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?
That's a good question. I remember a Judge basically finding a single mother guilty of Child abuse by only allowing them to speak Spanish in their home. Judge said that she was basically forcing them into life of restricted jobs like landscaping and house cleaning.
I think there has to be some recognition and respect of societal norms when raising a kid and that well being and potential of the kids is more important to pushing personal ideals.
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?
That's pushing their ideals onto their kids at the cost of possibly crippling their development. To me that screams bucking the societal norm/pushing their form of societal advancement,
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?
Near my work a child was shot to death in a raid because the father was hiding a guy that he knew shot someone to death for looking at him weird.
So both ways it sucks when your ideals cause trouble to come to your home and to a degree you need to assess whether the risks of shit like that happening are worth the rewards of following your ideals.
In this case it isn't the chance of collateral damage to your family for you standing up for what you believe in, its displacing all the danger and little of the reward on to the kid, the kid that can decide if it wants to be a guinea pig or not, and even if he could would only agree at this point because his parents told him to.
But again, who's to say it's any more of a political statement than any other parenting decision?
If I think that private schools are better than public schools, I'm not going to then send my child to a public school just so I don't 'push my own agenda onto the kid who never got to make a choice on the matter' -- I'm gonna send the kid to a private school.
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?
That's pushing their ideals onto their kids at the cost of possibly crippling their development. To me that screams bucking the societal norm/pushing their form of societal advancement,
So you admit, then, that you're imputing a motive to them that is not supported by anything they've actually said?
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?
Tough questions, all. I don't know if I have the answer. Maybe, in those situations, I would say the parents should send their kids off to live with relatives during the worst parts of the conflict.
Edit: Is it irresponsible to raise your child as an atheist and political liberal in a conservative Southern state?
I'd say, if where you live is so hostile to your ideology and your beliefs, leading to your kid becoming shunned and harassed, you should move somewhere else.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
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?
Tough questions, all. I don't know if I have the answer. Maybe, in those situations, I would say the parents should send their kids off to live with relatives during the worst parts of the conflict.
Edit: Is it irresponsible to raise your child as an atheist and political liberal in a conservative Southern state?
I'd say, if where you live is so hostile to your ideology and your beliefs, leading to your kid becoming shunned and harassed, you should move somewhere else.
So you either just dodged the question, or answered "yes" from what I can gather
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?
That's pushing their ideals onto their kids at the cost of possibly crippling their development. To me that screams bucking the societal norm/pushing their form of societal advancement,
So you admit, then, that you're imputing a motive to them that is not supported by anything they've actually said?
Not my point. I don't think its that hard to interpret it as such. They called as societal norm toxic and are actively sheltering their kid away from it. In the end I don't care if its because of a dollar bet between the two of them. Their ideals have been chosen as more important then the quality of life in the kids future. I remember a mother doing that about AIDS. Led to the death of her daughter at a very young age.
Hmmm....I still have yet to be convinced this child's quality of life will suffer in the future because of this decision, and still remain of the opinion that if anything, they will be stronger for it (if they are actually affected by it at all)
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?
Tough questions, all. I don't know if I have the answer. Maybe, in those situations, I would say the parents should send their kids off to live with relatives during the worst parts of the conflict.
Edit: Is it irresponsible to raise your child as an atheist and political liberal in a conservative Southern state?
I'd say, if where you live is so hostile to your ideology and your beliefs, leading to your kid becoming shunned and harassed, you should move somewhere else.
So you either just dodged the question, or answered "yes" from what I can gather
I generally consider it irresponsible to put your kids in harm's way due to your ideological or social views. Even if those views are completely noble and upright.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
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?
That's pushing their ideals onto their kids at the cost of possibly crippling their development. To me that screams bucking the societal norm/pushing their form of societal advancement,
So you admit, then, that you're imputing a motive to them that is not supported by anything they've actually said?
Not my point.
You're right. It's my point.
You're asserting that they've decided to raise Pop in such a way as to cause Pop harm because they value their "ideals" more than the Pop's wellbeing. I'm asking you to prove that their motivations are anything other than what were stated, and that Pop's upbringing is likely to cause harm. I don't think you can prove either, and that's why you haven't done it yet.
Grid System on
0
Options
Gennenalyse RuebenThe Prettiest Boy is Ridiculously PrettyRegistered Userregular
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?
