Ok I object to this. Human civilization has changed so very much since its birth but you wanna claim that for as long as we exist were going to associate dresses, long nails and child care with women? Thats just silly.
But child rearing is pretty much a universal feminine trait.
No, boobs are a universally female trait. Having them does make at least the feeding portion of child rearing substantially easier, however.
That isn't to say a dude can't use a bottle full of formula though.
hehe. Boobs.
Using a bottle is also a lot easier than using your boobs.
IF the child turned out to be gay and this whole idea was to provide him/her a way to discover themselves without outside interference, its still not going to change the fact that the person has or does not have a dick.
The gay movement is not about wishing you were the opposite gender, its about accepting what you are and how you feel, and hiding the physical truth of it is not helping the child. Sure there are some that choose sex change operations but this is not an option that falls on either side of the gay vs straight issue.
From a conservative perspective, and dispite that fact I dont care much for interfering with parents decision on how to raise there own children, the simple fact that they decided to announce the decision to the world is proof that they are just being attention whores and are knowingly putting a spotlight on there child as a means to get the attention. I'd like to know if anyone else in the world is doing this same thing but just deciding its not something they need to share with the world...unlikely.
I guess I'm having a hard time understanding what exactly the point of this is? So they don't tell the kid what gender it is, and the kid will decide later? Will he magically grow a penis if he decides to be a guy?
Is this just for gender roles? If so, when he/she hits puberty and watches ANY television, he'll get it all at that moment. So basically this is a waste of time, and all they wanted was the publicity.
urahonky on
0
Options
Gennenalyse RuebenThe Prettiest Boy is Ridiculously PrettyRegistered Userregular
I guess I'm having a hard time understanding what exactly the point of this is? So they don't tell the kid what gender it is, and the kid will decide later? Will he magically grow a penis if he decides to be a guy?
Is this just for gender roles? If so, when he/she hits puberty and watches ANY television, he'll get it all at that moment. So basically this is a waste of time, and all they wanted was the publicity.
I'm pretty sure the kid knows what their sex is, it's other people they aren't telling. It's quite rational to not reveal the sex to other people for a while because people do treat infants very differently depending on sex. And that can have some fairly hefty effects on development. What's with people thinking that somebody not telling you an infant's sex is equivalent to not telling the kid whether they're a male or female?
I mean, there's a lot you can criticize about this couple. It can be justifiable to criticize older kids gender not being revealed to others. Their weird freaking manner of homeschooling. The hypocritical "teacher who hates school" thing. But not revealing the sex of an infant is far from some kind of insane concept. Kids will not be destroyed by not being forcibly gendered by strangers from the moment of birth. If anything it will probably be good for their development.
Kathy Witterick and David Stocker are under no obligation to tell anyone about the gender of their child.
Recently, [Jazz] asked his mom to write a note on his application to the High Park Nature Centre because he likes the group leaders and wants them to know he’s a boy.
So the children can tell anyone they choose, but their parents respect their right to disclose that information as and when they wish.
I think it's perfectly possible to conduct yourself in a public space without making a declaration of personal information (like on these forums, for example).
In regards to accusations of doing this for publicity, or being "attention whores", do we have any evidence that they sought out attention, or could it be that journalists sought them out? I can't find any similar articles in the google news archives for Jazz or Kio, which would be likely if their sole motivator was attention.
Kathy Witterick and David Stocker are under no obligation to tell anyone about the gender of their child.
Recently, [Jazz] asked his mom to write a note on his application to the High Park Nature Centre because he likes the group leaders and wants them to know he’s a boy.
So the children can tell anyone they choose, but their parents respect their right to disclose that information as and when they wish.
...eh, I don't know that I'd hold this up as evidence that the parenting style works. The children can theoretically tell anyone they choose, but in practice they're asking their parents to do it for them. And you totally omitted the rest of the paragraph:
[...]to let the leaders of a nature center know that he's a boy. And he chose not to attend a conventional school because of the questions about his gender. Asked whether that upsets him, Jazz nodded.
Collectively, this does not for me paint the picture of a kid who is growing up comfortable and confident in his own identity. But I reiterate, I don't think you can automatically source that to the gender thing. The gender thing is unconventional and controversial. But these parents also happen to making a lot of decisions with are unconventional but uncontroversially, objectively bad for their children.
This is a social battle because society has deemed it fit to police and narrowly define gender roles as a function of biological sex. They also did the same thing with race, skin color, nation of origin, height, biological sex, religion, physical disability, and socioeconomic status. The feminist movement didn't raise little bra burners, the African American civil rights movement didn't raise little black panthers, and the current LGBT movement isn't raising radical queer warriors. Yet still, we somehow managed to loosen those constraints by allowing our children freedom of identity and providing them the tools to deal with a society that inherently constrains identity by predetermined and generally poorly defined roles, all the while opening dialogues with our community members through various political, academic, and social means.
Imagine if instead of the Montgomery Bus Boycott there was instead a movement where black adults continued cheerfully to ride in the back of the bus while telling their kids to sit in the front of the school bus, knowing full well that their kids would endure the brunt of the backlash.
You do know that the "making innocent children bear the brunt of societal backlash against the social politics of the adult parents" argument has been used, repeatedly, against same-sex couples adopting or having children, right?
Wow. I really resent your equating gay parents simply having kids with this situation. I'm not a gay parent, and I don't even like children all that much, and I'm still offended. Good job.
Kids will not be destroyed by not being forcibly gendered by strangers from the moment of birth. If anything it will probably be good for their development.
But this is a complete overreaction on the parent's part. There is nothing inherently wrong with handing a male child a toy truck to play with or a girl a doll. That is enforcing gender roles, but that is not wrong. Now, if the boy gets tired of playing with the truck and wants to play with the doll, or if the girl sees the truck and wants to play with that, it would be the wrong kind of enforcement to refuse them. Kids are not going to be destroyed by having gender role models from the moment of their birth. And wouldn't having a wide range of role models be better than having just two, the parents?
