genders more and two different personality types. *Could someone please explain to me why toy companies would really care about doing that?*

I don't think the issue is so much about programing the behaviours of girls and boys, but rather that toy companies create (and heavily market) toys, which perpetuate and reinforce gender stereotypes. It's not about brainwashing, but rather tapping into the social conditioning that already exists. As pp's have stated, unless a child is raised in a vaccum, it is unlikely that his/her personality will develop unaffected by the powerful messages the culture sends about what it 'means' to be a boy or girl.

The differences between 'boy' and 'girl' toys simply reflect the division of public and private spheres that, despite our protests, continue to affect how girls and boys view their possibilities in the world. 'Girl' toys very much underscore the belief that girls are inherently interested in developing and fostering interpersonal relationships. Girl toys send messages that a girl's role in society is to take care of people and things-to nurture and protect, and to create connections. Boy toys, on the other hand, send messages that it's a boy's role to explore the world around him, to have adventures and to be independant. Which sounds more fun?

I don't believe that these 'personality differences' are inherent or biological. I truly believe that they are taught, and reinforced very early on in children.


----------



## eilonwy (Apr 3, 2003)

Does it really make sense that *all* of the differences between boys and girls are based, exclusively, in nurture? I can't buy that, no matter how much I may want to for the sake of equality. Yes, it's true that people often treat boys and girls differently from one another, but when a parent is paying attention to such things, actively seeking to avoid them the child will lead in one direction or another. My son was indeed born with an interest in large, moving objects. I can remember him being utterly transfixed by a ceiling fan at the age of two weeks, watching cars out a window as soon as he could sit up on his own, pointing out trains and airplanes before six months.

This wasn't something that I did to him or something that I encouraged. I made a specific effort to present him with more "feminine" things, he played with baby dolls, his toys were actually more "girly" and gender neutral than not (we were living with my mom, sister, and two nieces when he was born). I often cradled him in arms-- until he screamed bloody murder and demanded to be held upright, and I realized something. Treating my son in the way that boys are most often treated by society wasn't going to cause my son to become more of a stereotypical male; it was because he was masculine that my son behaved in this way and demanded this kind of attention.

My first daughter was different. She wasn't nearly as interested in large moving objects as her brother. She wasn't as interested in interpersonal relations, either; she didn't want to be cuddled or held upright, she wanted to be left alone to move around on her own. A different personality, for sure, and less "feminine" or "masculine" than her brother. Her own wiring at birth lead me to treat her as I did; she screamed bloody murder if I tried to cuddle her and she wasn't sick, tired, or hungry. She was happiest exploring, and all Mike and I could do was offer comfort when she was willing to take it.

I don't believe that children of different sexes are wired to, say, appreciate one color over another necessarily; I believe that's a human thing, and that our brains are wired to prefer certain colors or make certain associations independantly of gender. On the other hand, those associations may well lead us to make certain connections. It's complicated. I guess I'm just saying, I can't buy into the notion that children are born blank slates and that gender is, entirely, a construct. It just doesn't make sense, and it's not what the evidence has suggested.


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think they are trying to appeal to differing personalities, not tape into the social conditioning. Buying a boy toy instead of a gender-neutral toy isn't going to make your son grow up to be anymore or less manly or boyish by someone's terms.

Quote:

that his/her personality will develop unaffected by the powerful messages the culture sends about what it 'means' to be a boy or girl.
Why don't you tell me what those messages are exactly? Tell me about the ideal boy or girl in our society. He or she doesn't exist anymore, because there are so many types of people, so many personalities, so many 'subgroups' of gender. It's not just male or female, and it probably never truly has been.

Quote:

"'Girl' toys very much underscore the belief that girls are inherently interested in developing and fostering interpersonal relationships. Girl toys send messages that a girl's role in society is to take care of people and things-to nurture and protect, and to create connections."
I see. Is THAT what My Little Pony's are about? Is that what batons and jump ropes are made to teach? Interesting. I never knew that ballet shoes and dress-up clothes did that.

Quote:

I can't buy into the notion that children are born blank slates and that gender is, entirely, a construct. It just doesn't make sense, and it's not what the evidence has suggested.
EXACTLY!!!!


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

I think it's very naive to assume that by merely "paying attention" and "actively seeking to avoid" gender stereotypes that you are avoiding them. It's like a fish trying to pretend he can't notice the water. Studies have shown that even parents striving to avoid this treat their sons and daughters differently. I thought many people in this thread did a good job of pointing out all nuances and conditioning that make it impossible to completely raise your kids in some kind of vacuum. For instance, my son was also interested in cars before he could speak. And he was also interested in cooking and cleaning like I do, and very affectionate, and in rocking his dolls to sleep. We're so conditioned ourselves it's so easy to find evidence that conforms, and unconsciously toss out the rest.

Also I don't think anyone is saying that we are born blank slates. I think the mistake is that most people assume that boys and girls are polar opposites, that all boys are alike and all girls are alike. And of course there is a whole lot of pressure and shame if one doesn't quit fit.

Personally I agree with Germaine Greer, who states her belief that there is no way to determine any differences that may exist, b/c we are so conditioned from day one. I find it astonishing irl how many people will just point to "the way things are" as proof that we're utterly different. Lack of critical thinking skills indeed.


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

I don't believe that we are utterly different, but subtly different. "The way things are" is very relavent, especially if we're talking about children's interests, preferences, and behavior long before they even old enough to be influenced by society's ideals. I doubt my 18 month old likes his cars for any reason other than that they are fun for him.


----------



## Demeter9 (Nov 14, 2006)

Evidence is clear. Some people are heavily influenced by their environment. Some are not. Some people seem to have a greater sliding scale of gender possibilities, and others do not.

The assumption that biology has no impact is ridiculous. The assumption that nurture has not impact is also ridiculous.

Gender neutral is not a BETTER choice than any other choice. Anyone who is going out of their way to LIMIT their children's choices to their own identity, whether by enforcing a specific gender or A LACK OF IT is equally abhorent. By pretending that gender is the only important thing, or that no gender is the most important thing you are making a decision for your child that really is not yours to make.


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

I think toys that could be gender neutral (like big blow up jumping jacks that were mentioned) but come in boy and girl versions are unnecessary and abhorrent. No one is talking about forcing their child into some kind of androgeny. They're talking about actively, the best they can, swimming against gender stereotype programming (which are not healthy for either gender), which is exactly what goes on in the media, the classroom, the toystore, in the world. I don't NOT buy by son cars, but I avoid the stereotypical boy crap, like weapons, you bet. I also actively buy him traditionally "girly" toys, both that he's expressed an interest in and that he hasn't. There is nothing abhorrent or denying about that. To act like avoiding gendered toys is equivalent to forcing them to be gender neutral and denying them the opportunity to pick an identity is ridiculous. It completely ignores the HUGE forces in our society that push the stereotypes on kids.


----------



## Demeter9 (Nov 14, 2006)

And pretending gender means nothing is also ridiculous.

I wonder how many of the people in this thread are going to tear their hair out when their children hit their teens and start acting out gender-stereotypes to find themselves....because they've been discouraged from playing out gender roles as little children.


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Hazelnut* 
I think toys that could be gender neutral (like big blow up jumping jacks that were mentioned) but come in boy and girl versions are unnecessary and abhorrent.

Just a quick observation to this point, (b/c I really ought to be making dinner







) and as it relates to toy companies mass-marketing gender-specific toys:

Anyone familiar with Dora the explorer? I find it very curious that in the wake of this chararcter's success, along comes a 'boy' version of Dora -her cousin Deiago. What's the point? Was there concern that boys might identify with Dora? Really, it's the same c$%p, just gender-specific.


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Demeter9* 
And pretending gender means nothing is also ridiculous.

I wonder how many of the people in this thread are going to tear their hair out when their children hit their teens and start acting out gender-stereotypes to find themselves....because they've been discouraged from playing out gender roles as little children.


You're really missing the point. I'm discouraging nothing. If anything, I am opening up a wider world for my son so he CAN find an identity that feels a little truer.


----------



## Demeter9 (Nov 14, 2006)

No, I'm really not.

If you don't see that there is also a definate trend in the alternative streams of parenting to occassionally have loud people who are vehemently agaisnt gender and femininity you are missing what *I* am saying.

Being girly and being boyish is in no way a BAD thing. It only becomes bad when it is a behaviour force through limiting the child's exposure to other possibitlies or through active discouragment from parents.

The SAME applies to people who are actively discouraging ANY gender identity in the assumption that it is a superiour parenting concept.

They are the same thing.

I am challenging people to re-examine their own reasons for denying gender and gender play on behalf of their children. Or their girls self-identifying with "girly" "feminine" (oh-gasp) behaviours. Or self-identify with "boyish" behaviours.

There is still an agenda in denying gender roles on behalf of your child. That it is anti-mainstream doesn't make is somehow a better choice.


----------



## Demeter9 (Nov 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
Just a quick observation to this point, (b/c I really ought to be making dinner







) and as it relates to toy companies mass-marketing gender-specific toys:

Anyone familiar with Dora the explorer? I find it very curious that in the wake of this chararcter's success, along comes a 'boy' version of Dora -her cousin Deiago. What's the point? Was there concern that boys might identify with Dora? Really, it's the same c$%p, just gender-specific.


Diego has been part of the Dora-verse for quite some time. Many boys do identify with Dora and have for a number of years.

Would you be as concerned that the Daniel Cook franchise has spawned the Emily Yeung show? Were too many girls identifying with Daniel, so they need to enforce the girl sterotypes?


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

No one is denying any identifying with gender identity here, but instead they are examining the idea that gender= princesses and race cars. They're questioning the forcing of gender identity. And I don't know where you're getting this idea that people are putting down femininity. No one is doing that here. Rather, they are pointing out out it is _already_ looked down upon and questioning the artificial definition of "feminine" (i.e. pink glitter princess fairy waiting to be saved and wearing make up).
But whatever. This is pointless, and you are not posting very respectfully nor making very good points, so I'm done.


----------



## Demeter9 (Nov 14, 2006)

Yes, there has been people in this thread that have "feminity" bashed. I am addressing that. My points are fine. You may not get my points, perhaps because you didn't see or dismissed the bashing.

There are also some value judgments on parents whose children self-identify with the norm. Like by having boys and girls who *gasp* wear pink or like sports they've been drastically harmed by bad parenting and horrible cultural bias. It is a crock.