Tough questions, all. I don't know if I have the answer. Maybe, in those situations, I would say the parents should send their kids off to live with relatives during the worst parts of the conflict.
Edit: Is it irresponsible to raise your child as an atheist and political liberal in a conservative Southern state?
I'd say, if where you live is so hostile to your ideology and your beliefs, leading to your kid becoming shunned and harassed, you should move somewhere else.
So you either just dodged the question, or answered "yes" from what I can gather
I generally consider it irresponsible to put your kids in harm's way due to your ideological or social views. Even if those views are completely noble and upright.
Hmmm....I still have yet to be convinced this child's quality of life will suffer in the future because of this decision, and still remain of the opinion that if anything, they will be stronger for it (if they are actually affected by it at all)
Depends on what you consider suffering and stronger.
The fact is in the end in every type of family system you have kids coming out with drug problems, runaways, teen pregnancy, violent crime convictions, and some/most completely normal. Is one CEO coming from the ghetto "stronger" then another CEO who came from money? Even if they are both doing a great job.
If this kid comes out dysfunctional it won't be entirely this experiments fault. If it comes out normal it wouldn't be made stronger by this.
But what it does do is increase the trouble that this kid will go through to integrate into society. No parent should be going out of the way to make that happen. It's not a road block to normalcy, its an obstacle. Some obstacles turn out to be road blocks for some people.
You are still missing the point- I am not at all convinced that having a child be raised "agenderedly" (or as a genderedly as possible) is in any way dangerous or any sort of obstacle to their "integration into society"
So basically I see this 'experiment' has having one of two outcomes: Nothing, or "net positive"
Hmmm....I still have yet to be convinced this child's quality of life will suffer in the future because of this decision, and still remain of the opinion that if anything, they will be stronger for it (if they are actually affected by it at all)
Depends on what you consider suffering and stronger.
The fact is in the end in every type of family system you have kids coming out with drug problems, runaways, teen pregnancy, violent crime convictions, and some/most completely normal. Is one CEO coming from the ghetto "stronger" then another CEO who came from money? Even if they are both doing a great job.
If this kid comes out dysfunctional it won't be entirely this experiments fault. If it comes out normal it wouldn't be made stronger by this.
But what it does do is increase the trouble that this kid will go through to integrate into society. No parent should be going out of the way to make that happen. It's not a road block to normalcy, its an obstacle. Some obstacles turn out to be road blocks for some people.
Some kids, when homeschooled, turn out pretty anti-social and some don't. Mostly it has to do with how good of a job the parents do with actually making sure their kids have the ability to integrate well with society; it really has nothing to do with the fact the kid was homeschooled, but whether the parents taught the right social tools. It also has a lot to do with the kid's actual psychological setup; i.e., a kid who is introverted is just plain going to have a tough time, regardless of whether they were homeschooled.
But by your rational, though, (well, to be fair, moreso the rational of others in this thread) even though the homeschooling has NOTHING to do with whether a kid succeeds socially, parents should stop homeschooling. Because in this case, you are arguing that ANYTHING which APPEARS to harm a kid's social chances - even though that has more to do with whether the kid is (a) equipped with the right tools for whatever society throws at him, regardless of who or what or how he is, or (b) introverted - should be avoided for the sake of allowing the kid an easier time, even though it has nothing to do with causing an easier time.
edit: What I'm saying is, whatever weird stuff the parents do or don't teach the kid, the kid is going to have challenges. Some challenges will be tougher just because they are weird by society's standards, and some will be tougher because the kid just has the bad luck to run into the biggest schoolyard asshole ever. What DOES matter is not what the kid believes/knows, but how he is equipped to handle those challenges to what he believes/knows. The parents could raise Pop to believe he's the King of Mars or they could raise him to be a normal boy/girl/whatever, and in the end they won't know whether s/he'll be teased more or less; what will make the difference is if they teach Pop self-confidence.
Parents can raise their kids as they see fit. Pop will be the butt of some jokes but that's how the parents want it. I won't play along with the parents' game, though, so if I ever meet a gender-free Pop in real life, I will address *flips coin* her as a female.
Parents can raise their kids as they see fit. Pop will be the butt of some jokes but that's how the parents want it. I won't play along with the parents' game, though, so if I ever meet a gender-free Pop in real life, I will address *flips coin* her as a female.
Actually, you'll address Pop as a female because society says that girls can wear whatever they want and do whatever they want just like Pop. Thus Pop presents as female.
