You don't. Here's a question though: Did you parents go to the local paper and tell the journalists there how they were raising you by not spanking you, and not instilling Judeo-Christian religious values in you? Did a reporter every show up randomly at your house and ask your parents how they raised you?
That, to me, is what takes this from "new parenting technique" to "social guinea pig".
Do we even know if they sought public attention through media? Yes they did give an interview but that might not have been their idea.
We don't, no....but do reporters regularly go around asking random people about their child rearing habits? Journalists had to find out about this somehow.
Yeah, no one does something silly like investigative journalism, they just wait for PR people to come up to them and tell them about stuff.
Are you serious? Yes, investigative journalism exists. No, I don't think there are many investigative journalists on the trail of off beat parenting techniques in Nordic towns, I'm sorry.
Yes, that's just how it happened. Some journalist thought one day 'hey I'm gonna go find crazy parenting stories' instead of, y'know, hearing something word-of-mouth then going 'hmm, I should find out more'.
So you know FOR A FACT, that a journalist just showed up at these peoples house to interview them? Have a source?
If anyone wants to research it, the interview appearewd in the Swedish paper Svenska Dagbladet in March 2009 (again, I'm really curious why this is all being rehashed right now, it made the rounds in the english speakling world in June 2009.)
The concept is very simple. Someone comes out with a new product. Before feeding it to your child, or using it on your child, or giving it to your child, you first want to do research to make sure that it will not cause harm. You want to see how it was manufactured. You want to see its ingredients. You want to maybe read studies done with regards to those ingredients, what types of things they can be consumed with and whatnot.
This is what parenting is. Looking after your child and doing the best possible fucking job you can so that no harm comes to them. It is not supposed to be easy, because looking after another human being and making their decisions for them is a huge responsibility.
Actually, this isn't so much "good parenting" as "neurotic parenting," and will result in a child who is completely incapable of dealing with harm. No, you don't let your child play with matches and steak knives, but you absolutely do let them try things that may well lead to harm. Kid wants to balance on the edge of the planter? Fine, let him. Maybe he'll fall down and skin his knee. Maybe he won't. If he does, you console him and treat his wound and he learns a valuable lesson about risk-taking. Kid wants to try eating some salsa? Sure, whatever. He'll probably spaz out and hate it, his tongue will be sore, but he'll know that he doesn't like salsa. Or hey, maybe he'll decide he digs it.
Little kids get hurt. It's what they fucking do. And you can be OCD about protecting them from every damned thing and raise sheltered wussy children, or you can let them explore with the understanding that sometimes harm will befall them, and raise kids that aren't terrified of leaving their comfort zone.
As to the OP, I think the family is pretty short-sighted. The second the kid discovers what a penis or vagina is, the whole experiment is blown, and the kid will be given a crash-course in gender roles. As to whether the whole thing is harmful to the kid or not, it's hard to say without seeing how the parents actually do their parenting. Will they let the kid naturally gravitate towards one gender or the other (and he pretty certainly will, eventually), or will they chastise him when he spends too much time with trucks?
It's not too hard to tell people that your kid is a boy and still let him play with girl toys if he wants. Our two year old son has his own Barbie and some Strawberry Shortcake dolls and a pink blanket (pink is his favorite color). Of course, he usually plays with his dolls by having them beat the shit out of each other, and he loves the hell out of anything with wheels. He's pretty clearly a boy, yet that hasn't stopped him from adopting whatever likes and dislikes he wants.
All without us playing Mystery Gender with the media. Imagine that.
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.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds.2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited June 2010
"Lego pieces" makes me think of "Reeses Pieces". That's probably a bad place to take a small, almost swallowable children's toy.
You just turned this into a public safety issue, sir.
Won't someone think of the children?
I am thinking of the children. And given that I'm English, and am both closer to Denmark AND the inventor of the language, I am pulling rank. Also I invented oxygen.
surrealitycheck on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited June 2010
Legos are just plastic bricks.
