Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Pop the mysterious child

11819202123

Posts

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Spoiler:
    It ABSOLUTELY should be challenged.

    But the problem here is that Pop isn't naturally this way (in the same sense that one is naturally of mixed race), Pop's parents are doing this to Pop on purpose without Pop's consent.



    Pop shouldn't be forced to be some kind of gender rights hero. That role should be a personal choice.

    And we're back to the part where having an interracial child is the choice that is being made for the children-to-be :). They are born political statements. How is that fair to them? It's just not a popular argument to make because omg racists do it. But in my mind it's the same argument. I'm happy to leave the disagreement at that, though.

    You are the only one in here insisting on that argument, sid. Yes, some racists make it. Fuck'em.



    the difference si that child is either biracial, or not born at all, whereas Pop has been born, and THEN pop's parents are making their silly experiment choices.



    I've never heard of anyone having a biracial baby in order to prove a theory.

    georgersig.jpg
  • BackwardsnameBackwardsname __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    Also Backwardsname- You are one of the few people I know who have made a legitimate claim for EvoPsych that wasn't logically terrible, scientifically shaky, or just plain ridiculous.

    That is not to say I agree with all your points (for instance, the insistent hearkening back to our ancestral environment that is common to the science in general doesn't seem to work for me, and I have discussed it in the previous evopsych thread we had, I think I can dig it up) but you are at least making a good case for the science.

    Well, you know, most people on the internet talking about "evo psych" haven't actually read any evolutionary psychologists.

    This is very common with other disciplines, too (*cough* psychology *cough*), but those disciplines have more societal acceptance, and more people are likely to be actually informed about those disciplines to correct the ill-informed. Evo psych benefits from no such luxury.

    Also, I should note that the ancestral environment/evolutionary environment of adaptiveness (EEA) is a controversial subject even within the field. Personally, I think it can be useful, but I understand there are very real criticisms of it, and I'm trying to rely on it less in my argumentation. If I had to guess, I think the field as a whole is moving away from it, but definitely some researches still think it's very important. It's definitely a vigorous debate, but if I had to put money on one side, I'd bet on the anti-EEA folks winning out ultimately. There really is the fundamental stumbling block of trying to know what the EEA actually was like with enough accuracy. There's also the possibility that, as a concept, it was more useful in the early, (naturally) more speculative/theory-heavy early years of the discipline, and as it matures into making more quantifiable and precisely testable claims, we don't need the EEA as much as a crutch.

  • ArchArch HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Its not really related GnomeTank I just thought it was interesting...it is sort of related to "unconscious mate appraisal" though

  • ArchArch HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    Also Backwardsname- You are one of the few people I know who have made a legitimate claim for EvoPsych that wasn't logically terrible, scientifically shaky, or just plain ridiculous.

    That is not to say I agree with all your points (for instance, the insistent hearkening back to our ancestral environment that is common to the science in general doesn't seem to work for me, and I have discussed it in the previous evopsych thread we had, I think I can dig it up) but you are at least making a good case for the science.

    Well, you know, most people on the internet talking about "evo psych" haven't actually read any evolutionary psychologists.

    This is very common with other disciplines, too (*cough* psychology *cough*), but those disciplines have more societal acceptance, and more people are likely to be actually informed about those disciplines to correct the ill-informed. Evo psych benefits from no such luxury.

    Also, I should note that the ancestral environment/evolutionary environment of adaptedness (EEA) is a controversial subject even within the field. Personally, I think it can be useful, but I understand there are very real criticisms of it, and I'm trying to rely on it less in my argumentation. If I had to guess, I think the field as a whole is moving away from it, but definitely some researches still think it's very important. It's definitely a vigorous debate, but if I had to put money on one side, I'd bet on the anti-EEA folks winning out ultimately. There really is the fundamental stumbling block of trying to know what the EEA actually was like with enough accuracy. There's also the possibility that, as a concept, it was more useful in the early, (naturally) more speculative/theory-heavy early years of the discipline, and as it matures into making more quantifiable and precisely testable claims, we don't need the EEA as much as a crutch.