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.
ugh this is exactly the kind of terrible armchair evolutionary psychology I am talking about
Even if you're trying to analyze the EEA (with all the implicit hazards to rigor therein), what we do know about the EEA (mostly from documentation of recent/existing hunter-gatherer societies) would suggest in fact that, no, it is nothing so simple as "men hunted and women took care of the babies."
Again, as I mentioned in this thread, human Male Parental Investment and Female Parental Investment, while perhaps not exactly a 1:1 ratio, are closer to even than in the vast majority of species on the planet, implying relatively muted and malleable gender roles, which is in fact what you see in hunter gatherer societies that still exist today/recently enough to be documented.
Men have always been involved in child-rearing and gathering, women have always been involved in hunting and leadership, even if they have done so in slightly different capacities or with different emphasis. And, you know, then there's this whole huge issue of cultural variation.
So, yes, the museums lied to you (or at least over-simplified things).
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.
it is probably, to some extent, but only if you have good reason to believe that the species you are comparing to humans ought to be compared.
Typically this sort of thing is restricted to nearest relatives (i.e., Chimps, Bonobos, Gorillas, Gibbons, etc), and we also, you know, look for a similar behavior in humans. Also, it's more reasonable to look at established work in ethology and extrapolate to humans if it is a very well-conserved (evolutionarily speaking) behavior/cognitive mechanism.
There are plenty of things which exist in animal ethology that are probably well conserved up the evolutionary chain, albeit with modification. Reciprocal Altruism is a good example, as it exists in basically all social mammals and has its highest incidence in primates, and certainly humans seem to exhibit many of the characteristics. Personally, I think RA is one of, if not the most interesting area of study in Evolutionary Psychology, as it presumably has enormous effects on both individual behavior and culture. It theoretically could have huge explanatory power for, say, the link between poverty and criminality.
But, something as broad as gender roles? Well, perhaps we can have some confidence that humans are predisposed to have gender roles of some kind since nearly every species does, including our nearest relatives. However, we see huge variation in what those roles are from species to species, even among closely related species, so I find it silly to compare does and bucks to people. Even comparing Chimpanzee gender roles to humans is highly tenuous.
Edit: Is it irresponsible to raise your child as an atheist and political liberal in a conservative Southern state?
It would be irresponsible to send them to school in a T-Shirt that says "If God existed, he would want free health care for all." Or, at the minimum, silly.
The more I've thought about this, the more I just think the parents are well-meaning but foolish. As I said 20 pages ago, all this will do is protect him from gender roles until he realizes what a penis is (or she/vagina, whatever). As soon as the kid is aware of sex and gender, he will talk about it, and everyone will know what sex he is, and then he will be assaulted by exactly the same degree of gender role indoctrination as if these parents had raised him in a sane fashion. And by "sane", I mean "letting others know his sex and just trying to teach him that he can do whatever he wants, gender-appropriateness be damned."
Fixing the problems with gender roles isn't something that can be done in a couple years with a well-designed press release and a game of guess-the-genitalia. It is something that we will make baby-steps towards for generations. Look at the options women had 100 years ago, versus those they had 50 years ago, versus those they have today. This was achieved by progressively more people raising their sons and daughters to believe that they could be and do whatever they wished. (Or, more accurately, raising them to believe they could do slightly more things than they or their parents could.) Progress takes time, which is something these parents seem not to get, however noble their intentions.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
Gennenalyse RuebenThe Prettiest Boy is Ridiculously PrettyRegistered Userregular
edited June 2010
I'm...not sure they're trying to single-handedly change society? Is every set of parents that do things unconventionally with their kid trying to do that now? I mean, I'd raise a kid similarly. Maybe without the "don't tell others his/her physical sex" and some other details. I wouldn't be trying to single-handedly cause a gigantic shift in the system, I'd be giving the kid something I really wish I had as a child.
I should also note I don't want or intend to have children, but I have thought about what I'd do if the unlikely situation arose.
Edit: Is it irresponsible to raise your child as an atheist and political liberal in a conservative Southern state?
It would be irresponsible to send them to school in a T-Shirt that says "If God existed, he would want free health care for all." Or, at the minimum, silly.
But just as with a child who knows what a penis and a vagina is, kids will get to talking, and before you know it little Johnny will be proudly announcing to his classmates, "my daddy said there is no god or jesus" and there you go.