Like you can get some non-LEGO legos at Walmart or something.
"Lego pieces" makes me think of "Reeses Pieces". That's probably a bad place to take a small, almost swallowable children's toy.
You just turned this into a public safety issue, sir.
Won't someone think of the children?
I am thinking of the children. And given that I'm English, and am both closer to Denmark AND the inventor of the language, I am pulling rank. Also I invented oxygen.
It stopped being your language when you lost the empire, pal.
Like you can get some non-LEGO legos at Walmart or something.
And I'll still call them legos.
Unacceptable. Un-fucking-acceptable. Legos and Mega-Blocks are not the same damn thing. They don't fit together right, they are different sizes. No, no, no.
Like you can get some non-LEGO legos at Walmart or something.
And I'll still call them legos.
Unacceptable. Un-fucking-acceptable. Legos and Mega-Blocks are not the same damn thing. They don't fit together right, they are different sizes. No, no, no.
Well of course they are different sizes, they are different types of Legos.
Well, this was an unexpected shift of topic that is going to cease right now because it has nothing to do with the OP.
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.
As to the OP, I think the family is pretty short-sighted. The second the kid discovers what a penis or vagina is, the whole experiment is blown, and the kid will be given a crash-course in gender roles. As to whether the whole thing is harmful to the kid or not, it's hard to say without seeing how the parents actually do their parenting. Will they let the kid naturally gravitate towards one gender or the other (and he pretty certainly will, eventually), or will they chastise him when he spends too much time with trucks?
I will be honest here, the fact that they are 24, the fact that they have a pretty clearly set hypothesis in this matter, and the fact that they are parents, not unbiased scientists, all lead me to suspect tat they are more likely to attempt to keep the experiment going by encouraging Pop to be more gender neutral, rather than outright accepting if Pop clearly trends in one direction.
It is one thing for a couple of 24 year olds to say "we will reveal our two year old's sex when the two year old feels it is time.", it is another thing for them to actually follow through with exactly that.
To be fair, any non-shitty experiment would be unethical as hell. I think the parents are pretty dumb and possibly shitty, but no dumber and shittier than any number of other parents.
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.
ElJeffe for being reasonable even when I disagree with him
I mean... ummm... BLARGH STUPID PARENTS GENDER IS COMPLETELY GENETIC ARGLE BARGLE or something.
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
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
edited June 2010
After re-reading the OP again, I'm starting to think that this whole thing is striking people as much more sensationalistic than it really is. What makes it seem strange is that the parents are refusing to divulge the child's sex to other people. I agree that this is kind of weird. But if you look at what they are actually doing to Pop, it is utterly benign. They are just letting Pop wear what Pops wants and play with the toys Pop wants. I have a really hard time believing that this is going to result in profound harm.
After re-reading the OP again, I'm starting to think that this whole thing is striking people as much more sensationalistic than it really is. What makes it seem strange is that the parents are refusing to divulge the child's sex to other people. I agree that this is kind of weird. But if you look at what they are actually doing to Pop, it is utterly benign. They are just letting Pop wear what Pops wants and play with the toys Pop wants. I have a really hard time believing that this is going to result in profound harm.
That's true, they don't seem to have really done much. Really, beyond not telling other people, it's not much different from how me and my sister were raised. Honestly, clothing is really the only part of it that anyone will even notice as strange.
After re-reading the OP again, I'm starting to think that this whole thing is striking people as much more sensationalistic than it really is. What makes it seem strange is that the parents are refusing to divulge the child's sex to other people. I agree that this is kind of weird. But if you look at what they are actually doing to Pop, it is utterly benign. They are just letting Pop wear what Pops wants and play with the toys Pop wants. I have a really hard time believing that this is going to result in profound harm.
Parenting issues generally to make people furious, but this particular degree of ado about nothing seems like it has to be rooted in reactionary sentiment.