    You have summed up how I feel about the EEA much better than I ever have.

    Thank you.

  • TopweaselTopweasel Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Sparvy wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    Spoiler:
    From the articles being discussed, Pop's parents have said that Pop knows that boys and girls have different bits and pieces. Therefore, all that is being left for Pop to choose is how to behave, not whether or not Pop is a (biological) boy or girl.

    This would be similar, in my mind, not to keeping the fact that "races" "exist" (per US categorizations) from young Barry, but rather to letting Barry know that black people exist and white people exist, and Barry is a little bit of both. Therefore Barry is free to decide at a later date whether he wants to identify as black, or white, or both, or neither, because he's not being told he's a little black boy by everyone just because his skin is darker.

    No, because Barry is bi-racial. He can never be white, or black. Barry is what Barry is. Barry is a person, just as good or bad as any other, but Barry is what Barry is. Blonde people who dye their hair Brown are still Blondes, and their hair color is still totally unimportant in how you treat them.

    It's a good thing I did not say that Barry was white or black, then! :)

    However, he can choose to identify with whichever elements of white or black culture that he pleases, and he will be brown. Society will not, at a glance, tell him he is biracial; it will tell him he is black (well, in the US. In a lot of other places he wouldn't have to deal with that garbage). So he won't even be identified (by sight) by what he is. How cruel and unfair. Of society. Which is why it should be challenged at every front.

    similarly, it has been pointed out that society will consider Pop a girl (because girls are allowed to enjoy actifvities and styles of both genders, but boys are not.)

    And similarly I think that should be challenged. Which is why I brought up the interracial example, because if it's abusive to "use" your child to challenge these things, it's similarly abusive to have an interracial child and not just tell them, "Barry, son, for all intents and purposes you're black, so let's just go with that."

    It ABSOLUTELY should be challenged.

    But the problem here is that Pop isn't naturally this way (in the same sense that one is naturally of mixed race), Pop's parents are doing this to Pop on purpose without Pop's consent.



    Pop shouldn't be forced to be some kind of gender rights hero. That role should be a personal choice.
    GAHH!! The point is that gender stereotypes are not natural! That Pop in fact is naturally this way, on account of having a choice and choosing what feels naturals. Liking cars is not unnatural for girl etc.
    I would say they are natural, and if not Natural, normal going back to before Homo Sapiens.

  • ArchArch HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Topweasel your argument right there is pretty much debunked by what backwardsname and I are talking about

  • sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Topweasel wrote: »
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Spoiler:
    It ABSOLUTELY should be challenged.

    But the problem here is that Pop isn't naturally this way (in the same sense that one is naturally of mixed race), Pop's parents are doing this to Pop on purpose without Pop's consent.



    Pop shouldn't be forced to be some kind of gender rights hero. That role should be a personal choice.

    And we're back to the part where having an interracial child is the choice that is being made for the children-to-be :). They are born political statements. How is that fair to them? It's just not a popular argument to make because omg racists do it. But in my mind it's the same argument. I'm happy to leave the disagreement at that, though.
    Its a right to birth a kid, its a right to choose your mate. Its not a right neglect a portion of their education that would allow them to adapt and integrate themselves into society. I feel sorry for a kid born into a trailer home, but I still trust good parents to help their kids through the difficulty of entering society. I also expect good parents to not go out of their way to make their kids future as confusing and potentially as emotionally dangerous as possible.

    Would it be right for a parent to teach creationism and abstinence only because they think that anything else is dangerous and damning society as a whole?

    Well, there are ideologies I think are better than others, and I am in support of promoting those ones, but I cannot suppress the rights of people to do just that to their children, because I would want the right to teach mine as I wish.

    Would it be right for a parent to raise their child as a political liberal and atheist while living in the South? Wouldn't it be irresponsible not to move, or to perhaps teach their children to go along (to church) to get along?

  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    1) they aren't natural.
    2) natural != good.
    3) they are, in fact, bad.