----------



## eilonwy (Apr 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Demeter9* 
No, I'm really not.

If you don't see that there is also a definate trend in the alternative streams of parenting to occassionally have loud people who are vehemently agaisnt gender and femininity you are missing what *I* am saying.

Being girly and being boyish is in no way a BAD thing. It only becomes bad when it is a behaviour force through limiting the child's exposure to other possibitlies or through active discouragment from parents.

The SAME applies to people who are actively discouraging ANY gender identity in the assumption that it is a superiour parenting concept.

They are the same thing.

I am challenging people to re-examine their own reasons for denying gender and gender play on behalf of their children. Or their girls self-identifying with "girly" "feminine" (oh-gasp) behaviours. Or self-identify with "boyish" behaviours.

There is still an agenda in denying gender roles on behalf of your child. That it is anti-mainstream doesn't make is somehow a better choice.


I agree with you, but I don't know that everyone here is working to deny gender identity (though it is my personal opinion that some are). There's a difference between denying any gender-specific play and being open to your child determining their own level of gender-specificity. I do have an agenda for my children with regard to gender-- I want them to know that whatever they choose is fine, as long as they are comfortable. I think I'm doing an okay job thus far, but of course there's no way to know that for sure until they're grown.


----------



## Demeter9 (Nov 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eilonwy* 
I agree with you, but I don't know that everyone here is working to deny gender identity (though it is my personal opinion that some are). There's a difference between denying any gender-specific play and being open to your child determining their own level of gender-specificity. I do have an agenda for my children with regard to gender-- I want them to know that whatever they choose is fine, as long as they are comfortable. I think I'm doing an okay job thus far, but of course there's no way to know that for sure until they're grown.









That is exactly what I mean!


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:



Quote:


Originally Posted by *Demeter9* 
Yes, there has been people in this thread that have "feminity" bashed. I am addressing that. My points are fine. You may not get my points, perhaps because you didn't see or dismissed the bashing.

I am going to assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that you are referring to my posts? I don't believe that by being critical of femininity that I was necessarily 'bashing' it. Hell, I'm a woman, I've been know to indulge in my feminine wiles at times, but that's not really what's at issue.

My concerns with the construct of femininity, and I am concerned because I am the parent of a 7 yr old girl, stems from its intense preoccupation with the 'body', and how this manifests itself in girls' lives. Masculinity doesn't demand such self-scrutiny and self-doubt.

Quote:

There are also some value judgments on parents whose children self-identify with the norm. Like by having boys and girls who *gasp* wear pink or like sports they've been drastically harmed by bad parenting and horrible cultural bias. It is a crock.

I am having a hard time finding evidence to support your assertion that people on this thread are making value judgements about anyone?????? This is a (mostly) theoretical discussion.

And, fwiw, I don't think it's even possible to deny someone a gender identity (or gender-play, whatever)


----------



## Demeter9 (Nov 14, 2006)

feminity is a pretense.
girls wearing flowers and pink! Playing with princesses! Parents even buying them! Not throwing them out when given! Boys playing with cars! Wearing a jacket with a sports ball on it!

Mostly because the parents themselves can't stand guns, or frills. Not because the child themselves doesn't.








I can't see how you missed them.


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Demeter9* 
feminity is a pretense.
girls wearing flowers and pink! Playing with princesses! Parents even buying them! Not throwing them out when given! Boys playing with cars! Wearing a jacket with a sports ball on it!

See, I don't believe that these things, in and off themselves, are harmful. That would make them very powerful toys indeed.

I do believe that femininity can certainly be contrived though. So, in a way it can be a pretense.


----------



## Demeter9 (Nov 14, 2006)

Any role or trait can be over-expressed to the detriment of the person themselves.


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

Quote:

Was there concern that boys might identify with Dora?
Perhaps it was concern that not all boys would identify with Dora and that not all girls would identify with her either?

Quote:

they are examining the idea that gender= princesses and race cars.
Whether you want to believe it or not, those are the toys that boys and girls traditionally and in general have liked. There are boys who like princesses and girls who like race cars, but those 'traditions' were born not because we invented them but because we noticed them.

Quote:

Rather, they are pointing out out it is already looked down upon and questioning the artificial definition of "feminine" (i.e. pink glitter princess fairy waiting to be saved and wearing make up).
Not everyone considers that to be the definition of feminine. Everyone has their own idea about femininity, so I'm not concerned with exposing my children to different ones. I stand by my question, with SOOO many gender roles to chose from within a gender, how can we be saying that we're programming genders into our children? Clearly there are enough paths that are children are exposed to that they can chose for htemselves even without us denying them the pink weebles simply because they are pink. Why is THAT the definition of feminine? Moreover, why is it artificial? Women have been painting their faces since before Rome. Granted we're using different make-up now, but the concept is the same.

Quote:

Any role or trait can be over-expressed to the detriment of the person themselves.
Is that what I'm doing by letting my son have as many matchbox cars as he desires?








:


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

_Whether you want to believe it or not, those are the toys that boys and girls traditionally and in general have liked. There are boys who like princesses and girls who like race cars, but those 'traditions' were born not because we invented them but because we noticed them._

Whether you want to believe it or not (that is just so patronizing) the indoctrination that begins from day one is a lot more complicated than merely mirroring natural interest. I think i can see why so many people have dropped out of this.


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

Indoctrination? From day one?







You mean when my son first came home from the hospital he was already affected by these evil gender roles society and the media encourage? That seems highly unlikely. All my son wanted from day one was my breast. Was that indoctrinated?

Do you have any evidence that babies are influenced by society so much that the first toys they show interest in are not a result of their natural interest? Have I indotrinated my child because I bought him a play kitchen and a bunch of cars, and he happens to like the cars more but still plays with the kitchen pretty often, too?

I still am curious as to what the ideal man and woman are. Tell me about these specific gender roles we are perpetuating, so that I can understand, too, what is normal and what is abnormal for boys and girls in how to act and who to become.

Where is the proof that the 'traditional' toys for the specific genders were created to 'put kids in their places' rather than because we observed throughout the centuries that those were the toys children of different genders tended to favor?


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

> Quote:
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> ...


----------



## Inci (Apr 22, 2005)

A great article that explains how and why gender is a social construct is "Becoming Gendered: The Socialization of Girls and Boys," by Unger and Crawford, in their textbook "Women and Gender: A Feminist Psychology."
Unfortunately, I can't find a copy of the article online, and I can't type up much of it and post it here, due to copyright laws, of course. Throwing it out there as a resource, anyway.

Also, check out the movie "Orlando" - it's a story of person (played by Tilda Swinton) who lives in many different time periods, sometimes male and sometimes female. It shows how arbitrary gender really is. For example, at one point in history, the fashion for men was long, curly hair, ruffley shirts, and tights!

This discussion is difficult, as it seems that our disagreements go deeper than children's toys and clothes and behavior... so maybe we can back up a bit.

Moonfirefaery, do you believe that patriarchy exists, i.e. that males _as a group_ currently dominate females _as a group_? Do you believe in institutionalized sexism? Do you believe that sexism is currently a problem in American society?

OOPS, gotta run - I'll write more later!


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

I'm saying that cars are usually associated with boys and dolls with girls because that is traditionally what, in general, overall, most boys or girls have enjoyed. There are boys who enjoy dolls and girls who enjoy cars, but if you read any child development book, you find that the types of activities usually enjoyed by the two genders are different. Usually doesn't mean always, and I certainly don't adhere to any stereotype. Some things, not all things, are based on biology, and some things have to do with nurture. And it doesn't have to be just one or the other either. It can be a combination of both.

Quote:

i think you know the answer to that one.
I do know the answer, and the answer is the reason I disagree.

Quote:

Moonfirefaery, do you believe that patriarchy exists, i.e. that males as a group currently dominate females as a group? Do you believe in institutionalized sexism? Do you believe that sexism is currently a problem in American society?
Yes, I do. Why haven't we had a female president yet? Why are females paid less? I see a problem with that, but I don't think it is to do with what toys are children play with or with having gender roles "forced" on people. Equality isn't about androgynmy. It's about respecting each other and treating each other the same regardless of our differences, not becoming one and the same. I have bigger problems with other issues, though, like our political and medical systems, like the lack of back-up families have these days, etc. I don't believe men dominate women as much as before; we certainly have more choices and more respect. They are still ahead of the lead though, certainly. I disagree that there is a specific standard for women. The problem isn't women being expected to adhere to a certain role but with people not accepting the choice of role each woman makes, for example the SAHM vs WOHM battle is what concerns me not which of the two roles mom sare expected to fulfill because I don't really think we're expected to fulfill either specifically. I don't think sexism is necessarily about keeping us in certain roles as it is about keeping us beneath men.


----------



## loraxc (Aug 14, 2003)

Sociaty looks at the gender roles currently being expressed as the mainstream in that society and deems *those particular* roles as biologically determined fact, no argument allowed. For the "evidence," those who are questioned point to the way the society currently is and to the people who conveniently express the roles being pushed on them. How can the numbers lie, right?

However, as these roles eventually get questioned and thrown out, they conveniently stop being such concrete biological fact. Interesting. 100 years ago it was accepted fact that women had no interest in sports or athletics, "naturally."

Don't forget that it was once believed to be biological "fact" that higher education would turn women sterile, and that women's smaller heads proved that they did not have the intellectual capacity to vote.

I'm not actually saying that there are no biological differences between men and women. There probably are, although as others mentioned, is awfully hard to determine what they are.


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery* 
Indoctrination? From day one?







You mean when my son first came home from the hospital he was already affected by these evil gender roles society and the media encourage? That seems highly unlikely. All my son wanted from day one was my breast. Was that indoctrinated?


See posts throughout this thread where observant people note how even very young babies are dressed in certain colors, bought certain things, and spoken to and treated in different ways based on their genders.

And yes amen, to the above. My BIL for example is SO convinced that the way things are are completely normal, natural, unforced. Girls aren't aggressive or competitive, boys can't control their sexual impulses. He's stuck in the 50s, but he sees stereotypes as facts. What bothers me the most is that he's an educated man and he can't even take a step back, look at history, and see how so many of these "facts" have changed according to social beliefs even in his lifetime.


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loraxc* 
I'm not actually saying that there are no biological differences between men and women. There probably are, although as others mentioned, is awfully hard to determine what they are.

right, I don't think anyone was trying to make the claim that there are NO biological differences between men and women, just that the culture has a tendancy to highlight those differences and use them to make 'truth' claims about the 'nature' of women and men.