The more I've thought about this, the more I just think the parents are well-meaning but foolish. As I said 20 pages ago, all this will do is protect him from gender roles until he realizes what a penis is (or she/vagina, whatever). As soon as the kid is aware of sex and gender, he will talk about it, and everyone will know what sex he is, and then he will be assaulted by exactly the same degree of gender role indoctrination as if these parents had raised him in a sane fashion. And by "sane", I mean "letting others know his sex and just trying to teach him that he can do whatever he wants, gender-appropriateness be damned."
It was stated in the articles that Pop knows that boys and girls are physically different. I'm going to take a leap and guess that Pop probably knows what Pop's physical sex is; it does not seem from the article that Pop's sex was a secret from Pop, just most everyone else. So the only thing missing is whether Pop will tell everyone else. Or if Pop will be in a position to tell everyone else. We really have no idea. I especially have no idea how Pop's parents will keep Pop from blabbing the news to everyone, but we'll see when the stories start surfacing, I guess.
Look at the options women had 100 years ago, versus those they had 50 years ago, versus those they have today. This was achieved by progressively more people raising their sons and daughters to believe that they could be and do whatever they wished.
Actually, it was achieved by a lot of uppity women making trouble and getting themselves arrested and stuff, both with suffrage and with feminism in the 60s and 70s, along with what you said. As I stated before, I'm not sure there has ever been a great round of social change enacted simply by a bunch of like-minded adults deciding to do things differently. There's always been culture clashes and upheaval and drama involved.
It was stated in the articles that Pop knows that boys and girls are physically different. I'm going to take a leap and guess that Pop probably knows what Pop's physical sex is; it does not seem from the article that Pop's sex was a secret from Pop, just most everyone else. So the only thing missing is whether Pop will tell everyone else. Or if Pop will be in a position to tell everyone else. We really have no idea. I especially have no idea how Pop's parents will keep Pop from blabbing the news to everyone, but we'll see when the stories start surfacing, I guess.
Kid: "Are you a boy or a girl?"
Pop: "I'm a boy."
Thus endeth the experiment. I doubt the kid will make it to four before the whole exercise is invalidated by kids being kids. The idea would have some merit as something other than an exercise in silliness if gender roles stopped affecting people at age 3. But since the kid's going to be influenced by them every day of his life, it's pretty fruitless. As it stands, the kids is probably already absorbing the social differences between boys and girls already.
Look at the options women had 100 years ago, versus those they had 50 years ago, versus those they have today. This was achieved by progressively more people raising their sons and daughters to believe that they could be and do whatever they wished.
Actually, it was achieved by a lot of uppity women making trouble and getting themselves arrested and stuff, both with suffrage and with feminism in the 60s and 70s, along with what you said. As I stated before, I'm not sure there has ever been a great round of social change enacted simply by a bunch of like-minded adults deciding to do things differently. There's always been culture clashes and upheaval and drama involved.
Fair enough; I don't disagree. Point was, the progress was made by people talking about gender roles, not by parents refusing to acknowledge that they even existed. Protests and the like helped nudge social opinion, but it was nudged comparatively gradually. These parents seem to be assuming they can just pretend they live in a post-gender-role society and all will be well. Meanwhile, they are seemingly robbing their child of the sort of frank discussions that parents need to be having with their kids.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
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?
Tough questions, all. I don't know if I have the answer. Maybe, in those situations, I would say the parents should send their kids off to live with relatives during the worst parts of the conflict.
Edit: Is it irresponsible to raise your child as an atheist and political liberal in a conservative Southern state?
I'd say, if where you live is so hostile to your ideology and your beliefs, leading to your kid becoming shunned and harassed, you should move somewhere else.
Ah, the old, "if you don't like it, you can git out" argument.
I see nothing wrong with what these parents are doing. They are letting the kid have options, which is a good thing. Are they being a tad theatrical by hiding the kid's sex from everyone? Maybe, but I don't really see the harm in that either.
Also, I find it disheartening that people in here seem to be suggesting that parents never try anything new out of fear of social criticism. First of all the whole "think of the children" thing is bullshit. Kids are not delicate flowers who need to conform or else be crushed under the heel of their peers. They can be incredibly resilient and can actually challenge societal norms when given the tools and options to do so. Second, this line of reasoning actively promotes social stagnation. Nothing will ever change, society will never evolve, if people are too afraid to live the way they feel is right. And part of life is raising any kids you have in the manner that you think is best appropriate. Not just so they can "fit in." I think it is more effective for parents to instill in their children the values they believe are correct. That way, when they do come into conflict with their peers (and they will, no matter how you raise your kids) they have the strength and conviction to stand up for who they are and what they believe in and not cave in to mindless conformity.