    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I fucking hate you Canadians.
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    Seriously, sociology is only taken lightly by people who don't know what it is.

    I agree with that statement. I will also say the same about astrology, tarot cards, young earth creationism and a lot of other fictitious things.

    o_O

    I'm looking hard but can't find my favorite sociology study for you, it was from a while back. This professor was so delightfully clueless, so divorced from reality. It was amazing. He concluded that victims of male on male sexual abuse in prison weren't necessarily injured long term, and that they were being introduced to "new vistas of sexual awareness".

    People get paid for that crap, and they are sociologists, and yeah when that shit gets published it weakens the entire discipline and makes the whole body of it look questionable.

    And unfortunately there's been a lot of bullshit like that published. So when I was talking before about science backing up some of my claims about sex gender and biology, rest assure I did not mean social science, I was referring to biology (aka: actual science).

  • BackwardsnameBackwardsname __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    Also Backwardsname- You are one of the few people I know who have made a legitimate claim for EvoPsych that wasn't logically terrible, scientifically shaky, or just plain ridiculous.

    That is not to say I agree with all your points (for instance, the insistent hearkening back to our ancestral environment that is common to the science in general doesn't seem to work for me, and I have discussed it in the previous evopsych thread we had, I think I can dig it up) but you are at least making a good case for the science.

    Well, you know, most people on the internet talking about "evo psych" haven't actually read any evolutionary psychologists.

    This is very common with other disciplines, too (*cough* psychology *cough*), but those disciplines have more societal acceptance, and more people are likely to be actually informed about those disciplines to correct the ill-informed. Evo psych benefits from no such luxury.

    Also, I should note that the ancestral environment/evolutionary environment of adaptedness (EEA) is a controversial subject even within the field. Personally, I think it can be useful, but I understand there are very real criticisms of it, and I'm trying to rely on it less in my argumentation. If I had to guess, I think the field as a whole is moving away from it, but definitely some researches still think it's very important. It's definitely a vigorous debate, but if I had to put money on one side, I'd bet on the anti-EEA folks winning out ultimately. There really is the fundamental stumbling block of trying to know what the EEA actually was like with enough accuracy. There's also the possibility that, as a concept, it was more useful in the early, (naturally) more speculative/theory-heavy early years of the discipline, and as it matures into making more quantifiable and precisely testable claims, we don't need the EEA as much as a crutch.

    You have summed up how I feel about the EEA much better than I ever have.

    Thank you.

    hey, I mean, at the end of the day epsych is still a rigorous scientific field of study. It actually is pretty even-handed and well thought out.

    it's just easy to forget if the only representatives of it you see are Posting Bros and Steven Pinker

    edit: that would be a great band name: Steven Pinker and the Posting Bros

  • TopweaselTopweasel Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    Topweasel your argument right there is pretty much debunked by what backwardsname and I are talking about

    I am not basing it on any theory of instilled gender role assignment based on history. What I am saying is even in the nature now, and all through out history before we could even make fire there has always been quasi gender roles.

  • ArchArch HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Holy shit backwards name yes so hard

    Jeepguy a lot of biology is pretty questionable as well, so your argument is pretty much baseless. There is just as much room for error and misconstruction in the "hard sciences" as there is in the "soft sciences".

    There is just as much of an agenda in biomedical research, and many people do bad things to push it.

    The thing is the agenda there is "make money" and not really socially oriented so it isn't capitalized on as much.

    Also I present my favorite Evo Psych paper to both back up my claim and also for backwards to laugh at

  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Topweasel wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    Topweasel your argument right there is pretty much debunked by what backwardsname and I are talking about

    I am not basing it on any theory of instilled gender role assignment based on history. What I am saying is even in the nature now, and all through out history before we could even make fire there has always been quasi gender roles.

    I'd love for you to share the source of your intimate knowledge of pre-civilization humans and primates.

    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I fucking hate you Canadians.
  • TopweaselTopweasel Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    1) they aren't natural.
    2) natural != good.
    3) they are, in fact, bad.