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
edited May 2011
Stupid hippies. They say they're all about choice, but they aren't exactly giving their kids the choice to not be Gender Parent A and Gender Parent B's poorly thought out sociology experiments.
Kathy Witterick and David Stocker are under no obligation to tell anyone about the gender of their child.
Recently, [Jazz] asked his mom to write a note on his application to the High Park Nature Centre because he likes the group leaders and wants them to know he’s a boy.
So the children can tell anyone they choose, but their parents respect their right to disclose that information as and when they wish.
...eh, I don't know that I'd hold this up as evidence that the parenting style works. The children can theoretically tell anyone they choose, but in practice they're asking their parents to do it for them.
You might want to point out where I say that this is evidence that this parenting style works, before assuming that that's the conclusion I'm drawing.
And you totally omitted the rest of the paragraph:
[...]to let the leaders of a nature center know that he's a boy. And he chose not to attend a conventional school because of the questions about his gender. Asked whether that upsets him, Jazz nodded.
I think we might be using different articles, I've certainly not deliberately tried to deceive anyone:
Jazz doesn’t mind. One of his favourite books is 10,000 Dresses, the story of a boy who loves to dress up. But he doesn’t like being called a girl. Recently, he asked his mom to write a note on his application to the High Park Nature Centre because he likes the group leaders and wants them to know he’s a boy.
Jazz was old enough for school last September, but chose to stay home. “When we would go and visit programs, people — children and adults — would immediately react with Jazz over his gender,” says Witterick, adding the conversation would gravitate to his choice of pink or his hairstyle.
That’s mostly why he doesn’t want to go to school. When asked if it upsets him, he nods, but doesn’t say more.
The homeschooling thing is definitely weirder than the gender thing, but the extent to which people are suddenly precognitive and sensing how the kid's education will go is fascinating. These parents sound pretty hippy dippy, but it's a little premature to assume the kid isn't going to learn multiplication.
Let me play devil's advocate for a minute:
The idea that this kid isn't going to figure out gender roles right away via the larger culture is ridiculous. Of course the kid will understand what boys and girls are in both social role and biological senses. So, not that the parents are keeping it all a big secret from the kid, but even f they were it would hardly define the kid's entire life.
Every kid has something in their household that they assume is normal until they have a head on collision with culture. Your parents are the only fundamentalist in town, or the only Asian family, or you don't get to watch TV and have no ability to discuss cartoons with you peers. I know that getting furious about the childraising practices of others is a near-universal hobby (Christian homeschoolers certainly rile me up), but this is being blown way out of proportion.
Besides, monocultures are inevitably brittle to change. I've spent my life surrounded by bigots and sexists and people whose own "unacceptable" desires make them lash out. Their parents all gave them the generic gender role routine from day 1. You don't need to fetch me any smelling salts because a minority of the population is trying something minutely different.
Kids will not be destroyed by not being forcibly gendered by strangers from the moment of birth. If anything it will probably be good for their development.
But this is a complete overreaction on the parent's part. There is nothing inherently wrong with handing a male child a toy truck to play with or a girl a doll. That is enforcing gender roles, but that is not wrong. Now, if the boy gets tired of playing with the truck and wants to play with the doll, or if the girl sees the truck and wants to play with that, it would be the wrong kind of enforcement to refuse them. Kids are not going to be destroyed by having gender role models from the moment of their birth. And wouldn't having a wide range of role models be better than having just two, the parents?
I wasn't even talking about toys there, I'm talking about the different ways people treat male and female infants. The way they're held, the amount of affection they're shown, the amount of time they're held, etc. If a stranger knows whether they're male or female, they will treat them differently for literally no good reason and this will have a major effect on the infants' brain development.
And I see no reason why a kid should have gendered role models instead of role models in general. In fact, wouldn't a kid properly raised in a relatively gender neutral way have twice the number of role models than a gendered one? Properly being the key word. (Note: I don't agree with most of this couple's methods. The homeschooling method especially.)
Incidentally, I'd argue that current gender roles (at least in North America) are incredibly unhealthy for both sides. Males are expected to be emotional retards among other things, and female expectations are all over the goddamn map. Doing something to keep your keep one's children from being trapped inside those roles is most certainly looking out for their well-being.
How bad this is depends largely on how the parents react when things don't go as planned.
Assuming the kid knows what sex he is, sometime soon a classmate will ask "Hey, are you a boy or a girl?" and the kid will say "I'm X" and thus endeth the experiment. It's always possible that the parents are refusing to let the kid even know what boys and girls are, but I'll trust they're not that retarded. Point being, once the kid actually gets into a social environment, he'll learn everything there is to know about gender roles.
At this point, if the parents are not idiots, they will just go with it, and the kid will probably decide he likes trucks or she likes dolls or whatever, and it'll be exactly as girly or boy-ly as it wants to be, and maybe the parents can shake their heads at the injustice of it all.
If the parents are idiots, then they will continue trying to deny their child's attempt to identify as one or the other, they will force their boy to play with dolls or force their girl to play with trucks or wear non-standard colors and everyone involved will be miserable and the only lesson the child will learn is "keep your future kids the fuck away from your parents, because they are freaking crazy."
It's not that hard to instill a healthy sense of gender in a kid who is not hiding his gender identity like he's some sort of sociological superhero. In the formative years, parents have the first and last word as far as how the world works. If the parent says their little girl can play with dolls or trucks or video games or whatever, can wear pants and have short hair, can associate with whomever they please, then the little girl will take it as gospel. No, the effects of peer pressure will not go away, gender roles will still exist, they will still have their effect, but this will be true no matter what you do. What these parents are doing is, at best, daft and largely pointless. It's a whole lot of effort for no possible pay-off.