Basically, if the only considerations you make when raising your child is how well he/she will fit in with the popular opinions and attitudes of your environment, instead of what you think is right and best for the child's personal growth and development into an autonomous human being, you are not being a good parent, you are being a coward.
Yeah I'm going with Jeffe. Pop will start to interact with other kids and then pretty soon Pop's gender will be common knowledge. Then people will treat him like a boy or girl. The focus should be less on keeping it a secret and more on teaching Pop that s/he isn't limited by gender in any way. The secretive part just seems like a waste of time.
Hmmm....I still have yet to be convinced this child's quality of life will suffer in the future because of this decision, and still remain of the opinion that if anything, they will be stronger for it (if they are actually affected by it at all)
Depends on what you consider suffering and stronger.
The fact is in the end in every type of family system you have kids coming out with drug problems, runaways, teen pregnancy, violent crime convictions, and some/most completely normal. Is one CEO coming from the ghetto "stronger" then another CEO who came from money? Even if they are both doing a great job.
If this kid comes out dysfunctional it won't be entirely this experiments fault. If it comes out normal it wouldn't be made stronger by this.
But what it does do is increase the trouble that this kid will go through to integrate into society. No parent should be going out of the way to make that happen. It's not a road block to normalcy, its an obstacle. Some obstacles turn out to be road blocks for some people.
Some kids, when homeschooled, turn out pretty anti-social and some don't. Mostly it has to do with how good of a job the parents do with actually making sure their kids have the ability to integrate well with society; it really has nothing to do with the fact the kid was homeschooled, but whether the parents taught the right social tools. It also has a lot to do with the kid's actual psychological setup; i.e., a kid who is introverted is just plain going to have a tough time, regardless of whether they were homeschooled.
But by your rational, though, (well, to be fair, moreso the rational of others in this thread) even though the homeschooling has NOTHING to do with whether a kid succeeds socially, parents should stop homeschooling. Because in this case, you are arguing that ANYTHING which APPEARS to harm a kid's social chances - even though that has more to do with whether the kid is (a) equipped with the right tools for whatever society throws at him, regardless of who or what or how he is, or (b) introverted - should be avoided for the sake of allowing the kid an easier time, even though it has nothing to do with causing an easier time.
As an aside, I come from a homeschooling background and even my mother (who was my teacher) would agree now that homeschooling is not a good idea unless there are no better options.
Posts
That's a good question. I remember a Judge basically finding a single mother guilty of Child abuse by only allowing them to speak Spanish in their home. Judge said that she was basically forcing them into life of restricted jobs like landscaping and house cleaning.
I think there has to be some recognition and respect of societal norms when raising a kid and that well being and potential of the kids is more important to pushing personal ideals.
That's pushing their ideals onto their kids at the cost of possibly crippling their development. To me that screams bucking the societal norm/pushing their form of societal advancement,
So both ways it sucks when your ideals cause trouble to come to your home and to a degree you need to assess whether the risks of shit like that happening are worth the rewards of following your ideals.
In this case it isn't the chance of collateral damage to your family for you standing up for what you believe in, its displacing all the danger and little of the reward on to the kid, the kid that can decide if it wants to be a guinea pig or not, and even if he could would only agree at this point because his parents told him to.
If I think that private schools are better than public schools, I'm not going to then send my child to a public school just so I don't 'push my own agenda onto the kid who never got to make a choice on the matter' -- I'm gonna send the kid to a private school.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
So you admit, then, that you're imputing a motive to them that is not supported by anything they've actually said?
I'd say, if where you live is so hostile to your ideology and your beliefs, leading to your kid becoming shunned and harassed, you should move somewhere else.
Rigorous Scholarship
So you either just dodged the question, or answered "yes" from what I can gather
Not my point. I don't think its that hard to interpret it as such. They called as societal norm toxic and are actively sheltering their kid away from it. In the end I don't care if its because of a dollar bet between the two of them. Their ideals have been chosen as more important then the quality of life in the kids future. I remember a mother doing that about AIDS. Led to the death of her daughter at a very young age.