    As we rely more on machines and technology you would be correct. We should eventually move away from it completely I hope. But I think a lot of it helped in the past keep our population growing and surviving and it has been seen in nature, if its not natural, then why do more then just humans do it.

  • ArchArch HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Topweasel wrote: »
    1) they aren't natural.
    2) natural != good.
    3) they are, in fact, bad.

    As we rely more on machines and technology you would be correct. We should eventually move away from it completely I hope. But I think a lot of it helped in the past keep our population growing and surviving and it has been seen in nature, if its not natural, then why do more then just humans do it.

    And you activated my trap card, wherein I remind you that for the past ten thousand years (at MINIMUM), humanity has had something known as "culture" that works, in many cases, contrary to the behaviors most animals engage in and also that ten thousand years is more than enough time for human behavior to evolve and additionally like EM said, you have no idea how humans behaved "in nature" in the past.

    Additionally we have strong evidence for seafaring (meaning boats capable of long-distance nautical travel) dating back a hundred thousand years ago, which is again more than enough time for culture to shape our evolution and again you can't know how our ancestors behaved

  • SithDrummerSithDrummer Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I think it's kind of cruel to run an experiment of sorts on your own child, but I am interested in how it will turn out, and someone's gotta do it. :P

    It's an easy game to hate
  • TopweaselTopweasel Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Topweasel wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    Topweasel your argument right there is pretty much debunked by what backwardsname and I are talking about

    I am not basing it on any theory of instilled gender role assignment based on history. What I am saying is even in the nature now, and all through out history before we could even make fire there has always been quasi gender roles.

    I'd love for you to share the source of your intimate knowledge of pre-civilization humans and primates.

    I guess I am wondering where anyone would believe otherwise. Unless the museums always lied to me I am pretty sure men were hunters, and women took care of babies. Unless those are perfectly fine gender roles, but ones covering pants vs. dresses is not. You see the same thing in monkeys, birds, Deer, where the males are doing one thing while females are doing another and its consistent and necessary for the survival of the species. No I am sold that it is as necessary now, wouldn't classify it bad, but understand its unneeded baggage as whole. But refuse to believe that what is seen in nature isn't therefore natural, and that either way as normal, we should be teaching our kids to be abnormal because of some principle you want to prove.

  • ArchArch HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Topweasel wrote: »
    Topweasel wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    Topweasel your argument right there is pretty much debunked by what backwardsname and I are talking about

    I am not basing it on any theory of instilled gender role assignment based on history. What I am saying is even in the nature now, and all through out history before we could even make fire there has always been quasi gender roles.

    I'd love for you to share the source of your intimate knowledge of pre-civilization humans and primates.

    I guess I am wondering where anyone would believe otherwise. Unless the museums always lied to me I am pretty sure men were hunters, and women took care of babies. Unless those are perfectly fine gender roles, but ones covering pants vs. dresses is not. You see the same thing in monkeys, birds, Deer, where the males are doing one thing while females are doing another and its consistent and necessary for the survival of the species. No I am sold that it is as necessary now, wouldn't classify it bad, but understand its unneeded baggage as whole. But refuse to believe that what is seen in nature isn't therefore natural, and that either way as normal, we should be teaching our kids to be abnormal because of some principle you want to prove.

    The museums may have lied to you. And in lions don't the females hunt and the males don't? Additionally what about penguins, where the female lays eggs and the male watches them while the female hunts for months? Or seahorses where the male raises the infants to adulthood in a special pouch? Or birds where the task of gathering food is equally divided?

    I mean come on dude you can cherry pick natural behaviors but we really have no idea what went on back then.

  • TopweaselTopweasel Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    Topweasel wrote: »
    1) they aren't natural.
    2) natural != good.
    3) they are, in fact, bad.

    As we rely more on machines and technology you would be correct. We should eventually move away from it completely I hope. But I think a lot of it helped in the past keep our population growing and surviving and it has been seen in nature, if its not natural, then why do more then just humans do it.