----------



## Demeter9 (Nov 14, 2006)

There are differences. And that's fine. Wearing pink and doing judo don't have anything to do with having a uterus.

However, having a biological imperative to procreate does create differences in behaviour. In EVERY species and all human cultures.

That men and women have ALWAYS found ways to identify themselves in some way as NOT the other gender, should make it clear in some way most of humanity throughout time have found it important to their view of themselves as what they are and are not. Female or male.

This isn't going to go away. It can only be modified. Regardless of what makes the difference, the fact that there is a difference is too important to people's views of themselves for it too be so cavalierly dismissed.


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Demeter9* 

However, having a biological imperative to procreate does create differences in behaviour. In EVERY species and all human cultures.

you're not saying that all women have a biological imperative to procreate- are you?


----------



## forthebest (Jun 19, 2006)

I havent read all the posts but in my opinion gender is just another tool to oppress us with. My son has grown up with 2 older sisters and no father, he has played with dolls and cars and other stuff of course, he's into football,one of my girls went through a doll phase, I didn't make an issue of it, she has a vast collection of cuddly toys which at present are keeping out the draughts in our old house!She loves drawing and music, my son seems more self-concience about gender roles, it bugs me but I'm not going to make an issue of it just explain that he doesn't have to live up to this big man idea. I was into cars and stuff more than dolls as a child, probably a retaliation to the conditioning forced on me, was called a tomboy, do tend to wear non-gender specific clothes and , have lived alife where I have to attempt fixing motors, chopping wood, diy etc I find it so predictable that many people have a pre-concieved notion of what male and female 'should' be like. Its all crap imo and serves to limit our possibilities. It makes me squirm when a man says to me 'thats a mans job' when I've just plastered a wall or something like I'm meant to wait for a man to come and do it or what?The notion that feminine means looking like Jordan(model with 'enhanced' breasts)When I was a kid you never heard any thing about people being gay, my eldest was coming back from school coming out with not exactly positive stuff about being gay. Of course I have instilled in my dc that there is nothing wrong with being gay or bi, I think kids now are able to ask about about a lot more than I was as a kid.I do know there are plenty of people who reinforce gender-stereo-typing in their kids and the media isn't very helpful in liberating peoples minds. At my age 39 I just can't be bothered with all the brain-washing pushed at us to get us to conform to flawed concepts, can't even be bothered putting them in their place anymore, I knitted lots of multi-coloured jumpers for my babies and had some great wee black bootees, lots of miffed people, dirty looks etc but babies really can suit some black, they also wore lovely dresses and spotty romper suits etc. I've had a shaved head for long periods of time and that really seems to wind people up, maybe more 'tolerated' these days, been 'mistaken' for a guy many times, don't care I like to embrace my male and female self, I dont think we are as different as is made out. I know thats all quite surface stuff but deep down imo many people are scared to express themselves cos of gender rules.


----------



## loraxc (Aug 14, 2003)

Quote:

That men and women have ALWAYS found ways to identify themselves in some way as NOT the other gender, should make it clear in some way most of humanity throughout time have found it important to their view of themselves as what they are and are not.
I don't argue that men and women have historically chosen to make distinctive choices about dress and appearance that distinguish one from the other, perhaps for mating purposes. Of course, I do dispute that current trends and preferences in American society at this moment in time somehow represent some kind of biological "truth" as to the nature of this phenomenon. It has certainly not been shown across time and cultures that men are plain and women adorn. I could show you a thousand pictures of men in elaborate masks, makeup, tattoos, earrings, and clothings to prove otherwise.

I don't really see what any of this has to do with the conversation, though, honestly. Acknowledging the fact of ritual gender-based dress and appearance modification is neither here nor there in this dicussion, IMO.


----------



## WinterBaby (Oct 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Demeter9* 
And pretending gender means nothing is also ridiculous.

I wonder how many of the people in this thread are going to tear their hair out when their children hit their teens and start acting out gender-stereotypes to find themselves....because they've been discouraged from playing out gender roles as little children.

Oh let's be honest - this occurs more to find someone *else* rather than themselves (and they may well neglect parts of themselves in the process,) and has little to do with whether or not they've played out gender roles as children and a lot more to do with their newfound sexual awareness and interest, LOL. And you're darn right I'm going to tear my hair when my daughter hits her teens, but it's going to be over these serious growing up issues, not whether or not she's trying out make-up and frills in an effort to be more attractive.


----------



## Demeter9 (Nov 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
you're not saying that all women have a biological imperative to procreate- are you?

Do you consist of cellular matter? Do you have DNA?


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Demeter9* 
Do you consist of cellular matter? Do you have DNA?

you didn't answer my question, and I'm still confused.


----------



## Demeter9 (Nov 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
you didn't answer my question, and I'm still confused.

Everything that is alive has an imperative to procreate. Biology isn't necessarily destiny. But it certainly is a force to contend with, one that is programmed into you so deeply that often even your strategies to avoid procreation still promote it. Male or female.

Floral dresses aren't programmed by DNA, but effective strategies for promotion of your genome are. Strong gender association is an effective and powerful signal of such a strategy.


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

Quote:

Sociaty looks at the gender roles currently being expressed as the mainstream in that society and deems *those particular* roles as biologically determined fact, no argument allowed.
Which ones specifically?

Quote:

See posts throughout this thread where observant people note how even very young babies are dressed in certain colors, bought certain things, and spoken to and treated in different ways based on their genders.
I really doubt the color that my son wears or how he is spoken to has any effect on which toys he selected out of the toybin the first time he crawled over to it.

And don't think you're observant because you notice something as obvious as that boys are dressed in blue and girls in pink.

Quote:

gender is just another tool to oppress us
Being different doesn't have to mean unequal. My husband and I are of two different genders, but I'm not oppressed by being the wife, the one with the vagina instead of the penis. So let me get this straight, I should teach my daughter not to be 'girly' even if that's who she wants to be just so she won't be treated unfairly? I think I'd much rather teach her to demand equal treatment but still be her own unique person, whether it conforms ot their idea of femininity or not.


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Demeter9* 
Everything that is alive has an imperative to procreate. Biology isn't necessarily destiny. But it certainly is a force to contend with, one that is programmed into you so deeply that often even your strategies to avoid procreation still promote it. Male or female.

well...I know several women who are not inclined in the least to procreate. Though, they aren't likely to admit it freely, given that motherhood is still considered a woman's 'true purpose', and well...there must be something wrong with them if they don't want children. And, I think if you were to ask men if they have a primoridal urge to become fathers you might get a few blank stares.

I think what's programmed deeply is the desire, urge, need, imperative (whatever) to have sex. So, yeah, strategies to avoid procreation do fail, but that has nothing to do with a biological imperative to bear children.


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

Quote:

What's so horrible about someone wanting to know whether the child will grow up to impregnate a woman or give birth
oh boy, WHOLE lot of assumptions in that don't you think?


----------



## eilonwy (Apr 3, 2003)

Quote:

My concerns with the construct of femininity, and I am concerned because I am the parent of a 7 yr old girl, stems from its intense preoccupation with the 'body', and how this manifests itself in girls' lives. Masculinity doesn't demand such self-scrutiny and self-doubt.








It doesn't? You are the parent of a seven year old girl, but do you have any boys? Have you done any research about boys? Masculinity most assuredly lends itself to plenty of self-scrutiny and self-doubt. It's insulting to insinuate otherwise.


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eilonwy* 







It doesn't? You are the parent of a seven year old girl, but do you have any boys? Have you done any research about boys? Masculinity most assuredly lends itself to plenty of self-scrutiny and self-doubt. It's insulting to insinuate otherwise.

eilonwy: I was wondering when someone might jump on that









I do have a son, he is only 15 mos. And, admittedly, my research has focused almost exclusively on 'girl culture' and femininity.

I realize that there is indeed, increasing pressure on boys to conform to an ideal 'masculine body'. I make no pretense to generalizations about boys as immune to body concerns.

I don't have time to really comment in detail right now, as I am off to bed (midnight here, yawn), however, I will address it more thoughtfully tommorrow.


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

Quote:

oh boy, WHOLE lot of assumptions in that don't you think?
No, not really. It's not an assumption, but a generalization, a hypothetical question. You can't ever know from looking at a baby what they will grow up to be, but you can tell based on their gender what role they will play in a hypothetical procreation. While not all people, regardless of gender, chose to procreate, men and women still play a different role in procreation. Whether or not a person is designed to give birth and breastfed or do the impregnating is an important, biological difference, and our actions as women and men do have a lot to do with that difference. Men do not give birth; women do not impregnate people. That may not mean anything to you but it does mean something to others, and judging them for that is pretty rude.


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

Rude? It is an assumption, on so many levels. May I suggest you do some real reading on this topic. There are those who do not fit so neatly into your categories of "impregnanting" and "giving birth". There are the intersexed, gays and lesbians, MtF's, FtM's, and so on and so on. I have tried so hard to just stop reading, but the misinformation is just so provactive, who can leave it alone? I am going to try again......


----------



## Robert Goodman (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PrennaMama* 
Robert, you keep asserting this 'preference' argument, as if sexual/gender assignment is something as menial as one's flavor preferences, as if humans are divided into flavors, and we just happen to like one flavor better than the other. However, the truth as far as neuro-chemistry, and brain construction is that one's brain _architecture_ (and I intentionally use this word for that is how it is referred to in neurology, so as to call up an image of structure, permanent design) is a constant, (albeit organic and therefore subject to aging, senility, disease, and influence from outside catalystic influence; see earlier posts about chemical imbalances, etc).

I see this a lot -- individuals claiming that this type of behavior or preference is neurophysiologic and therefore somehow exalted, while that type of behavior is merely psychologic -- a matter of the programming rather than the architecture of the computer. One common area in which it tends to come up is in the assertion of "addictions". But that's another story.

Quote:

I have no doubt, to comment on your 'chocolate vs. vanilla' bit, that ALL preferences have the potential of being mapped out in the brain. But the anthropological, biological, neurological FACT is that what accounts for FOOD preference and SEXUAL GENDER come from *two different parts of the brain.*
I would suggest that this distinction is far from proven. Do you have examples of patients who had strokes or other injuries in the "sexual preference" area of the brain and either changed or became ambiguous as to their sexual preferences?

Quote:

It simply is not even comparable to 'chocolate vs. vanilla' and I resent (just a tad) the assertion that it is.
Yeah, I noticed it gets that way. Why the resentment? It's not like I'm a Holocaust denier, saying in effect that vast numbers of Jews & other observers are liars. We have a disagreement about facts that affect the population as a whole, but I don't see why this type of disagreement has to lead to resentment. Why can't it be like disagreement as to the origin of species or the cause of Legionnaire's disease, or something like that where people could hold strong and differing opinions?