I mean, my son knows he's a boy. He loves pink. He had a pink fuzzy blanket he carried everywhere. He also loves cars and video games. And Strawberry Shortcake dolls. His dolls like to fight. Sometimes his trucks have a tea party.
I mean, it's really not that hard. It's a matter of not saying "you can't do that, you're a boy".
And honestly? I think what these parents are fighting against are the pretty benign effects of gender roles. Gender roles are not bad because it makes girls play with dolls and boys play with cars. Because really, who gives a shit what shape the little plastic toys are that your kid runs around with? Who cares if your kid wears skirts or shorts, pink or blue? All that shit is more or less irrelevant.
The bad thing about gender roles is the way they define what you can do in life, how you should think, who you should be, how you should approach relationships. And none of these things will be combated by hiding what sort of hardware the kid has going on downstairs. They will be combated by having your kid embrace his sex and realizing that it doesn't have to limit him. And if you're trying to battle gender roles, isn't it a little more productive to have your boy playing with dolls than to have the little sexless wonder who everyone assumes is a girl anyway playing with dolls?
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.
Kathy Witterick and David Stocker are under no obligation to tell anyone about the gender of their child.
Recently, [Jazz] asked his mom to write a note on his application to the High Park Nature Centre because he likes the group leaders and wants them to know he’s a boy.
So the children can tell anyone they choose, but their parents respect their right to disclose that information as and when they wish.
...eh, I don't know that I'd hold this up as evidence that the parenting style works. The children can theoretically tell anyone they choose, but in practice they're asking their parents to do it for them.
You might want to point out where I say that this is evidence that this parenting style works, before assuming that that's the conclusion I'm drawing.
Sure.
I think it's perfectly possible to conduct yourself in a public space without making a declaration of personal information (like on these forums, for example).
The kid isn't comfortable conducting himself in a public space in this fashion. He either withdraws from the public space entirely, or asks his parents to make those personal declarations on his behalf in lieu of addressing the issues surrounding his own identity personally. Neither behavior points to a child who is developing into someone who is confident and comfortable in his own [fore]skin.
edit: Sorry to imply that you were being intentionally misleading; sometimes the problem with organizations like the associated press is that two different publications will take the same language verbatim and reorder it as they see fit, and people may misattribute the editorial discretion exercised by that publication to whomever quotes it later.
I guess I just don't really see what the point of this is. The kid's still going to absorb the social norms tthat the parents are trying to 'protect' it from and 99% of the people it gets to interact with, especially its peers (assuming it ever gets to interract with any) will still conflate sex with gender. It'll still learn that boys play with trucks and girls play with dolls, and that who gives a shit if a boy plays with a doll. And so on, just like every other kid.
Really, what does this actually accomplish aside from forcing everyone other than the parents to refer to the kid as "it"?
[Edit]
El Jeffe should just lock any thread where folks are tossing out opinions on parenting as soon as he posts in it.
The kid isn't comfortable conducting himself in a public space in this fashion. He either withdraws from the public space entirely, or asks his parents to make those personal declarations on his behalf in lieu of addressing the issues surrounding his own identity personally. Neither behavior points to a child who is developing into someone who is confident and comfortable in his own [fore]skin.
That's a possible interpretation. Then again, small children are often uncomfortable saying or asking for some pretty rudimentary things. They will ask their parents to tell some other kid that he wants to play together, that he wants his ball back, that he likes playing with trucks, and all sorts of other pretty banal stuff. Usually "tell them I'm a boy" makes no sense because it's very obvious, and the child doesn't even think about this as something that needs to be explicitly communicated. In this case, it's not, the kid is aware of this, and so relaying this information can be as scary as relaying any other (to us) trivial thing.
But it's also possible that the parents are doing a shit job at raising their kid to have a healthy sense of his own gender identity.
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.
I guess I just don't really see what the point of this is. The kid's still going to absorb the social norms tthat the parents are trying to 'protect' it from and 99% of the people it gets to interact with, especially its peers (assuming it ever gets to interract with any) will still conflate sex with gender. It'll still learn that boys play with trucks and girls play with dolls, and that who gives a shit if a boy plays with a doll. And so on, just like every other kid.
Really, what does this actually accomplish aside from forcing everyone other than the parents to refer to the kid as "it"?
It forces everyone else to put some consideration into the gifts they pick for zir instead of just buying a something pink/blue if ze was a girl/boy.
The whole point is for others to hopefully question their views when it comes to sex, gender and whatnot.
Who cares if your kid wears skirts or shorts, pink or blue? All that shit is more or less irrelevant.
This is kinda of a stickler for me (just the skirt part, so not aimed at what you said really).
Kids shouldn't ever wear skirts because it's detrimental when it comes to their freedom in playing.
Putting a kid in a skirt will for certain influence him or her into avoiding certain play activities that might result in hurt legs/knees while the kid in a pair of pants isn't as limited.
Shanadeus on
0
Options
citizen059hello my name is citizenI'm from the InternetRegistered Userregular
edited May 2011
The whole idea just seems odd to me, but I guess I'm just a neanderthal.
I suppose the bottom line for me is that I don't understand why "gender roles" are a bad thing or why we'd want to get rid of them.
citizen059 on
0
Options
Gennenalyse RuebenThe Prettiest Boy is Ridiculously PrettyRegistered Userregular
I guess I just don't really see what the point of this is. The kid's still going to absorb the social norms tthat the parents are trying to 'protect' it from and 99% of the people it gets to interact with, especially its peers (assuming it ever gets to interract with any) will still conflate sex with gender. It'll still learn that boys play with trucks and girls play with dolls, and that who gives a shit if a boy plays with a doll. And so on, just like every other kid.
Really, what does this actually accomplish aside from forcing everyone other than the parents to refer to the kid as "it"?