Rigorous Scholarship
You're asserting that they've decided to raise Pop in such a way as to cause Pop harm because they value their "ideals" more than the Pop's wellbeing. I'm asking you to prove that their motivations are anything other than what were stated, and that Pop's upbringing is likely to cause harm. I don't think you can prove either, and that's why you haven't done it yet.
And what harm exactly is going to come by this?
Depends on what you consider suffering and stronger.
The fact is in the end in every type of family system you have kids coming out with drug problems, runaways, teen pregnancy, violent crime convictions, and some/most completely normal. Is one CEO coming from the ghetto "stronger" then another CEO who came from money? Even if they are both doing a great job.
If this kid comes out dysfunctional it won't be entirely this experiments fault. If it comes out normal it wouldn't be made stronger by this.
But what it does do is increase the trouble that this kid will go through to integrate into society. No parent should be going out of the way to make that happen. It's not a road block to normalcy, its an obstacle. Some obstacles turn out to be road blocks for some people.
So basically I see this 'experiment' has having one of two outcomes: Nothing, or "net positive"
But by your rational, though, (well, to be fair, moreso the rational of others in this thread) even though the homeschooling has NOTHING to do with whether a kid succeeds socially, parents should stop homeschooling. Because in this case, you are arguing that ANYTHING which APPEARS to harm a kid's social chances - even though that has more to do with whether the kid is (a) equipped with the right tools for whatever society throws at him, regardless of who or what or how he is, or (b) introverted - should be avoided for the sake of allowing the kid an easier time, even though it has nothing to do with causing an easier time.
edit: What I'm saying is, whatever weird stuff the parents do or don't teach the kid, the kid is going to have challenges. Some challenges will be tougher just because they are weird by society's standards, and some will be tougher because the kid just has the bad luck to run into the biggest schoolyard asshole ever. What DOES matter is not what the kid believes/knows, but how he is equipped to handle those challenges to what he believes/knows. The parents could raise Pop to believe he's the King of Mars or they could raise him to be a normal boy/girl/whatever, and in the end they won't know whether s/he'll be teased more or less; what will make the difference is if they teach Pop self-confidence.
The same could be argued for many other things that are mainstream like religion.
Actually, you'll address Pop as a female because society says that girls can wear whatever they want and do whatever they want just like Pop. Thus Pop presents as female.
ugh this is exactly the kind of terrible armchair evolutionary psychology I am talking about
Even if you're trying to analyze the EEA (with all the implicit hazards to rigor therein), what we do know about the EEA (mostly from documentation of recent/existing hunter-gatherer societies) would suggest in fact that, no, it is nothing so simple as "men hunted and women took care of the babies."
Again, as I mentioned in this thread, human Male Parental Investment and Female Parental Investment, while perhaps not exactly a 1:1 ratio, are closer to even than in the vast majority of species on the planet, implying relatively muted and malleable gender roles, which is in fact what you see in hunter gatherer societies that still exist today/recently enough to be documented.
Men have always been involved in child-rearing and gathering, women have always been involved in hunting and leadership, even if they have done so in slightly different capacities or with different emphasis. And, you know, then there's this whole huge issue of cultural variation.
So, yes, the museums lied to you (or at least over-simplified things).
it is probably, to some extent, but only if you have good reason to believe that the species you are comparing to humans ought to be compared.
Typically this sort of thing is restricted to nearest relatives (i.e., Chimps, Bonobos, Gorillas, Gibbons, etc), and we also, you know, look for a similar behavior in humans. Also, it's more reasonable to look at established work in ethology and extrapolate to humans if it is a very well-conserved (evolutionarily speaking) behavior/cognitive mechanism.
There are plenty of things which exist in animal ethology that are probably well conserved up the evolutionary chain, albeit with modification. Reciprocal Altruism is a good example, as it exists in basically all social mammals and has its highest incidence in primates, and certainly humans seem to exhibit many of the characteristics. Personally, I think RA is one of, if not the most interesting area of study in Evolutionary Psychology, as it presumably has enormous effects on both individual behavior and culture. It theoretically could have huge explanatory power for, say, the link between poverty and criminality.
But, something as broad as gender roles? Well, perhaps we can have some confidence that humans are predisposed to have gender roles of some kind since nearly every species does, including our nearest relatives. However, we see huge variation in what those roles are from species to species, even among closely related species, so I find it silly to compare does and bucks to people. Even comparing Chimpanzee gender roles to humans is highly tenuous.