Robert


----------



## Robert Goodman (Mar 13, 2006)

INCI's mention of reverse sexism made me shudder a bit as I recalled my experience at P.S. 108, where I went to grade school here in the Bronx. It was the early 1960s, and the teachers (all female) were ahead of the curve on women's lib. While otherwise girls & boys were allowed to choose their activities in the schoolyard for P.E., at least twice a year the teachers made all the boys play traditional girls' games & vice versa. They also made all the boys, but not the girls, sew aprons; I don't remember what they made the girls do in the meantime, while we boys were herded into another room to sew. Sometimes in plays they made boys take girls' parts & vice versa, even when we had enough boys & girls to fill the parts.

Robert


----------



## Robert Goodman (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery* 
It seems a lot of you are deciding that having boy toys and girl toys and designs for the different genders means programming boys to be one way and girls to be another. The toy companies are just trying to brainwash them into their gender roles, rather than creating toys & designs traditionally liked by each sex more to appeal to both genders more and two different personality types. *Could someone please explain to me why toy companies would really care about doing that?* They would sell just as many toys if boys and girls played with the same toys than if boys and girls play with toys for their respective genders; they would just sell more of the same toy,

I thought I already explained that. There are some cases in which the makers benefit by differentiation, other cases in which they lose, and others in which they come out even. If you have a household with a boy and a girl and a toy that's in use 2% of the time, then the boy & girl could easily share it. If, however, the boy won't use the girl's version & vice versa, then you get to sell another unit. OTOH, you increase your mfg. cost, and if it's an item that's in use so much that they wouldn't've been sharing anyway, you don't get any more sales. OTOOH, if you're trying to sell their parents man's deodorant and woman's deodorant, and they're really the same thing with a different label, and the increase in mfg. cost is trivial, but the household uses up deodorant at the same rate, it's a wash.

Which reminds me...Jwebal says:

Quote:

getting ready to jump in the tub with my 3 yo,
Now see, if I had my bubble mixture out as a consumer product, I'd be thinking, if parents share baths with their children, that means less opp'ty to sell bath foam. If they could be convinced to bathe separately and drain the tub and refill it with an "age-appropriate" bubble bath for each, that means I get to sell more foaming base! Even more if I can convince them to separate the boys from the girls and to refill the tub yet again! (Convince them re-using bath water is
yucky too.)

Robert


----------



## Lis (Dec 26, 2006)

What I find interesting is that while we are quick to be critical of how society places value judgments on our children in terms of how they should behave, learn, play and develop, we fail to be critical of ourselves and how we place value judgments on our children. We watch them play, take interest in and/or focus on specific things and we assume (most times) it is because of their gender, some innate biological determinate factor, and/or a genetic predisposition, etc etc. It is precisely because we take notice in these things; encourage or devalue certain types of play (even on a superfical level), we too as parents, intentional or not, have ALOT to do with imposing gender roles on our children as we are not free from societal expectations or assumptions of what gender means and what is socially acceptable for our children to like, take interest in or enjoy, even at a young age.

Perhaps a more apt question to ask ourselves would be not why "little willy" or "little sara" likes cars, the colour pink, trucks, women's shoes and/or spinny things for example, but in which ways do we, as parents, impose our ideas of what these things mean to our children, to us and to others

l.


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

Quote:

Rude? It is an assumption, on so many levels. May I suggest you do some real reading on this topic. There are those who do not fit so neatly into your categories of "impregnanting" and "giving birth". There are the intersexed, gays and lesbians, MtF's, FtM's, and so on and so on. I have tried so hard to just stop reading, but the misinformation is just so provactive, who can leave it alone? I am going to try again......
No, it is not. I explained already that it was a generalization and a hypothetical. Even in gay couples, men do not give birth, and women do not do the impregnating. I am fully aware of the various family situations of gays and lesbians, being that I am a bisexual woman whose friendship circle consists largely of homosexuals. There are couples that adopt, who use a surrogate mother and donor eggs/sperms, etc. However, men never give birth, and women never impregnate. If you have evidence of man giving birth or a woman impregnating someone, and I mean by sexual intercourse not invitro fertilization, I sure would love to see it. If children grow up to procreate, men will not be doing the birthing, and women will not be doing the impregnating regardless of their sexual orientation. Moreover, most likely, the men will not be doing any breastfeeding, unless they manage to lactate like Laura Shanley's husband. Men will be fathers, in most circumstances, and women will be mothers in most circumstances in a family situation, even if they are not heterosexual, unless they are transexual (though the average person does not grow up to have a sex change operation.)

Quote:

If, however, the boy won't use the girl's version & vice versa, then you get to sell another unit.
But whether or not the boy and girl will play with the toy isn't up to the toy company. They are expanding their profits, not seeking to program. There are tomboy girls that won't play with girl versions of toys, too. I just don't agree that it's entirely about gender roles, but personality types. Biology doesn't 100% influence a child's preferences, nor does society.

Quote:

If they could be convinced to bathe separately and drain the tub and refill it with an "age-appropriate" bubble bath for each, that means I get to sell more foaming base!
LoL! I wonder what the differences between the different bubble baths for certain ages would be, lol.

Quote:

Perhaps a more apt question to ask ourselves would be not why "little willy" like cars, the colour pink, trucks, women's shoes and/or spinny things but in which ways do we, as parents, impose our ideas of what these things mean to our children, to us and to others
While I think some parents do this, I don't think everyone does. I don't feel I'm imposing my ideas of these things to my son. I encourage him to play with all of his toys, 'masculine' or 'feminine.' I have an issue with trying to place your child into a neat little stereotype, but I also have an issue with trying to prevent your child from becoming who they might truly be by not allowing them to play with Barbies. What if I never let my daughter have one, and she is the kind of girl that'd really enjoy one? But we never know? That would be a shame. I'm not for pushing children towards one kind of toy or another but exposing them to all and letting them decide. If you want to limit the impressions of gender roles that come from society and the media, there are more effective ways than telling junior he can't have a blue bicycle because it's stereotypical. I definitely think this is the better question. We need to realize that our society does have an impact on children's choices, but their preferences are mostly to do with their individual biology, some of which has to do with their gender and the rest with their personality. You can't make a child like playing in her play kitchen, but your words can make her chose it over other toys in order to please mom and dad. Watching your words and what words your children hear are a lot more important than disallowing certain toys because they are feminine or masculine.


----------



## Demeter9 (Nov 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jwebbal* 
Rude? It is an assumption, on so many levels. May I suggest you do some real reading on this topic. There are those who do not fit so neatly into your categories of "impregnanting" and "giving birth". There are the intersexed, gays and lesbians, MtF's, FtM's, and so on and so on. I have tried so hard to just stop reading, but the misinformation is just so provactive, who can leave it alone? I am going to try again......

And yet, even the intersexed often pursue some form of procreation. Even those who do not pursue biological procreation often throw themselves into some sort of propagation of memes through intense activism or through adoption/surrogacy/step-parenting. Which involves some adoption or adaptation to a genderizing concept.

Fighting your children's natural instincts to find how they fit into their own concepts of themselves and society is NOT progressive. It is isolating.

Expanding their world and teaching them to question is far more important, and far more useful to them in the long run.


----------



## Lis (Dec 26, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
While I think some parents do this, I don't think everyone does. I don't feel I'm imposing my ideas of these things to my son. I encourage him to play with all of his toys, 'masculine' or 'feminine.'

But what are masculine and feminine toys? Do you suppose that our children know what these concepts mean at a young age or do you suppose that that most people impose those ideas onto toys and that children learn from us and from others what gender(s) are imbedded within a play kitchen, Barbie or blue tricycle, for instance? If the latter, then we can also say that toy companies do nothing more than add a certain colour dye lot as most people don't like to shake their preconcieved ideas of what masculine and feminine toys are or should look like, otherwise we would not buy them. The suggestion that most people don't somehow impose notions of gender onto toys, clothes, types of play etc is rather ignorant and the further suggestion that most people don't transmit these ideas onto children (intentional or not) and the toys choosen for them, is preposterous

l.


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

I completely agree. When I say masculine or feminine I am referring to what we usually consider boy or girl toys, but you're right: children don't know the difference. You can refrain from teaching your child a difference in more ways than just refusing to buy them pink or blue toys or not letting them play with toys traditionally associated with boys are girls, which is what I have a problem with. Toys should just be toys, not boy or girl. Instead of complaining about toys being two different colors, which can appeal to two different genders or personality types, why not simply NOT associate the specific colors with genders? That is exactly what I am suggesting, that it isn't the toy companies, that the toys aren't created to promote gender roles, and that you don't have to buy only "gender-neutral" toys to raise your child without forcing him into a specific gender role. You just have to watch what you say and what your child hears. I'm not going to buy my kid a bunch of blue toys or a bunch of pink toys in hopes of swaying him to prefer a dfferent color or associate it with his gender, and at the same time I'm not going to deny him a supposedly gender-specific toy for the hopes of steering him away from it. Society's views aren't the final say in what roles we fulfill as adults anyway, and if it were, there'd be very few people going against the 'norm...' but as it is, there's hardly a norm today, which is one reason why I'm not too concerned in general with gender roles. There's enough conflicting information out there that I think it all balances out when you look at the bigger picture.


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:

Men will be fathers, in most circumstances, and women will be mothers in most circumstances in a family situation, even if they are not heterosexual...
See, this raises a few questions for me. Once the biological functions of 'impregnating' and 'birthing' and breastfeeding are done, aren't the meanings we ascribe to motherhood and fatherhood essentially social ones?

Quote:

Perhaps a more apt question to ask ourselves would be not why "little willy" or "little sara" likes cars, the colour pink, trucks, women's shoes and/or spinny things for example, but in which ways do we, as parents, impose our ideas of what these things mean to our children, to us and to others

I agree. I believe that to be part of my responsibility as a parent. Not to discourage my children from playing with particular toys, or from engaging in certain 'play', because this will of course, send the message that I think those things are 'wrong'. I have had many, many more years of social conditioning than my kids have had, and I have been influenced by many factors, so, I try to remain conscious of the subtle (or not so subtle) ways in which I teach my children to 'do' their gender.