While I doubt the parents in question have this in mind, people treat infants differently based on sex. In the West, people usually hold, coddle, and protect males less, hover around females more, and other such things that have drastic effects on brain development at that age. It's entirely rational to not tell you an infant's sex based on a desire for those biases have as little effect on initial development as possible.
Unless you completely shelter them then nothing can be done to "hide" it from others later but the effects do not simply vanish. They may not be immediately apparent but there will be actual effects on the child's brain in the long run that could be beneficial.
Gennenalyse Rueben on
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
The homeschooling thing is definitely weirder than the gender thing, but the extent to which people are suddenly precognitive and sensing how the kid's education will go is fascinating. These parents sound pretty hippy dippy, but it's a little premature to assume the kid isn't going to learn multiplication.
Let me play devil's advocate for a minute:
The idea that this kid isn't going to figure out gender roles right away via the larger culture is ridiculous. Of course the kid will understand what boys and girls are in both social role and biological senses. So, not that the parents are keeping it all a big secret from the kid, but even f they were it would hardly define the kid's entire life.
Every kid has something in their household that they assume is normal until they have a head on collision with culture. Your parents are the only fundamentalist in town, or the only Asian family, or you don't get to watch TV and have no ability to discuss cartoons with you peers. I know that getting furious about the childraising practices of others is a near-universal hobby (Christian homeschoolers certainly rile me up), but this is being blown way out of proportion.
Besides, monocultures are inevitably brittle to change. I've spent my life surrounded by bigots and sexists and people whose own "unacceptable" desires make them lash out. Their parents all gave them the generic gender role routine from day 1. You don't need to fetch me any smelling salts because a minority of the population is trying something minutely different.
The whole point is for others to hopefully question their views when it comes to sex, gender and whatnot.
That's not the whole point. It's not even the main point. It may be a point, and that point may not even be mutually exclusive from other points. But saying that it's the whole point reduces the child down to a piece of installation art.
The main point behind raising a child is raising a child.
It forces everyone else to put some consideration into the gifts they pick for zir instead of just buying a something pink/blue if ze was a girl/boy.
The whole point is for others to hopefully question their views when it comes to sex, gender and whatnot.
If I had to shop for a birthday present for one of my kid's friends and the parents wouldn't tell me what the damn kid's sex was, I would probably punch them (the parents) in their collective face. It's hard enough shopping for random children without at least some guidelines. I'd likely just settle on a fruit basket.
This is kinda of a stickler for me (just the skirt part, so not aimed at what you said really).
Kids shouldn't ever wear skirts because it's detrimental when it comes to their freedom in playing.
Putting a kid in a skirt will for certain influence him or her into avoiding certain play activities that might result in hurt legs/knees while the kid in a pair of pants isn't as limited.
Umm.
Skirts are no more limiting than shorts, except for the part where the skirt flies up and everyone sees your panties. Which can be combated with a judicious use of biker shorts, or something. But trust me, having your knees exposed in no way stops your average little kid from flinging himself all over the damned place.
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.
You might want to point out where I say that this is evidence that this parenting style works, before assuming that that's the conclusion I'm drawing.
Sure.
I think it's perfectly possible to conduct yourself in a public space without making a declaration of personal information (like on these forums, for example).
The kid isn't comfortable conducting himself in a public space in this fashion. He either withdraws from the public space entirely, or asks his parents to make those personal declarations on his behalf in lieu of addressing the issues surrounding his own identity personally. Neither behavior points to a child who is developing into someone who is confident and comfortable in his own [fore]skin.
Firstly, something being possible doesn't mean that you can assume that I think it's desirable or will lead to the best outcomes. I don't know enough about child development to comment in this regard. I'm sorry if this wasn't clear in my original post.
Secondly, him withdrawing from a public space due to continued questions by adults in regards to his gender, might say more about how the adults in question react and behave to gender roles, than it does about Jazz. It's impossible to know without further information of the circumstances.
Thirdly, we don't know why Jazz delivered the message via his parents rather than going directly to the teacher. Without knowing the reason, we're drawing untenable assumptions about Jazz's development.
Fourthly, we're ascribing any developmental problems to a specific aspect of Jazz's upbringing, without being even remotely aware of any other possible causes.
It doesn't make any sense whatsoever to try and assess about the development of a child over the internet based on a handful of news articles we've read, and interpreted based on our own biases. It's similar to when people try and psychoanalyze murderers in capital punishment threads, and people have no problem calling it ridiculous there.
I really have some difficulty grasping why someone would want to do this without thinking that the parents are using their power over their children to make a social statement. Am I alone in thinking that I will raise my kids with the same love and attention regardless of gender? Am I alone in wanting to build homemade rockets with my daughter instead of encouraging her to play with dolls? Am I alone in really not giving a fuck regarding what she wants to wear and whether or not she conforms to standard female roles? Am I alone in not giving a fuck whether or not my son wants to be super metrosexual and wear eyeliner?
Admittedly, a lot of people attempt to reinforce gender roles in their children, and I agree that that isn't good. This just seems charging toward the opposite extreme.
How bad this is depends largely on how the parents react when things don't go as planned.
Assuming the kid knows what sex he is, sometime soon a classmate will ask "Hey, are you a boy or a girl?" and the kid will say "I'm X" and thus endeth the experiment. It's always possible that the parents are refusing to let the kid even know what boys and girls are, but I'll trust they're not that retarded. Point being, once the kid actually gets into a social environment, he'll learn everything there is to know about gender roles.
They're keeping the kid out of school to prevent that. They're fucking nuts.
Bagginses on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
It forces everyone else to put some consideration into the gifts they pick for zir instead of just buying a something pink/blue if ze was a girl/boy.
The whole point is for others to hopefully question their views when it comes to sex, gender and whatnot.