It would be irresponsible to send them to school in a T-Shirt that says "If God existed, he would want free health care for all." Or, at the minimum, silly.
The more I've thought about this, the more I just think the parents are well-meaning but foolish. As I said 20 pages ago, all this will do is protect him from gender roles until he realizes what a penis is (or she/vagina, whatever). As soon as the kid is aware of sex and gender, he will talk about it, and everyone will know what sex he is, and then he will be assaulted by exactly the same degree of gender role indoctrination as if these parents had raised him in a sane fashion. And by "sane", I mean "letting others know his sex and just trying to teach him that he can do whatever he wants, gender-appropriateness be damned."
Fixing the problems with gender roles isn't something that can be done in a couple years with a well-designed press release and a game of guess-the-genitalia. It is something that we will make baby-steps towards for generations. Look at the options women had 100 years ago, versus those they had 50 years ago, versus those they have today. This was achieved by progressively more people raising their sons and daughters to believe that they could be and do whatever they wished. (Or, more accurately, raising them to believe they could do slightly more things than they or their parents could.) Progress takes time, which is something these parents seem not to get, however noble their intentions.
I should also note I don't want or intend to have children, but I have thought about what I'd do if the unlikely situation arose.
But just as with a child who knows what a penis and a vagina is, kids will get to talking, and before you know it little Johnny will be proudly announcing to his classmates, "my daddy said there is no god or jesus" and there you go.
It was stated in the articles that Pop knows that boys and girls are physically different. I'm going to take a leap and guess that Pop probably knows what Pop's physical sex is; it does not seem from the article that Pop's sex was a secret from Pop, just most everyone else. So the only thing missing is whether Pop will tell everyone else. Or if Pop will be in a position to tell everyone else. We really have no idea. I especially have no idea how Pop's parents will keep Pop from blabbing the news to everyone, but we'll see when the stories start surfacing, I guess.
Actually, it was achieved by a lot of uppity women making trouble and getting themselves arrested and stuff, both with suffrage and with feminism in the 60s and 70s, along with what you said. As I stated before, I'm not sure there has ever been a great round of social change enacted simply by a bunch of like-minded adults deciding to do things differently. There's always been culture clashes and upheaval and drama involved.
Kid: "Are you a boy or a girl?"
Pop: "I'm a boy."
Thus endeth the experiment. I doubt the kid will make it to four before the whole exercise is invalidated by kids being kids. The idea would have some merit as something other than an exercise in silliness if gender roles stopped affecting people at age 3. But since the kid's going to be influenced by them every day of his life, it's pretty fruitless. As it stands, the kids is probably already absorbing the social differences between boys and girls already.
Fair enough; I don't disagree. Point was, the progress was made by people talking about gender roles, not by parents refusing to acknowledge that they even existed. Protests and the like helped nudge social opinion, but it was nudged comparatively gradually. These parents seem to be assuming they can just pretend they live in a post-gender-role society and all will be well. Meanwhile, they are seemingly robbing their child of the sort of frank discussions that parents need to be having with their kids.
Ah, the old, "if you don't like it, you can git out" argument.
I see nothing wrong with what these parents are doing. They are letting the kid have options, which is a good thing. Are they being a tad theatrical by hiding the kid's sex from everyone? Maybe, but I don't really see the harm in that either.
Also, I find it disheartening that people in here seem to be suggesting that parents never try anything new out of fear of social criticism. First of all the whole "think of the children" thing is bullshit. Kids are not delicate flowers who need to conform or else be crushed under the heel of their peers. They can be incredibly resilient and can actually challenge societal norms when given the tools and options to do so. Second, this line of reasoning actively promotes social stagnation. Nothing will ever change, society will never evolve, if people are too afraid to live the way they feel is right. And part of life is raising any kids you have in the manner that you think is best appropriate. Not just so they can "fit in." I think it is more effective for parents to instill in their children the values they believe are correct. That way, when they do come into conflict with their peers (and they will, no matter how you raise your kids) they have the strength and conviction to stand up for who they are and what they believe in and not cave in to mindless conformity.
Basically, if the only considerations you make when raising your child is how well he/she will fit in with the popular opinions and attitudes of your environment, instead of what you think is right and best for the child's personal growth and development into an autonomous human being, you are not being a good parent, you are being a coward.
As an aside, I come from a homeschooling background and even my mother (who was my teacher) would agree now that homeschooling is not a good idea unless there are no better options.