    And you activated my trap card, wherein I remind you that for the past ten thousand years (at MINIMUM), humanity has had something known as "culture" that works, in many cases, contrary to the behaviors most animals engage in and also that ten thousand years is more than enough time for human behavior to evolve and additionally like EM said, you have no idea how humans behaved "in nature" in the past.

    Additionally we have strong evidence for seafaring (meaning boats capable of long-distance nautical travel) dating back a hundred thousand years ago, which is again more than enough time for culture to shape our evolution and again you can't know how our ancestors behaved
    I am not claiming that I know how they behaved. I am claiming that in documented history and farther back gender profiling has always existed. It could be topsy turvy and the exact opposite as it is now, throughout nature there has always been roles that one sex does that another one doesn't. Doe's don't fight each other to win the biggest Buck.

  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    Holy shit backwards name yes so hard

    Jeepguy a lot of biology is pretty questionable as well, so your argument is pretty much baseless. There is just as much room for error and misconstruction in the "hard sciences" as there is in the "soft sciences".

    There is just as much of an agenda in biomedical research, and many people do bad things to push it.

    The thing is the agenda there is "make money" and not really socially oriented so it isn't capitalized on as much.

    Also I present my favorite Evo Psych paper to both back up my claim and also for backwards to laugh at


    I don't know how to respond to that paper. The thought of a bunch of lab-coated scientists mixing up fake sperm and then having a bunch of blow-up sex dolls gang-rape one another is overwhelming me with revulsion and mirth in equal measure.

  • ArchArch HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Also I think killer whales and elephants also live in a matriarchal society where females take on ALL the roles relating to food acquisition and even adolescent defense.

    Basically I am not sold that animal ethology is applicable to human behavior.

  • ArchArch HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Topweasel wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    Topweasel wrote: »
    1) they aren't natural.
    2) natural != good.
    3) they are, in fact, bad.

    As we rely more on machines and technology you would be correct. We should eventually move away from it completely I hope. But I think a lot of it helped in the past keep our population growing and surviving and it has been seen in nature, if its not natural, then why do more then just humans do it.

    And you activated my trap card, wherein I remind you that for the past ten thousand years (at MINIMUM), humanity has had something known as "culture" that works, in many cases, contrary to the behaviors most animals engage in and also that ten thousand years is more than enough time for human behavior to evolve and additionally like EM said, you have no idea how humans behaved "in nature" in the past.

    Additionally we have strong evidence for seafaring (meaning boats capable of long-distance nautical travel) dating back a hundred thousand years ago, which is again more than enough time for culture to shape our evolution and again you can't know how our ancestors behaved
    I am not claiming that I know how they behaved. I am claiming that in documented history and farther back gender profiling has always existed. It could be topsy turvy and the exact opposite as it is now, throughout nature there has always been roles that one sex does that another one doesn't. Doe's don't fight each other to win the biggest Buck.

    I am fairly certain many animals have female competition for males...I think hyenas do this

  • TopweaselTopweasel Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    Topweasel wrote: »
    Topweasel wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    Topweasel your argument right there is pretty much debunked by what backwardsname and I are talking about

    I am not basing it on any theory of instilled gender role assignment based on history. What I am saying is even in the nature now, and all through out history before we could even make fire there has always been quasi gender roles.

    I'd love for you to share the source of your intimate knowledge of pre-civilization humans and primates.

    I guess I am wondering where anyone would believe otherwise. Unless the museums always lied to me I am pretty sure men were hunters, and women took care of babies. Unless those are perfectly fine gender roles, but ones covering pants vs. dresses is not. You see the same thing in monkeys, birds, Deer, where the males are doing one thing while females are doing another and its consistent and necessary for the survival of the species. No I am sold that it is as necessary now, wouldn't classify it bad, but understand its unneeded baggage as whole. But refuse to believe that what is seen in nature isn't therefore natural, and that either way as normal, we should be teaching our kids to be abnormal because of some principle you want to prove.