If I had to shop for a birthday present for one of my kid's friends and the parents wouldn't tell me what the damn kid's sex was, I would probably punch them (the parents) in their collective face. It's hard enough shopping for random children without at least some guidelines. I'd likely just settle on a fruit basket.
On the education front, it seems more like they're doing some combination of a Montessori method and homeschooling. Which I'd usually be against, but one of them is a trained educator and I wouldn't say that makes them nuts. For all I know it works just fine in this situation - but the lack of socialization with peers is not a good thing.
Really, they just seem like they're massively sheltering the kids to me.
It forces everyone else to put some consideration into the gifts they pick for zir instead of just buying a something pink/blue if ze was a girl/boy.
The whole point is for others to hopefully question their views when it comes to sex, gender and whatnot.
If I had to shop for a birthday present for one of my kid's friends and the parents wouldn't tell me what the damn kid's sex was, I would probably punch them (the parents) in their collective face. It's hard enough shopping for random children without at least some guidelines. I'd likely just settle on a fruit basket.
You might want to point out where I say that this is evidence that this parenting style works, before assuming that that's the conclusion I'm drawing.
Sure.
I think it's perfectly possible to conduct yourself in a public space without making a declaration of personal information (like on these forums, for example).
The kid isn't comfortable conducting himself in a public space in this fashion. He either withdraws from the public space entirely, or asks his parents to make those personal declarations on his behalf in lieu of addressing the issues surrounding his own identity personally. Neither behavior points to a child who is developing into someone who is confident and comfortable in his own [fore]skin.
Firstly, something being possible doesn't mean that you can assume that I think it's desirable or will lead to the best outcomes. I don't know enough about child development to comment in this regard. I'm sorry if this wasn't clear in my original post.
Fair enough. Your writing assert itself in my head with a generally affirmative tone on behalf of the parents behind under no obligation yada yada.
Secondly, him withdrawing from a public space due to continued questions by adults in regards to his gender, might say more about how the adults in question react and behave to gender roles, than it does about Jazz. It's impossible to know without further information of the circumstances.
I think it says a lot about about a lot of people. Certainly, some of those people are the other kids and adults. But it still says a lot about how Jazz interacts with people around him. Specifically that he does it to a lesser degree than other children his age.
Thirdly, we don't know why Jazz delivered the message via his parents rather than going directly to the teacher. Without knowing the reason, we're drawing untenable assumptions about Jazz's development.
You're the one who brought that section up. But I'm willing to agree that we can't draw any tenable conclusions from it.
Fourthly, we're ascribing any developmental problems to a specific aspect of Jazz's upbringing, without being even remotely aware of any other possible causes.
I did no such thing. There are a lot of questionable parenting decisions touched upon by the article, which I noted in my earlier response:
Collectively, this does not for me paint the picture of a kid who is growing up comfortable and confident in his own identity. But I reiterate, I don't think you can automatically source that to the gender thing. The gender thing is unconventional and controversial. But these parents also happen to making a lot of decisions with are unconventional but uncontroversially, objectively bad for their children.
Am I alone in thinking that I will raise my kids with the same love and attention regardless of gender?
You're not alone In thinking this, but it's a pretty tall order that I doubt any of us could actually achieve. None of us are really gender-blind, and the rest of society will be eagerly telling your daughter how girls ought to behave, regardless.
Nonetheless, I look forward to her advances in rocketry speeding up Lunar Mail in my old age!
1) I'm not an educator, but there is no way that unschooling is going to result in adults that are worth anything in the adult world. Nobody, at the age of 6, stands up and says "Mommy! I want to learn to spell and do basic math!" instead "Yay cartoons and bikes and dirt and pretend!"
2) There's a difference between not pushing traditional gender roles on your kids and claiming that they don't have or need a gender. Facts are that our species has two gender and our society is well aware of that fact. You can let your little boy play with a My Little Pony and your little girl play with a Tonka truck without making them little more than a megaphone for your political sentiments.
This kid is going to be fucked up when they leave home. They're probably going to have sex with everyone, do every drug, and party until they pass out.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
klokateer9047A.K.A Captain Freezeezy Long island,NYRegistered Userregular
edited May 2011
This all just seems so unnecessary,
It's like the parents are just trying their hardest to get attention and besides, by the time the kid reaches 5, they'll learn what they are from his/her friends (If the poor kid has any with the whole unschooling thing.)
And the kid will probably end up conforming to societal roles anyway. I just hope it's a girl,If I was a boy named storm I'd be pretty pissed if I found out about the X-men.
Wow. I really resent your equating gay parents simply having kids with this situation. I'm not a gay parent, and I don't even like children all that much, and I'm still offended. Good job.
Except that's not what I'm doing.
On the off chance I was unclear in my statement, I think that the entire concept that raising children in positive ways or conditions that happen to fall outside the current mainstream cultural definition of proper parenting (be it same-sex parent couples or homeschooling or allowing children some freedom from the incessant gendering of each and every toy, article of clothing, or color) being inherently wrong because it subjects those children to social or cultural sanction based on the "political" choices of their parents is really fundamentally wrong.
It's wrong when it's used, in general, to demonize same-sex parents, inter-racial parents, single parents, and parents who don't hammer in the gender roles from day one. It assumes that bigots should be allowed to define what proper parenting is.
I'd be more than happy to call the parents of Jazz and Storm and whatever other American Gladiators these folks are raising less than ideal parents, for a whole host of reasons, but "they should follow every societal and cultural gender norm or else their kids will be all damaged and weird and genderqueer and fucked for life" is really not one of them.
1) I'm not an educator, but there is no way that unschooling is going to result in adults that are worth anything in the adult world. Nobody, at the age of 6, stands up and says "Mommy! I want to learn to spell and do basic math!" instead "Yay cartoons and bikes and dirt and pretend!"