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

Quote:

Once the biological functions of 'impregnating' and 'birthing' and breastfeeding are done, aren't the meanings we ascribe to motherhood and fatherhood essentially social ones?
I think some are, and some aren't. It really depends, I think. Children are going to go to mommy about their periods, and boys will go to daddy about their penises--usually, I mean. A lot of parenting is related to gender, and a lot of people feel more comfortable talking about those issues with a parent of the same sex. I'm not going to say that mothers are more nurturing or fathers are more fun, because that's not always so. But gender doesn't just become irrelevent after birthing and nursing. I suppose the advice area is partially social, but I think part of it is biological, too. Birth was a woman's arena for a long time, so was menstruation and other female topics. Same for men and their stuff. And who knows, that could be social, but feeling comfortable talking about gender stuff with the same sex might be biological, too.


----------



## Demeter9 (Nov 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
I agree. I believe that to be part of my responsibility as a parent. Not to discourage my children from playing with particular toys, or from engaging in certain 'play', because this will of course, send the message that I think those things are 'wrong'. I have had many, many more years of social conditioning than my kids have had, and I have been influenced by many factors, so, I try to remain conscious of the subtle (or not so subtle) ways in which I teach my children to 'do' their gender.

However, you also need to be aware not to overdo repressing their gender by disapproving of genderizing play. Or stereotyping play. And that is what I see some people doing. Some parents overdo the "she's all girl" and some overdo "she'll NEVER get pink!" Both are judgements, and both speak loudly about stereotypes.

The opposite of something sometimes is just the same damn thing.


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

Exactly!! That is what I mean!


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Demeter9* 
However, you also need to be aware not to overdo repressing their gender by disapproving of genderizing play. Or stereotyping play. And that is what I see some people doing.

Ok, but, here is precisely where we reach an impasse. I can only repress my child's gender-identification if I believe that gender, as a concept, is fixed and immutable. I don't believe it is.


----------



## Demeter9 (Nov 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
Ok, but, here is precisely where we reach an impasse. I can only repress my child's gender-identification if I believe that gender, as a concept, is fixed and immutable. I don't believe it is.

Then you don't need to police it. If that's what you believe. Just put it all out, and let and explore with your child all the potential play. Withholding judgement when they act out in the stereotypical manner (or non-stereotypical for others) they naturally will try out in their play.


----------



## Demeter9 (Nov 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery* 
Exactly!! That is what I mean!









I'm so glad that I'm not totally speaking Klingon here.


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

If you associate certain things with certain genders and thus encourage your child to shy away, you are enforcing gender roles, just in a different way. Why would you want to deliberately change your child's gender identity? Isn't trying to sway them away from a stereotype just as bad as pushing them towards one? I doubt gender identity is 'fixed and immutable,' but you can certainly teach your child to repress feelings about their identity and preferences with your actions. The same way a mother can turn her son away from Barbie dolls, you can turn your daughter away from them just the same. That would be repression, whether gender identity is fixed or not.


----------



## Summerland (Aug 9, 2005)

I let my son play with whatever type of toy he wants, he has a doll, a my little pony, even one barbie oh and for xmas he got a pink tea set from my grandma and a whole bunch of dishes and food for his kitchen set. Everyone seems shocked that he has "girly" toys, but I think it's great.


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery* 
If you associate certain things with certain genders and thus encourage your child to shy away, you are enforcing gender roles, just in a different way. *Why would you want to deliberately change your child's gender identity?* Isn't trying to sway them away from a stereotype just as bad as pushing them towards one? I doubt gender identity is 'fixed and immutable,' but you can certainly teach your child to repress feelings about their identity and preferences with your actions. The same way a mother can turn her son away from Barbie dolls, you can turn your daughter away from them just the same. That would be repression, whether gender identity is fixed or not.

No, see, I don't know why you keep insisting that ANYONE is trying to change their child's gender identity. Children are not born with a gender identity, and so we cannot change what hasn't yet developed.

I have already said that I don't discourage my children from playing with particular toys because of their association with a specific gender. I said that I try to remain very aware of the messages I am sending about the toys' meanings as they relate to gender.

This discussion seems to be going in circles now.


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

I think the answer is quite obvious: because I disagree and believe part of children's gender identity is biological, as I have stated time and time again. In any case, steering your child AWAY from stereotypes perpetuates those gender associates just as much as steering your child TOWARDS them does, which was the entire point of the post. Instead of being upset with me for believing this perhaps you should contact those who write children's development books and tell them to stop lying about the differences between boys and girls in the baby and toddler years.

I'm not accusing you of doing anything.


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery* 
I think the answer is quite obvious: because I disagree and believe part of children's gender identity is biological, as I have stated time and time again. In any case, steering your child AWAY from stereotypes perpetuates those gender associates just as much as steering your child TOWARDS them does, which was the entire point of the post. Instead of being upset with me for believing this perhaps you should contact those who write children's development books and tell them to stop lying about the differences between boys and girls in the baby and toddler years.

I'm not accusing you of doing anything.

moonfirefaery: I am not upset with you in the least. You are entitled to your opinion just like everyone else, and , if you don't find anything problematic about gender than more power to you--and I mean that sincerely.

People write books about everything, and there are varying perspectives on how children develop. Not everyone agrees, which is why 'child development' is an academic discipline. Similarly, if, lets say, mothering is supposedly biological, than why on earth would we need the hundreds of books written on the subject to tell us how to mother? Wouldn't it be instinctual?

I don't agree with you that steering your child away from gender 'stereotypes' perpetuates them. You can only perpetuate an idea if you reinforce it's meanings by not challenging the assumptions upon which they are based.


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

How is steering a child away from something challenging it?

I think introducing children to everything and refraining from associating things were genders would be much more productive.

As for your question on motherhood, my answer is this: everyone is different. Some things are instinctual for some people, and some aren't. Nursing comes easily to some, and others have to work at it. Patience is inborn for some, and others have to try very hard to remain patient. It depends on the person.


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery* 
How is steering a child away from something challenging it?

I think introducing children to everything and refraining from associating things were genders would be much more productive.

Well, here's an example from my own experience:

I hate, no, I abhor Bratz dolls. I feel that they embody every negative stereotype about 'girls' and 'girlishness' that I can imagine.

DD loves Bratz dolls, why? Because she thinks they are 'cool', and 'pretty', and all her friends have them.

What am I to do?

a) go against all my instincts and buy her the doll, in an attempt to let her decide for herself? or,

b) adamantly refuse to spend our hard-earned money on something that I find so objectionable? Explaining that mommy thinks that Bratz dolls teach girls that (among other things), girls are/should be primarily concerned about their appearance.

Either way, I am imposing my beliefs about Bratz dolls on my daughter. Yet, which is the more effective stategy for challenging the stereotypes embodied by the doll?


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

LOL! I hate the BratZ dolls, too. I probably wouldn't buy my daughter one of the dolls but would explain why it is inappropriate. There are many gender roles out there, many stereotypes, and that one is inappropriate. I agree. However, not all ideas related to feminism need to be shunned. Dislike of Bratz dolls, for me, isn't about associating things with certain genders. It's about a bunch of child dolls dressed like 23 year old college girls being inappropriate for young girls.  How is a Barbie doll in a nurse outfit or mermaid costume as inappropriate as a Bratz doll? You know, she has other friends that have different colors of hair and skin and different styles. She hasn't got a fat friend yet, but she might one day. I'm not saying that everything is appropriate, just that I don't understand why gender-specific toys are all inappropriate.


----------



## PrennaMama (Oct 10, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery* 
One's brain architecture and chemistry cannot change. However, there is amounting research that we can rewire the neorological paths that messages transmit through, change our way of thinking, and alter the way one's brain works. There is a type of therapy (can't remember the name) that is designed to reconnect broken or disconnected 'passages' in the brain. It can help dyslexia and a variety of other problems, because it increases the functionality of the brain and changes the way the brain works. The way our brains function change over time, and the chemical balance of our brains change, too. Just look at the actions of a teenager vs a thirty-five year old man. Behavior isn't only about experience.

Sexual identity is hardly about broken passageways. Again, comparing apples and oranges; I see where you're coming from , but it just doesn't jive, since dyslexia happens between the visual cortex and the learning and retention core, and sexual identity is wrapped up in hormone-placement, in the areas of the brain that dictate sexuality (sounds like a fun place!). Different areas of the brain. I see what you were trying to say, tho. You know and it seems like most of us here know, that sexual identity STARTS as a biological process. The seeds are planted in utero. Behavior is just behavior. And while behavior can impact the psyche (I speak as someone entering into clincal psychology from a behaviorialist point of view), it doesn't change the map of the brain. (broken pathways notwithstanding)









Quote:


Originally Posted by *Inci* 
Also, I always think of the following quote by Kathy Najimy, which was her reply to someone who accused of her "going overboard" when she objected to her daughter playing with Barbie:

"Every second of the rest of the 90 years of her life, the world is going to bombard her with how perfect being thin is. My objection to it, my little drop in the thousands of drops she is going to be flooded with, is nothing. I have to be heavey-handed because I am not the world; I am just my one little voice to her. So I am going to be biased. I am. 'Cause the world is not going to be fair, If the world were objective and fair, I wouldn't have to work so hard. But I have to be really, really aware and sometimes intense just to have a chance in hell of something seeping in." (Ms. magazine)

This, in part, is why I'm a feminist, and why feminism is still necessary.

I really feel this. Amen, sister. Now, we all have to take it to the next phase... GLOBAL AWARENESS. It's not just our kids and the toys they play with... it's girls in parts of the middle east being told they are intrinsically VILE and being punished for just being female, it's baby-girls in China STILL being found in ditches.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
I don't believe that these 'personality differences' are inherent or biological. I truly believe that they are taught, and reinforced very early on in children.

The truth (and you'll find it yourself if you look) is that the differences ARE biological... they START that way, to be sure. In blind studies, world wide (one out of Scandinavia, published I think about 10 years ago, that spanned something like 30 years, pops into mind...) children in an array of social and economic stations were observed from infancy on. No matter what gender neutral or gender specific toys were introduced, a majority of girls and boys instinctively played, in most of the groups without suggestion, in sexually stereotypical ways. Offered the same toys each time, equally, boys picked up ANY thing, a block, a shoe, a doll, and made it "Go", gave it projectile-properties, or momentum... made it fly, made it drive, crashed it, threw it, etc. Girls picked up anything, a cup, a stuffed animal, a car and "Nurtured" it... wrapped it in a blanket, kissed it, etc. These are 'wired' behaviors, kwim? BUT they can and do change thru modelling and 'conditioning'... overt and covert.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Hazelnut* 
I think it's very naive to assume that by merely "paying attention" and "actively seeking to avoid" gender stereotypes that you are avoiding them. It's like a fish trying to pretend he can't notice the water. Studies have shown that even parents striving to avoid this treat their sons and daughters differently. I thought many people in this thread did a good job of pointing out all nuances and conditioning that make it impossible to completely raise your kids in some kind of vacuum. For instance, my son was also interested in cars before he could speak. And he was also interested in cooking and cleaning like I do, and very affectionate, and in rocking his dolls to sleep. We're so conditioned ourselves it's so easy to find evidence that conforms, and unconsciously toss out the rest.