    The museums may have lied to you. And in lions don't the females hunt and the males don't? Additionally what about penguins, where the female lays eggs and the male watches them while the female hunts for months? Or seahorses where the male raises the infants to adulthood in a special pouch? Or birds where the task of gathering food is equally divided?

    I mean come on dude you can cherry pick natural behaviors but we really have no idea what went on back then.

    Your giving more examples not less. Those are still gender roles that have found there way into nature. I am not saying all of them are examples that mirror us. Just saying that there are examples of role assignments based on sex everywhere.

    Example on back then would be signs of males miles from caves or camping areas where women and kids remains are more abundant but lack of female remains outside grouped area's.

  • ArchArch HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
  • TopweaselTopweasel Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    Topweasel wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    Topweasel wrote: »
    1) they aren't natural.
    2) natural != good.
    3) they are, in fact, bad.

    As we rely more on machines and technology you would be correct. We should eventually move away from it completely I hope. But I think a lot of it helped in the past keep our population growing and surviving and it has been seen in nature, if its not natural, then why do more then just humans do it.

    And you activated my trap card, wherein I remind you that for the past ten thousand years (at MINIMUM), humanity has had something known as "culture" that works, in many cases, contrary to the behaviors most animals engage in and also that ten thousand years is more than enough time for human behavior to evolve and additionally like EM said, you have no idea how humans behaved "in nature" in the past.

    Additionally we have strong evidence for seafaring (meaning boats capable of long-distance nautical travel) dating back a hundred thousand years ago, which is again more than enough time for culture to shape our evolution and again you can't know how our ancestors behaved
    I am not claiming that I know how they behaved. I am claiming that in documented history and farther back gender profiling has always existed. It could be topsy turvy and the exact opposite as it is now, throughout nature there has always been roles that one sex does that another one doesn't. Doe's don't fight each other to win the biggest Buck.

    I am fairly certain many animals have female competition for males...I think hyenas do this

    Avoiding the point. Not that the tasks are male only or female only in nature. But even when it is different from what makes "makes sense" there are almost always gender roles. Even if the gender role is the male or female disappears and never sees his family again. I am not claiming certain gender roles is natural, I am saying that gender roles themselves is found all over nature.

  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Topweasel, you should have no objection to this whatsoever, by your post above.

    If gender roles are natural, then letting the child decide what he or she wants to do will result in the same gendered personality as any other child with the same biological sex.

    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I fucking hate you Canadians.
  • TopweaselTopweasel Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    Female Dotterels compete for males with other females

    I mean I could do this all day but I still don't think you would get the point

    Do it all day because your missing the point. You seem to believe my statement has some sexist undertones. I am talking roles in general not specific ones. You are proving my point, you can look to almost every species, specially their mating habits and see gender roles. Protection of offspring, protection of tribes, food collection, whom leads the group, and across almost all species all of these tasks are handled by either one sex or another, even if in the different species these tasks have swapped the sexes.

  • TopweaselTopweasel Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Topweasel, you should have no objection to this whatsoever, by your post above.

    If gender roles are natural, then letting the child decide what he or she wants to do will result in the same gendered personality as any other child with the same biological sex.

    Exact opposite. I don't believe most of these are instinctual but taught, much like the domestication of dogs and horses through time. Lion females take their female children out hunting, male lions teach their male children how to sit in the sun and screw lion female not currently hunting.

    A Buck not taught to show off and fight another Buck may never win a fight and never impress a Doe and never have kids.

    I don't think its right to buck societal trends in your kids just because you think they are wrong. It will be in my opinion because everyone is not nice and turned on by the weird kid who acts both male and female no matter what its actual sex is, that they have introduced more struggles that this child will have to go through in life. I want the best for my kid even if comes at the delay of what's best for future generations.

  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Sparvy wrote: »
    Ah, I see, you have completely misunderstood the situation. Let me explain, they are not raising this child like this on the off chance that Pop will end up transgendered. They are raising the child this way because they think that gender is a bullshit construct and they don't want society to treat their child in a special way or expect the child to act a special way because of it gender. It has nothing to do with cross dressing or sexuality. It is about stereotypes and prejudices against sex even when it comes to small children.
    We all want things. But, their wanting this won't make it a reality. All it will do, potentially, is turn their kid into an awkward outsider.