I am assuming that Pop knows her own gender and will gravitate towards other girls at school to fit in, and I don't think the effect of this whole thing will last beyond the point that she's old enough to realize how dumb it is. Nor do I think her gender confusion in the years before that will have any impact on her long-term growth. It just seems pointless to me.
I am assuming that Pop knows her own gender and will gravitate towards other girls at school to fit in, and I don't think the effect of this whole thing will last beyond the point that she's old enough to realize how dumb it is. Nor do I think her gender confusion in the years before that will have any impact on her long-term growth. It just seems pointless to me.
Out of curiousity, why are you insisting that Pop is a girl?
(If Jeffe is still around, I'd ask him the same about his use of male pronouns, but somethign tells me he was just picking them as a default. He never said anything about "other boys")
I am assuming that Pop knows her own gender and will gravitate towards other girls at school to fit in, and I don't think the effect of this whole thing will last beyond the point that she's old enough to realize how dumb it is. Nor do I think her gender confusion in the years before that will have any impact on her long-term growth. It just seems pointless to me.
Out of curiousity, why are you insisting that Pop is a girl?
(If Jeffe is still around, I'd ask him the same about his use of male pronouns, but somethign tells me he was just picking them as a default. He never said anything about "other boys")
it's generally the polite thing to do to refer to an amorphous person as "she"
anyways, this will all be irrelevant when Pop decides what Pop is gonna be around the same age everyone else does.
it's generally the polite thing to do to refer to an amorphous person as "she"
If you don't mind my asking, where are you from?
I'm not questioning that this is a thing in your culture, but it is completely unheard of to me, so I'm curious how it came about.
It's certainly more polite than "it."
"it" is a gender neutral term. you're adding your own hang-ups
then again, you've already accused me of secret motives that you refuse to elaborate on
"It" is not a personal pronoun. It refers to things, not persons.
I don't attribute secret motives to you. I think you are less knowledgeable about gender issues and less committed to changing attitudes than you believe you are.
Social constructs are a social construct constructed by philosophers and sociologists to stave off public realization of the near total irrelevance of their disciplines.
Social constructs are a social construct constructed by philosophers and sociologists to stave off public realization of the near total irrelevance of their disciplines.
Biology is real. Hormones are real.
And testosterone dictates that boys wear pants and play with trucks!
it's generally the polite thing to do to refer to an amorphous person as "she"
If you don't mind my asking, where are you from?
I'm not questioning that this is a thing in your culture, but it is completely unheard of to me, so I'm curious how it came about.
It's certainly more polite than "it."
"it" is a gender neutral term. you're adding your own hang-ups
then again, you've already accused me of secret motives that you refuse to elaborate on
"It" is not a personal pronoun. It refers to things, not persons.
I don't attribute secret motives to you. I think you are less knowledgeable about gender issues and less committed to changing attitudes then you believe you are.
It may absolutely be used as a personal pronoun. It may not be its common usage, but it is absolutely an acceptable etymological implementation. In the context of this thread, it actually makes the most sense, since the parents of the child completely avoid using gendered pronouns.
And do tell, how much do you know about my background in regards to gender issues? You've never met me, all you know about me is a few facts gleaned off of a message board where I waste time when I have nothing else to do. You know the whole of my knowledge based on just this? Seems pretty absurd to me.
Seriously, if you're going to make a reserve appeal to authority, at least have the guts to back it up.
Social constructs are a social construct constructed by philosophers and sociologists to stave off public realization of the near total irrelevance of their disciplines.
Biology is real. Hormones are real.
And testosterone dictates that boys wear pants and play with trucks!
...wait.
Do you remember the absurd study that "proved" this with a bunch of rhesus monkeys? The boy monkeys prefered trucks when presented with a choice between trucks and dolls (whereas the female monkeys did not statistically preffer either).
Makes perfect sense, you know, with all of those incredibly manly monkey truck drivers out there.
No one is saying that hormones aren't actually real things.
but they have no direct correlation between whether or not you prefer to have fabric between your legs, and actually much less significance than our society likes to impose on them in general.
If you want a bonus laugh, check out the sample sizes.