Also I don't think anyone is saying that we are born blank slates. I think the mistake is that most people assume that boys and girls are polar opposites, that all boys are alike and all girls are alike. And of course there is a whole lot of pressure and shame if one doesn't quit fit.

Personally I agree with Germaine Greer, who states her belief that there is no way to determine any differences that may exist, b/c we are so conditioned from day one. I find it astonishing irl how many people will just point to "the way things are" as proof that we're utterly different. Lack of critical thinking skills indeed.

I just liked what you said, and I think you always express yourself intelligently.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Demeter9* 
I wonder how many of the people in this thread are going to tear their hair out when their children hit their teens and start acting out gender-stereotypes to find themselves....because they've been discouraged from playing out gender roles as little children.

I wake up at night in a cold sweat sometimes with this very thought!! Or maybe it's just the thought of the teen years...









Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
Anyone familiar with Dora the explorer? I find it very curious that in the wake of this chararcter's success, along comes a 'boy' version of Dora -her cousin Deiago. What's the point? Was there concern that boys might identify with Dora? Really, it's the same c$%p, just gender-specific.

Nephew loves Dora... I think because his cousin, my daughter, looks just like her. His mom, my SIL is horrified, and pushes Diego on him.









Quote:


Originally Posted by *Hazelnut* 
See posts throughout this thread where observant people note how even very young babies are dressed in certain colors, bought certain things, and spoken to and treated in different ways based on their genders.

Folks do instinctively treat male and female children different from the go... I didn't even realize I was guilty of it myself, until I took a class on Emotional Availability, and one portion of the class discussed this.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Lis* 
What I find interesting is that while we are quick to be critical of how society places value judgments on our children in terms of how they should behave, learn, play and develop, we fail to be critical of ourselves and how we place value judgments on our children. We watch them play, take interest in and/or focus on specific things and we assume (most times) it is because of their gender, some innate biological determinate factor, and/or a genetic predisposition, etc etc. It is precisely because we take notice in these things; encourage or devalue certain types of play (even on a superfical level), we too as parents, intentional or not, have ALOT to do with imposing gender roles on our children as we are not free from societal expectations or assumptions of what gender means and what is socially acceptable for our children to like, take interest in or enjoy, even at a young age.

Well stated.

And *Robert*... I was wondering where u had gone... to answer: I resent something as important as sexual identity and the way we develope as humans in ourselves and in our society being simplified down to chocolate and vanilla... I don't resent you, just your choice of analogy. I think you were researching for your product, have some great info on marketing and how it relates to gender, and stumbled onto MDC; finding a great place to to do market research _and_ have a stimulating debate. But you're debating something that shouldn't be a debate. It is sad that our society perpetuates this debate... it's a part of the oppression that has been mentioned here loosely. As long as we are debating and questioning each other, we won't question those in power. You said it yourself... "... disagree about facts...". A fact is a fact, and whether you agree or not, it remains a fact that sexual identity has a distinct biological assignment process. Where it goes after it's been assigned (do to injury, illness, age, or chemicals) is a crap-shoot, and when you factor in the social pressures to homogenize and fit in, or to be diverse and "fight the power", or whatever, it only complicates the subject more. It isn't chocolate and vanilla, tho, man. At all. I DID like your inquiry re; brain injury (stroke, etc... tumor, maybe?) to areas of the brain that govern sexual identity, and am going to ask my professor at school if he has ever seen anything on it, and follow-up on it... I've not come across any studies using that as a base... Cool.


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

If we can fix broken passageways, why can't we alter the paths by which our neurons travel to change our thinking? I'm not talking about changing the map, just the way we get from North Brain St to South Brain Avenue.  To me it seems impossible to be able to do the first, which seems like an amazing feat, but not the latter.


----------



## Robert Goodman (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery* 
But whether or not the boy and girl will play with the toy isn't up to the toy company.

Certainly not reliably. But sometimes just by making different versions available (at the point of sale or wherever the kids see it), they can get some siblings of opposite sex or different ages to reject the other version. In some cases, the versions don't even have to be labeled with such suggestions; whichever version one sibling goes for in those cases will be rejected by the other, if the children (usually the older one, but sometimes the younger) want to differentiate themselves at the same time they really want the same thing.

How many times have you seen this with hand-me-downs? The child wants what the older sibling, or cousin, or whomever has, so when the older one outgrows it, you give it to the younger one who can now feel more grown up, right? But now the younger one rejects it because in some way it's not hir own! It could even be something like a bedroom that the younger one has coveted, but now wants painted a different color and the furniture changed. It doesn't have to be based on sex, it's just a desire to differentiate, but if the child has the excuse that "it's a girl's/boy's color", that might help twist your arm.

Quote:

LoL! I wonder what the differences between the different bubble baths for certain ages would be, lol.
AFAICT (but I've given up at least for now trying to market a final consumer product, and am just trying to sell the non-irritating foaming base), the main difference is scent. At least they try to predict what's an adult vs. kiddie-desired fragrance; good luck! Secondarily, there's a tendency to use milder surfactants in the liquid (but not the powder) kid versions, in the mistaken impression either that children's skin is more sensitive to defatting (usually not) or that urogenital irritation is more of a problem with children than adults. My inquiries have turned up some cases where women have outgrown susceptibility to vulvovaginitis from soap, but other cases where they acquired it only after puberty. (Failure to report, or to inquire about, masturbation as contributory clouds all previous research findings in this area.) What it does seem to be is a sex-differentiated, not age-differentiated problem, in that male urethritis from soap does occur, but apparently much less commonly than female genito-urinary irritation.

But those are functional concerns. Mostly it's that the products are "positioned" differently for different ages. Adult toiletries, especially women's, are more frequently "fancy" and higher priced. Heck, just labeling the product as "bubble bath", "body wash", "shampoo", "hand soap", or "dishwashing liquid" can be mere positioning. There can be some functional differences between such categories, but there don't have to be.

Robert


----------



## Robert Goodman (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery* 
I think some are, and some aren't. It really depends, I think. Children are going to go to mommy about their periods, and boys will go to daddy about their penises--usually, I mean.

Good save with that disclaimer, because I think in a lot of households those issues come up with whomever cleans the toilet.

Whe I explained to Mother that I was banking my urine off the toilet lid because "sometimes my ding-dong goes straight out", Daddy was no help, even though he was a doctor!

Robert


----------



## Robert Goodman (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
I hate, no, I abhor Bratz dolls. I feel that they embody every negative stereotype about 'girls' and 'girlishness' that I can imagine.

DD loves Bratz dolls, why? Because she thinks they are 'cool', and 'pretty', and all her friends have them.

Well of course, why do you think they named them "Bratz"? I have no idea what those dolls are like, but naming them after adults' disparaging word for children (i.e. misbehaving ones), brats, tells me that whatever they're like, the maker of those dolls is telling children, "Your parents will hate these! Hooray!" The kids are supposed to want them because their parents will hate, no, abhor them. It's a socially acceptable means of rebellion.

There's an entire fetish out there for adults who hate Barney material. I bet if you searched for the string "hate barney" or "kill barney", you'd return loads of rants, even videos.

Robert


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Robert Goodman* 
Well of course, why do you think they named them "Bratz"? I have no idea what those dolls are like, but naming them after adults' disparaging word for children (i.e. misbehaving ones), brats, tells me that whatever they're like, the maker of those dolls is telling children, "Your parents will hate these! Hooray!" The kids are supposed to want them because their parents will hate, no, abhor them. It's a socially acceptable means of rebellion.

Granted, they are an extreme example. lol. But, man, they are just vile!


----------



## Robert Goodman (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PrennaMama* 
Sexual identity is hardly about broken passageways. Again, comparing apples and oranges; I see where you're coming from , but it just doesn't jive, since dyslexia happens between the visual cortex and the learning and retention core, and sexual identity is wrapped up in hormone-placement, in the areas of the brain that dictate sexuality (sounds like a fun place!). Different areas of the brain.

But I won't believe it until I see findings in humans that say lesions in those areas produce changes of the type predicted by your claim. You can get dyslexia by injury to the areas you mention above, so I would apply the same criterion to the claim about sexual identity.

Quote:

But you're debating something that shouldn't be a debate. It is sad that our society perpetuates this debate... it's a part of the oppression that has been mentioned here loosely.
Whoa, that's really dangerous territory. You don't just want to give evidence for your claims, you want to stifle controversy about them! That can mean one of two things:

It really is like the example I gave before -- holocaust denial -- in that the assertions made by that side imply that a whole buncha people are liars.
Your case is so weak it can only be sustained if the other side is squelched.

Quote:

As long as we are debating and questioning each other, we won't question those in power.
If you succeed in stopping the debates and questions, that means you're the one in power.

Quote:

It isn't chocolate and vanilla, tho, man.
How do you know?

Quote:

I DID like your inquiry re; brain injury (stroke, etc... tumor, maybe?) to areas of the brain that govern sexual identity, and am going to ask my professor at school if he has ever seen anything on it, and follow-up on it... I've not come across any studies using that as a base... Cool.
Then what evidence did you see that convinced you there was an area of the human brain determining the things you consider sexual identity? That's how it is with functional mapping of the brain; we owe most of it to stroke and head injury patients, some tumors and surgical cases too.

There are ways now to image or otherwise map portions of the brain under certain conditions of activity. You can try having people think about lemons and see what parts of the brain "light up" in terms of glucose catabolism or other markers. But that won't work in the case of the markers you claim for sexual identity, because they're not acutely turned on or off the way a memory of a lemon is, say.

Then you're down to how parts of autopsied brains look, just a step above phrenology. Call me when you can get blinded observers to sort stained sections of brains into homosexual and heterosexual.