    I find their little experiment appalling, personally. People should avoid using their kids as a way to make some sort of ideological or social statement.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • HachfaceHachface Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    People should avoid using their kids as a way to make some sort of ideological or social statement.

    What a stunningly original statement. We are fortunate to have your unique insight.

  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Hachface wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    People should avoid using their kids as a way to make some sort of ideological or social statement.

    What a stunningly original statement. We are fortunate to have your unique insight.
    A lot of the posters on this thread make valid points about gender roles and how society enforces them. And I'm sure these parents honestly believe that it would be best if we all lived in a society where those gender roles no longer existed.

    That's great, but it kind of misses the point here. This isn't some sort of academic, abstract issue. It's about a little kid being used as a pawn by a couple of jerkoffs to make their points about gender roles. At the end of the day, it's all about them and their ideology, rather than what's best for their kid.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • LieberkuhnLieberkuhn __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    Lieberkuhn wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure I was tricked into thinking I was gay because I wasn't girly enough.

    How do you like that, jeep

    You were tricked in to being attracted to other girls? Or tricked in to thinking you should be attracted to other girls? There's a big difference in statements there. I can see the latter being possible, I disagree the former is.

    Made to think I was attracted to girls.

    I'm quite certain that I could be persuaded into thinking I was a paedophile, even though I currently have no desire to fuck kids.

    While you eat, let's have a conversation about the nature of consent.
  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    It's about a little kid being used as a pawn by a couple of jerkoffs to make their points about gender roles. At the end of the day, it's all about them and their ideology, rather than what's best for their kid.

    If they honestly believed that ideology, then wouldn't it dictate that what they were doing was what was best for the kid?

    This appears to be a stumbling block

  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    MrMister wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    It's about a little kid being used as a pawn by a couple of jerkoffs to make their points about gender roles. At the end of the day, it's all about them and their ideology, rather than what's best for their kid.

    If they honestly believed that ideology, then wouldn't it dictate that what they were doing was what was best for the kid?

    This appears to be a stumbling block
    Believing really strongly in something doesn't automatically lead to a good result.

    As an extreme example on the other end of the spectrum, I'm sure white supremacists and other racists believe strongly that the way they raise their kids is best.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Here's the thing. Several posters here have suggested that the way to attack enforced gender roles is by throwing them off as adults. I think that's a worthy approach to pursue. However, we all have a lot of gender bullshit informing our behavior, and I'm not sure how realistic it is to get together any significant number of adults who are not only willing, but able to shrug off all that stuff off, or even know how it's affecting the way we approach shrugging it off.

    Only by studying (which implies that we have to experiment, really) how these things impact children and by what age can we even begin to find out how someone would approach the subject without all that baggage to try to unpack and deconstruct. It's like getting a group of (here I go with race again, only because it's the closest analogue I can think of) adults in a racist society - even adults who are trying very hard not to be racist but who were raised in this racist society - to all decide not to be racist at once. This is great and should absolutely be promoted, but only in the attempt to raise children who are post-racial can we see how deeply these lines go and how a truly post-racial person, who has not had to unpack a ton of prejudices ingrained in them from youth, goes about interacting in the world at large.

    While I have concerns about the way Pop's parents may be doing this (and we don't know they're not keeping Pop informed at any point about the big bad world out there for preparatory purposes, even if they're waiting until Pop is older to do so), I am not sure we can transform the possible harmful effects of enforced gender roles without assaulting it on both fronts. We simply don't have a case where that's been tried and succeeded.

  • taoist drunktaoist drunk Registered User
    edited June 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    It's about a little kid being used as a pawn by a couple of jerkoffs to make their points about gender roles. At the end of the day, it's all about them and their ideology, rather than what's best for their kid.

    If they honestly believed that ideology, then wouldn't it dictate that what they were doing was what was best for the kid?