2) There's a difference between not pushing traditional gender roles on your kids and claiming that they don't have or need a gender. Facts are that our species has two gender and our society is well aware of that fact. You can let your little boy play with a My Little Pony and your little girl play with a Tonka truck without making them little more than a megaphone for your political sentiments.
One of my friends played with barbies. Turns out he was gay, makes me wonder if the mind has some preinstilled gender notions. For instance, if it sees your mom and dad, and knows which gender it is, if it can associate activities and social workings just from that interaction. For instance, if I was biologically male, but my mind identified as female, would I emulate my mother, even if she played with tonka trucks?
Seems like this is going to do nothing but bite them in their ass. If they just want their kid to play with (insert opposite gender's usual chosen toy here) just get them that god damned toy, when they ask for it. Don't need to go "oooo you does it have a peepee?!"
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
1) I'm not an educator, but there is no way that unschooling is going to result in adults that are worth anything in the adult world. Nobody, at the age of 6, stands up and says "Mommy! I want to learn to spell and do basic math!" instead "Yay cartoons and bikes and dirt and pretend!"
2) There's a difference between not pushing traditional gender roles on your kids and claiming that they don't have or need a gender. Facts are that our species has two gender and our society is well aware of that fact. You can let your little boy play with a My Little Pony and your little girl play with a Tonka truck without making them little more than a megaphone for your political sentiments.
The terms third gender and third sex describe individuals who are categorized (by their will or by social consensus) as neither male nor female, as well as the social category present in those societies who recognize three or more genders. The term "third" is usually understood to mean "other"; some anthropologists and sociologists have described fourth,[1] fifth,[2] and even some[3] genders.
The term has been used to describe Hijras of India, Bangladesh and Pakistan[4] who have gained legal identity, Fa'afafine of Polynesia, and Sworn virgins of the Balkans,[5] among others, and is also used by many of such groups and individuals to describe themselves.
Posts
Using a bottle is also a lot easier than using your boobs.
Nature is a horrible designer.
You teach at a school but think school is silly...what? That's not outside of the box or progressive. That's just stupid.
Looking at this from the 'liberal' perspective:
IF the child turned out to be gay and this whole idea was to provide him/her a way to discover themselves without outside interference, its still not going to change the fact that the person has or does not have a dick.
The gay movement is not about wishing you were the opposite gender, its about accepting what you are and how you feel, and hiding the physical truth of it is not helping the child. Sure there are some that choose sex change operations but this is not an option that falls on either side of the gay vs straight issue.
From a conservative perspective, and dispite that fact I dont care much for interfering with parents decision on how to raise there own children, the simple fact that they decided to announce the decision to the world is proof that they are just being attention whores and are knowingly putting a spotlight on there child as a means to get the attention. I'd like to know if anyone else in the world is doing this same thing but just deciding its not something they need to share with the world...unlikely.
Is this just for gender roles? If so, when he/she hits puberty and watches ANY television, he'll get it all at that moment. So basically this is a waste of time, and all they wanted was the publicity.
I'm pretty sure the kid knows what their sex is, it's other people they aren't telling. It's quite rational to not reveal the sex to other people for a while because people do treat infants very differently depending on sex. And that can have some fairly hefty effects on development. What's with people thinking that somebody not telling you an infant's sex is equivalent to not telling the kid whether they're a male or female?
I mean, there's a lot you can criticize about this couple. It can be justifiable to criticize older kids gender not being revealed to others. Their weird freaking manner of homeschooling. The hypocritical "teacher who hates school" thing. But not revealing the sex of an infant is far from some kind of insane concept. Kids will not be destroyed by not being forcibly gendered by strangers from the moment of birth. If anything it will probably be good for their development.
So the children can tell anyone they choose, but their parents respect their right to disclose that information as and when they wish.
I think it's perfectly possible to conduct yourself in a public space without making a declaration of personal information (like on these forums, for example).
In regards to accusations of doing this for publicity, or being "attention whores", do we have any evidence that they sought out attention, or could it be that journalists sought them out? I can't find any similar articles in the google news archives for Jazz or Kio, which would be likely if their sole motivator was attention.
...eh, I don't know that I'd hold this up as evidence that the parenting style works. The children can theoretically tell anyone they choose, but in practice they're asking their parents to do it for them. And you totally omitted the rest of the paragraph:
Collectively, this does not for me paint the picture of a kid who is growing up comfortable and confident in his own identity. But I reiterate, I don't think you can automatically source that to the gender thing. The gender thing is unconventional and controversial. But these parents also happen to making a lot of decisions with are unconventional but uncontroversially, objectively bad for their children.
Wow. I really resent your equating gay parents simply having kids with this situation. I'm not a gay parent, and I don't even like children all that much, and I'm still offended. Good job.
But this is a complete overreaction on the parent's part. There is nothing inherently wrong with handing a male child a toy truck to play with or a girl a doll. That is enforcing gender roles, but that is not wrong. Now, if the boy gets tired of playing with the truck and wants to play with the doll, or if the girl sees the truck and wants to play with that, it would be the wrong kind of enforcement to refuse them. Kids are not going to be destroyed by having gender role models from the moment of their birth. And wouldn't having a wide range of role models be better than having just two, the parents?
My Steam
You might want to point out where I say that this is evidence that this parenting style works, before assuming that that's the conclusion I'm drawing.
I think we might be using different articles, I've certainly not deliberately tried to deceive anyone:
Let me play devil's advocate for a minute:
The idea that this kid isn't going to figure out gender roles right away via the larger culture is ridiculous. Of course the kid will understand what boys and girls are in both social role and biological senses. So, not that the parents are keeping it all a big secret from the kid, but even f they were it would hardly define the kid's entire life.