Quote:

I think you were researching for your product, have some great info on marketing and how it relates to gender, and stumbled onto MDC;
Excellent deduction! Last year I stumbled upon an issue of _Mothering_ that had a cover story on selecting bath products. To get the article, I had to register online. So they e-mail me links each week, and here I am.

Quote:

finding a great place to to do market research and have a stimulating debate.
The market research, eh, I don't know how good that opp'ty is, but you're right, I can't resist getting my 2 cents in.

Robert


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

Quote:

they can get some siblings of opposite sex or different ages to reject the other version
I really doubt their aim is to get people to reject their toys, but to attract as many people to their toys as possible by appealing to as many personality types as possible.

Children don't see pink and associate it with girls until society teaches them to do so. Rather than eliminate pink toys we should just not urge girls towards them.

Quote:

I think in a lot of households those issues come up with whomever cleans the toilet.
Well, it sure wasn't like that in mine or any other household I ever visitted. I went straight to my mother when blood began leaking from my vagina.

Quote:

Whe I explained to Mother that I was banking my urine off the toilet lid because "sometimes my ding-dong goes straight out", Daddy was no help, even though he was a doctor!
Yeah, I was generally talking about puberty-related issues there, but thanks for sharing, I guess.

Quote:

How do you know?
That's a silly question. How do you?


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PrennaMama* 
You know and it seems like most of us here know, that sexual identity STARTS as a biological process. The seeds are planted in utero. Behavior is just behavior. And while behavior can impact the psyche , it doesn't change the map of the brain.

Behaviour does have an effect on how neural connections are established. Repeating the same behaviour, over and over stimulates the cells involved to grow and connect with one another. How can the map not change if new 'pathways' can be established?


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

I just love this. Everyone, please take a look. From the first issue of Ms. magazine.

http://www.trans-man.org/baby_x.html

Quote:

X: A Fabulous Child's Story -- by Lois Gould © 1972

Once upon a time, a baby named X was born. This baby was named X so that nobody could tell whether it was a boy or a girl. Its parents could tell, of course, but they couldn't tell anybody else. They couldn't even tell Baby X, at first.

You see, it was all part of a very important Secret Scientific Xperiment, known officially as Project Baby X. The smartest scientists had set up this Xperiment at a cost of Xactly 23 billion dollars and 72 cents, which might seem like a lot for just one baby, even a very important Xperimental baby. But when you remember the prices of things like strained carrots and stuffed bunnies, and popcorn for the movies and booster shots for camp, let alone 28 shiny quarters from the tooth fairy, you begin to see how it adds up.

Could never have said it better myself.


----------



## PrennaMama (Oct 10, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jwebbal* 
I just love this. Everyone, please take a look. From the first issue of Ms. magazine.

http://www.trans-man.org/baby_x.html

Could never have said it better myself.

LOVED it!


----------



## PrennaMama (Oct 10, 2005)

Robert, you ask why I would resent you, (which I don't) but then behave in an incendiary way. C'mon.

Simply put, to you and any others that wanna debate about sexual behavior vs. sexual assignment, or 'brain gender': I'm going into the field of clinical psychology, as a behaviorialist... what that means is that I heartily believe that behavior CAN change the paths between synapse channels. Neural traces are imprinted and deepened through repeated use. This is the foundation of the form of therapy I subscribe to. So, I'm in agreement with you there.

A metaphor my instructor from a couple years ago, in a neo-natal development course used (we were discussing the process of sexual assignment in the fetus): If we take a map of the globe's surface and wipe away all the lines and names, borders and time-zones, the world would still be there, and you would still see the land masses. If we wipe away all the existing pathways from synapse to synapse in the brain, the brain is still there, and all the regions of the brain that harbor our abilities and behaviors, our interests and maintenance, would all still be there. I am presenting the finding that sexuality, like hair color, or eye color, or height, is like a land mass on the globe of the brain. I can buy into the theory that severe injury via stroke or what have you, (plate tectonics?







) may change that land mass. And the pathways between the synapse receptors in and around 'sexuality' may change, but the original gender assignment is a constant, in and of itself. Plainly put, perhaps a woman whose hormone placement in her brain's architecture in utero dictated she would be a homosexual woman CAN have a stroke and find herself suddenly straight. Ok, sure... but she ws not originally wired that way... it took an injury to make her straight.

I DON'T believe neural traces via BEHAVIOR can be deepened to a point where they change a person's sexual assignment. Just as my behavior will not change the color of my skin.

That may be what the sexual re-conditioning camps think...

And fwiw, I'm not looking to have power. I don't propose that these are _MY_ ideas; I am sharing what I have learned. I'm a student, and don't have the trademark on these 'claims' as u call them... I prefer 'findings', since what I'm referring to is what we discussed in school, and what is detailed in the texts we're assigned to read. Nor do I care to stifle you and your quest for further knowledge; I'd rather we all JOIN forces to find a mutual understanding and discover what is being kept from us...

Robert, your need to question what _I_ bring to the table in an effort to share with you what you seem to be curious about seems like it might be a result of your own social conditioning... question everything, sure... but you're fighting the wrong fight. It's just that you hadn't been given the newest info, yet... most folks HAVEN'T... and they should be pissed about it. There is new information and new discoveries about the human brain... it's not the same science it was 15 years ago... even 10 years ago. (Neo-natal neurology is relatively new, and does not rely on strokes and autopsies... Thank GOD! I am SO looking forward to next term...)


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jwebbal* 
I just love this. Everyone, please take a look. From the first issue of Ms. magazine.

http://www.trans-man.org/baby_x.html

Could never have said it better myself.

This is an interesting thing by Lois Gould, but her book "A Sea Change" is much more interesting and examines gender assignment in more depth. It's a great book.


----------



## maxsmum (Nov 29, 2006)

This is the exact reason I did not find out the gender of my DS before he was born. I did not to receive a bunch of pink or blue clothing and related gear!


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PrennaMama* 
Robert, your need to question what _I_ bring to the table in an effort to share with you what you seem to be curious about seems like it might be a result of your own social conditioning... question everything, sure... but you're fighting the wrong fight. It's just that you hadn't been given the newest info, yet... most folks HAVEN'T... and they should be pissed about it. There is new information and new discoveries about the human brain... it's not the same science it was 15 years ago... even 10 years ago. (Neo-natal neurology is relatively new, and does not rely on strokes and autopsies... Thank GOD! I am SO looking forward to next term...)

PrennaMamma: I realize that you are directing this to Robert specifically, but I wanted to address your assertion that in debating what is a long-standing controversy between the affects of 'nature' vs 'nurture' on gendered behaviour, that one is 'fighting the wrong fight'.

Biological differences aside, I don't feel that questioning claims about the inherent basis of women's and men's behaviours is a exercise in futility. Historically, it has been shown time and time again, that scientific researchers employ assumptions and biases without being aware of them. Some scientific arguments then give rise to 'findings' or conclusions that are often more ideological than they are scientific. There is a tendancy to oversimplify the FACT that human behaviours are influenced by a complex set of factors, some biological, some cultural, that can lend itself to a widespread social acceptance of specific gender roles as 'natural' and/or 'normal'. This is scary because social policies are influenced by what 'society' deems natural and normal.

There are (thankfully) always going to be folks who adopt counter-discourses to the dominant ones produced by medicine, psychology, etc. This is a GOOD thing, because as we've seen repeatedly, dominant discourse(s) (or TRUTH), is produced under the control of institutions (universities, military, media...etc) that have an interest in maintaining the status quo.

We all find 'meaning' and 'identity' in the categories that we construct out of these 'truth discourses'...mother, father, woman, man, lover, student (you get the idea). If we accept that within these categories, there are 'normal' and 'natural' ways of being, than we will internalize ideas about what is normal and abnormal--this produces our identity.

It's always important to be critical of how power and knowledge is produced and reproduced. Especially when confronted with claims of 'truth' that are asserted as 'absolute".


----------



## Robert Goodman (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
Historically, it has been shown time and time again, that scientific researchers employ assumptions and biases without being aware of them. Some scientific arguments then give rise to 'findings' or conclusions that are often more ideological than they are scientific.

I see the results of that sort of thing a lot. A lot of the distortion of our understanding comes from what might be called the tyranny of attention, or the assumed comparison, or a classific'n fallacy. Sometimes an item is arbitrarily singled out for study over others that might be comparable, and when findings come out about the studied item, assumptions are made that what's being brought out are differences as opposed to similarities. This causes more att'n to be focused on the arbitrarily selected item, so the process self-accelerates.

One example I encountered had to do with formaldehyde as a sterilizing agent for reprocessing hemodialysis equipment. Formaldehyde was better studied than its replacements, with every adverse finding about formaldehyde leading to another, so that the devil that was known looked worse than the devils that were unknown.

It's similar with discussions of neurophysiologic vs. psychologic mechanisms. Besides the one being discussed here, another example is so-called "addiction". First certain behaviors were rather arbitrarily selected as opposed to others and given this name, which previously was about synonymous with "devotion". Then every time a finding is made associating neurophysiologic mechanisms with "addictions", that is given as further justification for "addiction"'s being a distinct phenomenon with neurophysiologic causes, as opposed to psychologic causes. It's just assumed that if other behaviors not considered "addictions" were similarly studied, they would not have similar neurophysiologic correlates, so they aren't similarly studied. And part of it is bound up with the social dynamic that says these behaviors are important to study because of their social consequences, while other behaviors are relatively trivial. But the reason they have social consequences is because they have been identified as "different" to begin with!

Anyway, I sure see that process at work here. I don't see evidence that sexual preference is any differently determined from preferences for lots of other pleasures. It's obvious that we're hard wired to like orgasms, but it doesn't seem to be at all clear how we develop our preferred means of producing orgasms, and of all the pleasurable and complicated social interaction that goes with them. But because of the sorting machine of society, all manner of extra meaning and importance has become attached to the classific'n of those preferences into categories, with all sorts of social consequences. The importance attached to all this then carries over to scientific findings about biology, where the tyranny of att'n rules. So some people become upset when the ostensible differences between the "important" sexual preferences and the "unimportant" preferences are questioned. But the reason there aren't similar findings concerning those preferences is because they're deemed unimportant, so they haven't been studied, and the reason they're deemed unimportant is social, not scientific.