    This appears to be a stumbling block
    Believing really strongly in something doesn't automatically lead to a good result.

    As an extreme example on the other end of the spectrum, I'm sure white supremacists and other racists believe strongly that the way they raise their kids is best.

    It seems that parenting choices are informed by ideology no matter what. So is all parenting all about parents and their ideology rather than what is best for their children?

  • TopweaselTopweasel Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    MrMister wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    It's about a little kid being used as a pawn by a couple of jerkoffs to make their points about gender roles. At the end of the day, it's all about them and their ideology, rather than what's best for their kid.

    If they honestly believed that ideology, then wouldn't it dictate that what they were doing was what was best for the kid?

    This appears to be a stumbling block

    Agreed. The Debate really comes down to unless they were oblivious to gender roles, whether beliefs in advancement in society is worth doing something troublesome and potentially dangerous to the psyche a child, in-regards to how they would assimilate into society.

  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Topweasel wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    It's about a little kid being used as a pawn by a couple of jerkoffs to make their points about gender roles. At the end of the day, it's all about them and their ideology, rather than what's best for their kid.

    If they honestly believed that ideology, then wouldn't it dictate that what they were doing was what was best for the kid?

    This appears to be a stumbling block

    Agreed. The Debate really comes down to unless they were oblivious to gender roles, whether beliefs in advancement in society is worth doing something troublesome and potentially dangerous to the psyche a child, in-regards to how they would assimilate into society.
    Well-phrased. I come down on the side of protecting one's kid over trying to advance society.

    As as example, we can all agree that civil rights marches were a good thing. But I hope everyone here would condemn any parent who brought their kids into a situation where they might be waterhosed or beaten by police.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User
    edited June 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Topweasel wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    It's about a little kid being used as a pawn by a couple of jerkoffs to make their points about gender roles. At the end of the day, it's all about them and their ideology, rather than what's best for their kid.

    If they honestly believed that ideology, then wouldn't it dictate that what they were doing was what was best for the kid?

    This appears to be a stumbling block

    Agreed. The Debate really comes down to unless they were oblivious to gender roles, whether beliefs in advancement in society is worth doing something troublesome and potentially dangerous to the psyche a child, in-regards to how they would assimilate into society.
    Well-phrased. I come down on the side of protecting one's kid over trying to advance society.
    They are trying to protect their kid from toxic gender roles. It's right there, in the article.
    “We want Pop to grow up more freely and avoid being forced into a specific gender mould from the outset,” Pop’s mother said. “It's cruel to bring a child into the world with a blue or pink stamp on their forehead.”

    The child's parents said so long as they keep Pop’s gender a secret, he or she will be able to avoid preconceived notions of how people should be treated if male or female.

    Can you point me to where they say they're trying to improve/change/advance/do anything to "society"? Or will you admit that you just imputed that motive to them to justify your disapproval?

  • sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Topweasel wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    It's about a little kid being used as a pawn by a couple of jerkoffs to make their points about gender roles. At the end of the day, it's all about them and their ideology, rather than what's best for their kid.

    If they honestly believed that ideology, then wouldn't it dictate that what they were doing was what was best for the kid?

    This appears to be a stumbling block

    Agreed. The Debate really comes down to unless they were oblivious to gender roles, whether beliefs in advancement in society is worth doing something troublesome and potentially dangerous to the psyche a child, in-regards to how they would assimilate into society.
    Well-phrased. I come down on the side of protecting one's kid over trying to advance society.

    As as example, we can all agree that civil rights marches were a good thing. But I hope everyone here would condemn any parent who brought their kids into a situation where they might be waterhosed or beaten by police.

    But we are also talking of psychological harm. What of the child whose father is waterhosed or beaten by police? Civil rights workers had crosses burned on their lawns; that affects the entire family directly. Churches were bombed and children killed, because they harbored and supported civil rights workers. Was any of that behavior irresponsible because it placed children at risk?

    Edit: Is it irresponsible to raise your child as an atheist and political liberal in a conservative Southern state?

Sign In or Register to comment.