Evander on
0
Options
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
edited June 2010
So because one idiot does a monkey study, that invalidates any and all possible research linking biology to gender norms? I'm not saying those studies exist, but you guys keep bringing up the monkeys...okay, but it can't possibly be the only study on the subject.
So because one idiot does a monkey study, that invalidates any and all possible researching linking biology to gender norms? I'm not saying those studies exist, but you guys keep bringing up the monkeys...okay, but it can't possibly be the only study on the subject.
the other studies on the subject showed no real links
this stupid monkey study is really the only piece of "science" attempting to link biological gender to our societies pre-concieved gender norms.
So, you know, when there is empirical evidence against your argument, and the only empirical evidence for your argument is highly flawed, that doesn't neccesarily PROVE anything, but it is a very strong suggestion, no?
No one is saying that hormones aren't actually real things.
but they have no direct correlation between whether or not you prefer to have fabric between your legs, and actually much less significance than our society likes to impose on them in general.
If you want a bonus laugh, check out the sample sizes.
I'm not going to read the study, thanks.
Pants and toy trucks are not key components of gender, and I should even have to explain that to anyone. The way we behave genderwise isn't so very different from the other apes, and they certainly didn't have any oppressive gender fascist saturday morning cartoons telling the males to be more aggressive than the females (for example).
When people throw out shit about social constructs, they go way too far. Someone actually said "Gender is a social construct".
No it is fucking not. That's the bullshit I'm taking issue with. If some study says boys secretly like to play with dolls when they aren't busy being oppressed that doesn't make gender a social construct.
So because one idiot does a monkey study, that invalidates any and all possible researching linking biology to gender norms? I'm not saying those studies exist, but you guys keep bringing up the monkeys...okay, but it can't possibly be the only study on the subject.
the other studies on the subject showed no real links
this stupid monkey study is really the only piece of "science" attempting to link biological gender to our societies pre-concieved gender norms.
So, you know, when there is empirical evidence against your argument, and the only empirical evidence for your argument is highly flawed, that doesn't neccesarily PROVE anything, but it is a very strong suggestion, no?
I actually don't have an argument, I'm not trying to link gender norms to biology, it's just every time it's brought up everyone's like "HAHA THE MONKEY STUDY", and yah, I can find stupid studies in nearly every field of science.
So because one idiot does a monkey study, that invalidates any and all possible researching linking biology to gender norms? I'm not saying those studies exist, but you guys keep bringing up the monkeys...okay, but it can't possibly be the only study on the subject.
the other studies on the subject showed no real links
this stupid monkey study is really the only piece of "science" attempting to link biological gender to our societies pre-concieved gender norms.
So, you know, when there is empirical evidence against your argument, and the only empirical evidence for your argument is highly flawed, that doesn't neccesarily PROVE anything, but it is a very strong suggestion, no?
I actually don't have an argument, I'm not trying to link gender norms to biology, it's just every time it's brought up everyone's like "HAHA THE MONKEY STUDY", and yah, I can find stupid studies in nearly every field of science.
Have you read it? It really is hilarious that some one tried to pass it off as "Science".
So because one idiot does a monkey study, that invalidates any and all possible researching linking biology to gender norms? I'm not saying those studies exist, but you guys keep bringing up the monkeys...okay, but it can't possibly be the only study on the subject.
the other studies on the subject showed no real links
this stupid monkey study is really the only piece of "science" attempting to link biological gender to our societies pre-concieved gender norms.
So, you know, when there is empirical evidence against your argument, and the only empirical evidence for your argument is highly flawed, that doesn't neccesarily PROVE anything, but it is a very strong suggestion, no?
I actually don't have an argument, I'm not trying to link gender norms to biology, it's just everyone time it's brought up everyone's like "HAHA THE MONKEY STUDY", and yah, I can find stupid studies in nearly every field of science.