Every kid has something in their household that they assume is normal until they have a head on collision with culture. Your parents are the only fundamentalist in town, or the only Asian family, or you don't get to watch TV and have no ability to discuss cartoons with you peers. I know that getting furious about the childraising practices of others is a near-universal hobby (Christian homeschoolers certainly rile me up), but this is being blown way out of proportion.
Besides, monocultures are inevitably brittle to change. I've spent my life surrounded by bigots and sexists and people whose own "unacceptable" desires make them lash out. Their parents all gave them the generic gender role routine from day 1. You don't need to fetch me any smelling salts because a minority of the population is trying something minutely different.
I wasn't even talking about toys there, I'm talking about the different ways people treat male and female infants. The way they're held, the amount of affection they're shown, the amount of time they're held, etc. If a stranger knows whether they're male or female, they will treat them differently for literally no good reason and this will have a major effect on the infants' brain development.
And I see no reason why a kid should have gendered role models instead of role models in general. In fact, wouldn't a kid properly raised in a relatively gender neutral way have twice the number of role models than a gendered one?
Incidentally, I'd argue that current gender roles (at least in North America) are incredibly unhealthy for both sides. Males are expected to be emotional retards among other things, and female expectations are all over the goddamn map. Doing something to keep your keep one's children from being trapped inside those roles is most certainly looking out for their well-being.
Assuming the kid knows what sex he is, sometime soon a classmate will ask "Hey, are you a boy or a girl?" and the kid will say "I'm X" and thus endeth the experiment. It's always possible that the parents are refusing to let the kid even know what boys and girls are, but I'll trust they're not that retarded. Point being, once the kid actually gets into a social environment, he'll learn everything there is to know about gender roles.
At this point, if the parents are not idiots, they will just go with it, and the kid will probably decide he likes trucks or she likes dolls or whatever, and it'll be exactly as girly or boy-ly as it wants to be, and maybe the parents can shake their heads at the injustice of it all.
If the parents are idiots, then they will continue trying to deny their child's attempt to identify as one or the other, they will force their boy to play with dolls or force their girl to play with trucks or wear non-standard colors and everyone involved will be miserable and the only lesson the child will learn is "keep your future kids the fuck away from your parents, because they are freaking crazy."
It's not that hard to instill a healthy sense of gender in a kid who is not hiding his gender identity like he's some sort of sociological superhero. In the formative years, parents have the first and last word as far as how the world works. If the parent says their little girl can play with dolls or trucks or video games or whatever, can wear pants and have short hair, can associate with whomever they please, then the little girl will take it as gospel. No, the effects of peer pressure will not go away, gender roles will still exist, they will still have their effect, but this will be true no matter what you do. What these parents are doing is, at best, daft and largely pointless. It's a whole lot of effort for no possible pay-off.
I mean, my son knows he's a boy. He loves pink. He had a pink fuzzy blanket he carried everywhere. He also loves cars and video games. And Strawberry Shortcake dolls. His dolls like to fight. Sometimes his trucks have a tea party.
I mean, it's really not that hard. It's a matter of not saying "you can't do that, you're a boy".
And honestly? I think what these parents are fighting against are the pretty benign effects of gender roles. Gender roles are not bad because it makes girls play with dolls and boys play with cars. Because really, who gives a shit what shape the little plastic toys are that your kid runs around with? Who cares if your kid wears skirts or shorts, pink or blue? All that shit is more or less irrelevant.
The bad thing about gender roles is the way they define what you can do in life, how you should think, who you should be, how you should approach relationships. And none of these things will be combated by hiding what sort of hardware the kid has going on downstairs. They will be combated by having your kid embrace his sex and realizing that it doesn't have to limit him. And if you're trying to battle gender roles, isn't it a little more productive to have your boy playing with dolls than to have the little sexless wonder who everyone assumes is a girl anyway playing with dolls?
Sure.
The kid isn't comfortable conducting himself in a public space in this fashion. He either withdraws from the public space entirely, or asks his parents to make those personal declarations on his behalf in lieu of addressing the issues surrounding his own identity personally. Neither behavior points to a child who is developing into someone who is confident and comfortable in his own [fore]skin.
edit: Sorry to imply that you were being intentionally misleading; sometimes the problem with organizations like the associated press is that two different publications will take the same language verbatim and reorder it as they see fit, and people may misattribute the editorial discretion exercised by that publication to whomever quotes it later.
Really, what does this actually accomplish aside from forcing everyone other than the parents to refer to the kid as "it"?
[Edit]
El Jeffe should just lock any thread where folks are tossing out opinions on parenting as soon as he posts in it.
That's a possible interpretation. Then again, small children are often uncomfortable saying or asking for some pretty rudimentary things. They will ask their parents to tell some other kid that he wants to play together, that he wants his ball back, that he likes playing with trucks, and all sorts of other pretty banal stuff. Usually "tell them I'm a boy" makes no sense because it's very obvious, and the child doesn't even think about this as something that needs to be explicitly communicated. In this case, it's not, the kid is aware of this, and so relaying this information can be as scary as relaying any other (to us) trivial thing.
But it's also possible that the parents are doing a shit job at raising their kid to have a healthy sense of his own gender identity.
It forces everyone else to put some consideration into the gifts they pick for zir instead of just buying a something pink/blue if ze was a girl/boy.
The whole point is for others to hopefully question their views when it comes to sex, gender and whatnot.
This is kinda of a stickler for me (just the skirt part, so not aimed at what you said really).
Kids shouldn't ever wear skirts because it's detrimental when it comes to their freedom in playing.
Putting a kid in a skirt will for certain influence him or her into avoiding certain play activities that might result in hurt legs/knees while the kid in a pair of pants isn't as limited.
I suppose the bottom line for me is that I don't understand why "gender roles" are a bad thing or why we'd want to get rid of them.