Robert


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

If you don't see any evidence here that shows sexual orientation and basic preferences are different, you may want to open a few history books. Where homosexuality was in vogue, fashionable, and popular, it ran rampant, as in Greece. Then, there was a renaissance sort of time, and women were seen as creatures of beauty instead. Homosexuality was no longer as abundant. Did that society just happen to have quite a bit of people who just happened, coincidentally, to be born gay? And then a few decades later, the opposite coincidentally happened? In the 80s when big hair was in style and everyone had it, did those people prefer it beause they were born to do it, or because it was the fashion? And if they were born to prefer it why do most of them now thing the whole big hair fad was ridiculous? That would mean their preference changed. And I don't mean their preference to wear it, but for those who did. Nearly all the rock stars had big hair, and face it, women thought they were hot with their big hair. Sexuality and our preferences are partly genetic, but there are other factors involved. And they are definitely two completely different things as they are two different areas of life.


----------



## Robert Goodman (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery* 
If you don't see any evidence here that shows sexual orientation and basic preferences are different, you may want to open a few history books. Where homosexuality was in vogue, fashionable, and popular, it ran rampant, as in Greece. Then, there was a renaissance sort of time, and women were seen as creatures of beauty instead. Homosexuality was no longer as abundant. Did that society just happen to have quite a bit of people who just happened, coincidentally, to be born gay? And then a few decades later, the opposite coincidentally happened? In the 80s when big hair was in style and everyone had it, did those people prefer it beause they were born to do it, or because it was the fashion? And if they were born to prefer it why do most of them now thing the whole big hair fad was ridiculous? That would mean their preference changed. And I don't mean their preference to wear it, but for those who did. Nearly all the rock stars had big hair, and face it, women thought they were hot with their big hair. Sexuality and our preferences are partly genetic, but there are other factors involved. And they are definitely two completely different things as they are two different areas of life.

Who said they weren't different things? But the point in controversy was whether they were determined by different mechanisms. What you wrote above says they're determined by the same mechanisms.

Robert


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

They are determined by the same mechanisms as some things but not others. For example a person's liking or disliking of vanilla ice cream is not likely to beinfluenced by what is fashionable.


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

real homosexuality has consistently remained at the same level regardless of what is in "fashion" and frankly comparing homosexuality to fashion is pretty insulting. To say that the level of homosexuality has changed over the years is simply untrue. It has remained the same, we are here and have always been here, regardless of whether society has accepted us or not, we simply went more underground when society wasn't as accepting. The current "popularity" of homsexuality has nothing to do with social acceptance. People who dabble will dabble, and those of us who are gay or lesbian remain as we always have, we just don't have to hide it like we have had to in the past and can live our lives relatively openly.


----------



## PrennaMama (Oct 10, 2005)

Just to clarify, is anyone actually going as far as to refute the fact that sexual identity, what I have referred to as 'brain-gender', or the placement of hormon-signatures in a deveoping fetuss brain, after the genetalia have developed, is a biological process that _does_ take place? Seriously, with the redundant debating, conversational in-breeding, and circling back and forth, I'm losing sight of my _own_ point!









Allow _me_ to clarify _my_ addition to this conversation... The egg came first.

Sexual identity is placed in utero. This isn't a tiding of doom, nor a socially generated, scientific hypothesis gaining momentum through tyrannical scrutiny... as a matter of fact, it's widely accepted as part of the process, and, from what I've read, for the most part, ignored after the fact. Most folks don't have the knowledge base that there is any kind of gray area... a penis on an ultrasound means a boy, no penis means it could be a girl, and most docs don't discuss the hormonal/neurological aspect. It's like saying, "Yes Ms. Jones, you are having a baby, and tho it has a penis, we're not sure it's gonna be a boy that _acts like_ (your concept of) a boy"... that would go over REALLY well with the Joneses, most of whom just wanna go out and get the layette, the booties, call the grandparents, and pass out cigars. (Disclaimer: the vast population of MDC seems to be a community unto itself whose denizens aren't in keeping with the Jones mentality; a large group of "exceptions to the generalizations"...)

As for "fashionable" behavior... that is exactly what I started out saying... that someone's behavior does not necessarily reflect what is going on with them neurologically. And kissing girls for the sake of kissing girls, no matter how many girls I may kiss (and there have been a few!







) will not make me gay. That behavior will not create a neural trace with a catalystic impact strong enough to change the "land mass" of my sexuality. HOWEVER, a sever seizure that permanently blocks certain pathways, causing my brain to have to re-route synapes connections, might. That I don't know about, and the theory is really a fascinating one.


----------



## PrennaMama (Oct 10, 2005)

Btw, some folks hypothesize that the homosexual behaviors the Greeks displayed can be likened to what still happens in parts of the world, now, where some men, in business or government deals, sublimate one-another, ritualistically, using certain "homosexual behaviors".

Kinda like how dogs mount one another to establish dominance.

The theory some are suggesting is that young men, and pre-pubescant males were seen as a threat. To reduce them to sexual play-things was a way to 'set an example'; culturally it may have taken on a life of its own, but perhaps the practice had another intent, when it started...

Who knows?


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

I'm not comparing it in the context of our society, but in others throughout history. If you offer the explanation that homosexuality remains at the same level, but becomes more prevalent when it is accepted, that's understandable. However, scholars believe that in ancient Greece the homosexual tendancies had to do with the general fact that in that society men were seen as objects of beauty. When that changed to women, heterosexuality became more prevalent. Does that mean that there was just a surge of homosexuality, and the heterosexuals went undergrand, and then that reversed? That's possible. Homosexuality isn't just biological. What about women who fall in love with women without ever having had any prior lesbian tendancies? That proves that love is about more than sex, and yet our sexual desires tie in with our feelings of affection. Clearly sexual orientation is about a number of things, just as our other sexual preferences do. Fat women were once seen as the most beautiful and were lusted after. At one point it was pale women. Now society sees thin, tan, tall women as beautiful. Biology definitely plays a huge role, but that's not it. I'm a person who has been bisexual since I first began having feelings of attraction for anyone, not one who dabbles, and I'm not insulted at all by the thought that sexual preferences can be influenced by society.

That is an excellent alternate theory that I've never before heard. Very interesting.







I believe they even had rules about what was acceptable when older men were with younger men. How does that fit in?


----------



## Robert Goodman (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery* 
They are determined by the same mechanisms as some things but not others. For example a person's liking or disliking of vanilla ice cream is not likely to be influenced by what is fashionable.

I suspect fashion does operate on things like that. Its effect isn't overwhelming, but I think it's enough to tip things in marginal cases like ranking of flavor preferences.

It works that way with music, for instance. You can't like a song you've never heard. Beyond that, there does seem to be some effect that gets you to like the song more from hearing it repeatedly. Then it has to fight against the tendency to get sick of a song from hearing it too much. Fashion, by definition, will determine how often you're exposed to the song being played by others. But it can't tip things enough to make you like a song that you thoroughly dislike.

Similarly, you can't like an ice cream flavor you've never tried. But if vanilla becomes the standard flavor, then no matter how much you care about it initially, you can find ways to like it with various toppings, so that you become used to the taste of it. I don't know about now, but the first time I tried Dairy Queen (they're not big around here), I was surprised and disturbed to find out they had only vanilla ice cream (probably a pinch of real vanilla and mostly vanillin, to cut cost -- or maybe all vanillin, to cheapen it even more), and relied on toppings for variety. But I could imagine getting to like vanilla (even artificial) more if that was all I could get.

It wouldn't surprise me at all to find that sexuality, in terms of numbers, is influenced by fashion. When we introspect, it's hard to imagine our having a different appetite for sexual activity, but we don't know what might have been had our pasts been different.

Robert


----------



## Robert Goodman (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jwebbal* 
real homosexuality has consistently remained at the same level regardless of what is in "fashion" and frankly comparing homosexuality to fashion is pretty insulting.

Now see, that's what I mean. People think it's so gul-durn important, they get huffy. Nobody named names, and I don't know anybody's sexuality here, so why should a homosexual, a heterosexual, or someone anywhere in between be insulted by a comparison of homosexuality to fashion?

Quote:

To say that the level of homosexuality has changed over the years is simply untrue. It has remained the same, we are here and have always been here, regardless of whether society has accepted us or not, we simply went more underground when society wasn't as accepting.
How do you know? How could you possibly know that? How far back do the surveys go? The other side has no surveys to quote either, so the claim that the percentages of different sexual preferences have changed over time is unproven, but you can't say it's false either.

Quote:

People who dabble will dabble,
Heh. I bet some bisexuals would get huffy about your use of the word "dabble", like they're not serious about their sexual affairs. It does seem a little demeaning compared to a word like "experiment" or "try different things".

Robert


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

For your information, my sexual orientation is bisexual.


----------



## PrennaMama (Oct 10, 2005)

Oh wow.







:

Robert don't your fingers cramp up after a bit? Goodness...!









You seem to just debate for the sake of reading your own words in print! I'm teasing you, here, but really... you say things like "how do you know?" and continue to refute what a person MIGHT say, despite not having heard the response to your question, yet...

moonfirey: I have never claimed that homosexuality, or homosexual behavior is purely biological. I merely state that sexuality of any kind begins with the formation of genetalia, and then continues its beginning in the brain, in utero.


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

Prenna - I agree with you.


----------



## Robert Goodman (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PrennaMama* 
You seem to just debate for the sake of reading your own words in print! I'm teasing you, here, but really... you say things like "how do you know?" and continue to refute what a person MIGHT say, despite not having heard the response to your question, yet.

Because this is not the first time I've seen this issue argued. There seem to be a lot of people out there with a great emotional investment in their idea of what causes people to adopt certain sex roles, and I'm skeptical about all of them. That frequently puts me in the middle as I challenge both sides.

Robert


----------



## PrennaMama (Oct 10, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Robert Goodman* 
Because this is not the first time I've seen this issue argued. There seem to be a lot of people out there with a great emotional investment in their idea of what causes people to adopt certain sex roles, and I'm skeptical about all of them. That frequently puts me in the middle as I challenge both sides.

Robert

As I stated before, the "idea" isn't mine. It's just neurology, and neo-natal neurology, as I also pointed out, is a new field. Be as skeptical as you like... the world used to be flat, too!









(moonfiery: thanks...







I never set out to be soap-boxy... sorry if I did!)


----------



## Cassandra M. (Aug 3, 2003)

I'm glad I have one of each so I have a variety of toys and they choose whatever to play with. Kalob is into trucks and pirates, Karina has never been into dolls. She loves anything art and horses.

They've never been pressured to play or not play with anything. Karina has numerous dolls and could care less. Kalob probably played with them more than she ever has.

P.S. Kalob loves getting his toe nails painted and "make up" as much as Karina does.


----------