Speaking of stupid studies I have avoided mentioning that one sociologist who started waxing poetic about how male on male prison rape wasn't really rape at all because it merely opened up new vistas of sexual awakening to the rape victims but I don't want to completely shit all over the field of sociology.
So because one idiot does a monkey study, that invalidates any and all possible researching linking biology to gender norms? I'm not saying those studies exist, but you guys keep bringing up the monkeys...okay, but it can't possibly be the only study on the subject.
the other studies on the subject showed no real links
this stupid monkey study is really the only piece of "science" attempting to link biological gender to our societies pre-concieved gender norms.
So, you know, when there is empirical evidence against your argument, and the only empirical evidence for your argument is highly flawed, that doesn't neccesarily PROVE anything, but it is a very strong suggestion, no?
I actually don't have an argument, I'm not trying to link gender norms to biology, it's just every time it's brought up everyone's like "HAHA THE MONKEY STUDY", and yah, I can find stupid studies in nearly every field of science.
Have you read it? It really is hilarious that some one tried to pass it off as "Science".
Posts
If anyone wants to research it, the interview appearewd in the Swedish paper Svenska Dagbladet in March 2009 (again, I'm really curious why this is all being rehashed right now, it made the rounds in the english speakling world in June 2009.)
Anyone, if someone wants somethign to read that will make them INCREDIBLY angry, check out this piece fo Drek, which I am retitling "Christians Should Be Opposed To Pop's Parents Because Of Reimer, And Also The Pope Said So."
Actually, this isn't so much "good parenting" as "neurotic parenting," and will result in a child who is completely incapable of dealing with harm. No, you don't let your child play with matches and steak knives, but you absolutely do let them try things that may well lead to harm. Kid wants to balance on the edge of the planter? Fine, let him. Maybe he'll fall down and skin his knee. Maybe he won't. If he does, you console him and treat his wound and he learns a valuable lesson about risk-taking. Kid wants to try eating some salsa? Sure, whatever. He'll probably spaz out and hate it, his tongue will be sore, but he'll know that he doesn't like salsa. Or hey, maybe he'll decide he digs it.
Little kids get hurt. It's what they fucking do. And you can be OCD about protecting them from every damned thing and raise sheltered wussy children, or you can let them explore with the understanding that sometimes harm will befall them, and raise kids that aren't terrified of leaving their comfort zone.
As to the OP, I think the family is pretty short-sighted. The second the kid discovers what a penis or vagina is, the whole experiment is blown, and the kid will be given a crash-course in gender roles. As to whether the whole thing is harmful to the kid or not, it's hard to say without seeing how the parents actually do their parenting. Will they let the kid naturally gravitate towards one gender or the other (and he pretty certainly will, eventually), or will they chastise him when he spends too much time with trucks?
It's not too hard to tell people that your kid is a boy and still let him play with girl toys if he wants. Our two year old son has his own Barbie and some Strawberry Shortcake dolls and a pink blanket (pink is his favorite color). Of course, he usually plays with his dolls by having them beat the shit out of each other, and he loves the hell out of anything with wheels. He's pretty clearly a boy, yet that hasn't stopped him from adopting whatever likes and dislikes he wants.
All without us playing Mystery Gender with the media. Imagine that.
You just turned this into a public safety issue, sir.
Won't someone think of the children?
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I am thinking of the children. And given that I'm English, and am both closer to Denmark AND the inventor of the language, I am pulling rank. Also I invented oxygen.
Like you can get some non-LEGO legos at Walmart or something.
And I'll still call them legos.
Move over and let the nation-builders work.
And by work, I mean play.
With our Legos.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Unacceptable. Un-fucking-acceptable. Legos and Mega-Blocks are not the same damn thing. They don't fit together right, they are different sizes. No, no, no.
No. No sir, they are not.
Well of course they are different sizes, they are different types of Legos.
I will be honest here, the fact that they are 24, the fact that they have a pretty clearly set hypothesis in this matter, and the fact that they are parents, not unbiased scientists, all lead me to suspect tat they are more likely to attempt to keep the experiment going by encouraging Pop to be more gender neutral, rather than outright accepting if Pop clearly trends in one direction.