While I doubt the parents in question have this in mind, people treat infants differently based on sex. In the West, people usually hold, coddle, and protect males less, hover around females more, and other such things that have drastic effects on brain development at that age. It's entirely rational to not tell you an infant's sex based on a desire for those biases have as little effect on initial development as possible.
Unless you completely shelter them then nothing can be done to "hide" it from others later but the effects do not simply vanish. They may not be immediately apparent but there will be actual effects on the child's brain in the long run that could be beneficial.
Word.
That's not the whole point. It's not even the main point. It may be a point, and that point may not even be mutually exclusive from other points. But saying that it's the whole point reduces the child down to a piece of installation art.
The main point behind raising a child is raising a child.
If I had to shop for a birthday present for one of my kid's friends and the parents wouldn't tell me what the damn kid's sex was, I would probably punch them (the parents) in their collective face. It's hard enough shopping for random children without at least some guidelines. I'd likely just settle on a fruit basket.
Umm.
Skirts are no more limiting than shorts, except for the part where the skirt flies up and everyone sees your panties. Which can be combated with a judicious use of biker shorts, or something. But trust me, having your knees exposed in no way stops your average little kid from flinging himself all over the damned place.
Firstly, something being possible doesn't mean that you can assume that I think it's desirable or will lead to the best outcomes. I don't know enough about child development to comment in this regard. I'm sorry if this wasn't clear in my original post.
Secondly, him withdrawing from a public space due to continued questions by adults in regards to his gender, might say more about how the adults in question react and behave to gender roles, than it does about Jazz. It's impossible to know without further information of the circumstances.
Thirdly, we don't know why Jazz delivered the message via his parents rather than going directly to the teacher. Without knowing the reason, we're drawing untenable assumptions about Jazz's development.
Fourthly, we're ascribing any developmental problems to a specific aspect of Jazz's upbringing, without being even remotely aware of any other possible causes.
It doesn't make any sense whatsoever to try and assess about the development of a child over the internet based on a handful of news articles we've read, and interpreted based on our own biases. It's similar to when people try and psychoanalyze murderers in capital punishment threads, and people have no problem calling it ridiculous there.
Admittedly, a lot of people attempt to reinforce gender roles in their children, and I agree that that isn't good. This just seems charging toward the opposite extreme.
Edit: Hat's off to Jeffe. Good post.
They're keeping the kid out of school to prevent that. They're fucking nuts.
Get them a book!
Really, they just seem like they're massively sheltering the kids to me.
Fair enough. Your writing assert itself in my head with a generally affirmative tone on behalf of the parents behind under no obligation yada yada.
I think it says a lot about about a lot of people. Certainly, some of those people are the other kids and adults. But it still says a lot about how Jazz interacts with people around him. Specifically that he does it to a lesser degree than other children his age.
You're the one who brought that section up. But I'm willing to agree that we can't draw any tenable conclusions from it.
I did no such thing. There are a lot of questionable parenting decisions touched upon by the article, which I noted in my earlier response:
You're not alone In thinking this, but it's a pretty tall order that I doubt any of us could actually achieve. None of us are really gender-blind, and the rest of society will be eagerly telling your daughter how girls ought to behave, regardless.
Nonetheless, I look forward to her advances in rocketry speeding up Lunar Mail in my old age!
1) I'm not an educator, but there is no way that unschooling is going to result in adults that are worth anything in the adult world. Nobody, at the age of 6, stands up and says "Mommy! I want to learn to spell and do basic math!" instead "Yay cartoons and bikes and dirt and pretend!"
2) There's a difference between not pushing traditional gender roles on your kids and claiming that they don't have or need a gender. Facts are that our species has two gender and our society is well aware of that fact. You can let your little boy play with a My Little Pony and your little girl play with a Tonka truck without making them little more than a megaphone for your political sentiments.
This kid is going to be fucked up when they leave home. They're probably going to have sex with everyone, do every drug, and party until they pass out.
It's like the parents are just trying their hardest to get attention and besides, by the time the kid reaches 5, they'll learn what they are from his/her friends (If the poor kid has any with the whole unschooling thing.)
And the kid will probably end up conforming to societal roles anyway. I just hope it's a girl,If I was a boy named storm I'd be pretty pissed if I found out about the X-men.
Xbox live:Wonderboy9047
@Astonishingmike on twitter
STILL THE BEST 1973-FOREVER
Except that's not what I'm doing.
On the off chance I was unclear in my statement, I think that the entire concept that raising children in positive ways or conditions that happen to fall outside the current mainstream cultural definition of proper parenting (be it same-sex parent couples or homeschooling or allowing children some freedom from the incessant gendering of each and every toy, article of clothing, or color) being inherently wrong because it subjects those children to social or cultural sanction based on the "political" choices of their parents is really fundamentally wrong.
It's wrong when it's used, in general, to demonize same-sex parents, inter-racial parents, single parents, and parents who don't hammer in the gender roles from day one. It assumes that bigots should be allowed to define what proper parenting is.
I'd be more than happy to call the parents of Jazz and Storm and whatever other American Gladiators these folks are raising less than ideal parents, for a whole host of reasons, but "they should follow every societal and cultural gender norm or else their kids will be all damaged and weird and genderqueer and fucked for life" is really not one of them.
One of my friends played with barbies. Turns out he was gay, makes me wonder if the mind has some preinstilled gender notions. For instance, if it sees your mom and dad, and knows which gender it is, if it can associate activities and social workings just from that interaction. For instance, if I was biologically male, but my mind identified as female, would I emulate my mother, even if she played with tonka trucks?
Seems like this is going to do nothing but bite them in their ass. If they just want their kid to play with (insert opposite gender's usual chosen toy here) just get them that god damned toy, when they ask for it. Don't need to go "oooo you does it have a peepee?!"
So not really, gender really is fluid.
Say you're a 9 year old boy. Is it better to be named Storm, or Cyclops?
Discuss.