It is one thing for a couple of 24 year olds to say "we will reveal our two year old's sex when the two year old feels it is time.", it is another thing for them to actually follow through with exactly that.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I mean... ummm... BLARGH STUPID PARENTS GENDER IS COMPLETELY GENETIC ARGLE BARGLE or something.
Out of curiousity, why are you insisting that Pop is a girl?
(If Jeffe is still around, I'd ask him the same about his use of male pronouns, but somethign tells me he was just picking them as a default. He never said anything about "other boys")
it's generally the polite thing to do to refer to an amorphous person as "she"
anyways, this will all be irrelevant when Pop decides what Pop is gonna be around the same age everyone else does.
If you don't mind my asking, where are you from?
I'm not questioning that this is a thing in your culture, but it is completely unheard of to me, so I'm curious how it came about.
It's certainly more polite than "it."
Where I'm from in America (both Oregon and Texas), it was always taught to me to use "she" when lacking knowledge of a proper gender qualifier.
"it" is a gender neutral term. you're adding your own hang-ups
then again, you've already accused me of secret motives that you refuse to elaborate on
"It" is not a personal pronoun. It refers to things, not persons.
I don't attribute secret motives to you. I think you are less knowledgeable about gender issues and less committed to changing attitudes than you believe you are.
Biology is real. Hormones are real.
And testosterone dictates that boys wear pants and play with trucks!
...wait.
It may absolutely be used as a personal pronoun. It may not be its common usage, but it is absolutely an acceptable etymological implementation. In the context of this thread, it actually makes the most sense, since the parents of the child completely avoid using gendered pronouns.
And do tell, how much do you know about my background in regards to gender issues? You've never met me, all you know about me is a few facts gleaned off of a message board where I waste time when I have nothing else to do. You know the whole of my knowledge based on just this? Seems pretty absurd to me.
Seriously, if you're going to make a reserve appeal to authority, at least have the guts to back it up.
Do you remember the absurd study that "proved" this with a bunch of rhesus monkeys? The boy monkeys prefered trucks when presented with a choice between trucks and dolls (whereas the female monkeys did not statistically preffer either).
Makes perfect sense, you know, with all of those incredibly manly monkey truck drivers out there.
but they have no direct correlation between whether or not you prefer to have fabric between your legs, and actually much less significance than our society likes to impose on them in general.
here's a link to that study: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13596-male-monkeys-prefer-boys-toys.html
If you want a bonus laugh, check out the sample sizes.
the other studies on the subject showed no real links
this stupid monkey study is really the only piece of "science" attempting to link biological gender to our societies pre-concieved gender norms.
So, you know, when there is empirical evidence against your argument, and the only empirical evidence for your argument is highly flawed, that doesn't neccesarily PROVE anything, but it is a very strong suggestion, no?
I'm not going to read the study, thanks.
Pants and toy trucks are not key components of gender, and I should even have to explain that to anyone. The way we behave genderwise isn't so very different from the other apes, and they certainly didn't have any oppressive gender fascist saturday morning cartoons telling the males to be more aggressive than the females (for example).
When people throw out shit about social constructs, they go way too far. Someone actually said "Gender is a social construct".
No it is fucking not. That's the bullshit I'm taking issue with. If some study says boys secretly like to play with dolls when they aren't busy being oppressed that doesn't make gender a social construct.
I actually don't have an argument, I'm not trying to link gender norms to biology, it's just every time it's brought up everyone's like "HAHA THE MONKEY STUDY", and yah, I can find stupid studies in nearly every field of science.
Have you read it? It really is hilarious that some one tried to pass it off as "Science".
Speaking of stupid studies I have avoided mentioning that one sociologist who started waxing poetic about how male on male prison rape wasn't really rape at all because it merely opened up new vistas of sexual awakening to the rape victims but I don't want to completely shit all over the field of sociology.
No, but I will, at least for the laugh.