Feminism and BDSM...

[catalina_francisco]

LOL, I raised my 2 gender neutral to the extent I bought my son his own doll. He still spent most of his time with lego, but he also liked having a doll of his own, Then again, being the sensitive soul he is, he was most put out at a very young age that society did not hink boys should wear dresses as he said they were much more attractive than boy clothing....he also had a thing for sampling the feel of fabrics in the store and stating how he felt they would work best as in style of dress...and he loved burying his face in women's lingerie in the department store, much to the shock of many a more traditional mother who saw his expression of bliss when he rubbed silky apparel against his cheek. These days. apart from his waist length hair which most women admit envy for, he is pretty much a yound man through and through, albeit sensitive and caring where many aren't. My daughter? Well she also had the option of boys toys like cars etc., but she made her mind up from birth she was a very ultra feminine woman in the making.

Catalina

 

[Homburg]

I can't say that I'm raising mine gender neutral because 1) That is a conscious, not an accident, and 2) I'm not one that agrees with that concept too much. I tend to treat the kids equally, and just as likely to tell my girls not to cry over something silly as I am to tell my sons that.

 

[DeservingBitch]

All the more reason to lighten it up with some humour. It's sexuality, politics, and rights, not cancer. Hell, I'll make jokes about cancer if I feel like it will lighten the mood properly. Yes, politics and civil rights is serious shit, but the discussions on serious shit get so damned dark and grave that people get even more wound up and self-righteous about the topic. We should be able to sit here and chat about these concepts openly, and that means allowing humour.

Frankly, I thought his comments were funny. I genuinely laughed at them, and found them bold and refreshing. Maybe it's because I'm a het male Dom, and priviledge affords me the distance to see humour where the oppressed see more oppression. Dunno. I've only recently got into the whole 'priviledge' concept, so I'm no expert. But, damn, I'm utterly unwilling to see ANY subject as not fit for humour here and there. Especially here on Lit.

So, lets follow on with 'Privilege 202'...

I agree with you that humor should be part of even the most serious topics, and I would even go further and say that humor can often be a very productive tool in dealing with very serious topics.

However... not all kind of 'humor' is funny in every situation. I've mentioned it a few times here in different threads: when a 'joke' sounds very much like the kind of bigoted and oppressive comments that we hear all day long, the 'joke' tends not to be very funny. This is particularly the case in a forum like this one, where people don't necessarily know each other very well. So, while I won't be offended if a good friend of mine tells me that "yeah yeah, all those political concerns of yours are very cute, but could you just take your clothes off and be pretty?" I am NOT going to find it funny if someone on this board that I don't know as well was to say something similar.

I think that it's worthwhile to ask ourselves what drives our use of humor -- especially when we are in a position of privilege -- and what are the effects of such humor. Does it help the conversation, or does it serve to silence and/or deligitimize the concerns of those having this conversation? Is it only a coincidence that 'humor' is very often used by the most privileged ones in a conversation where less privileged ones are challenging the status quo?

 

[Shankara20]

*sounds of Shank subscribing to this thread, then going off for much more coffee before returning to read last several days posts*

 

[alexanna]

Eh, I'm not so sure that gender neutral stuff is all that wonderful. Little boys like toy cars and trains and such. It just works that way. My youngest son found his older brother Thomas the tank Engine stuff at about 18 months old. He had no concept of gender but he sure did love those trains. Wheels? Check. Cool noises? Check. Goes fast? Check. Right, it's heaven for little boys (big ones too). So Hot Wheels aren't all that bad, y'know?

Barbie, however, is satan. Yes, I know, I'm being unequal here, but that is because I see a big difference between the two. Hot Wheels vaguely reinforce gender stereotypes that boys like cars. Barbie reinforces the gender stereotype that girls lke dolls AND she presents an utterly fucked up view on how females should live, behave, and be focused on. And I don't even want to get started on the horrible body image that she reinforces. That said, I'm fine with baby dolls and the like. Little girls like dolls and such, so why not let them play with them. Those girls are more likely to need those nurturing and baby-handling skills than the boys will, simply because biology drops that role on mothers.

So I see some gender-intended toys as educational, plain and simple. Does it ladle more gender identity on them? Sure, but it also gives them introduction to important skills needed later on. And, as an aside, I have no problem with my sons playing with my daughters' dolls and play kitchens and such, and vice versa. Hell, I can't tell you how many times littlest brother had toenail and fingernail polish on because the girls decided they wanted to put some paint on him.

I have 2 boys and 2 girls. We get most of the gender appropriate stuff as well as quite a lot of gender neutral materials. I do find I filter more of the girl toys than the boy toys. I have rules about the girl toys where I don't really have any rules with regard to the boy toys. No Barbie, No Bratz, that includes computer games, DVD's, toys, clothes etc. When my daughter gets old enough to throw a fit about this I will decide whether the battle is worth it. I do not want to make them more attractive by banning them but for now I can do it without her noticing. I used to try and protect her from the "damsel in distress" Disney princess movies but I have lost that battle. Why anyone would want to watch classic Disney cartoons over Miyazaki is completely beyond me but she does.

All the kids play with whatever they feel like. If my 6 year old boy wants to wear my 4 year old daugher's play high heels he does. This however does not happen very often, he's generally too busy trying to shoot someting. I can't tell you how mortified I was when everything he held in his hand turned into a gun at one stage. We got over it, stopped trying to fight it, stopped trying to figure out what it was we had exposed him to to cause it. I now play dead on a regular basis.

 

[Homburg]

So, lets follow on with 'Privilege 202'...

I agree with you that humor should be part of even the most serious topics, and I would even go further and say that humor can often be a very productive tool in dealing with very serious topics.

However... not all kind of 'humor' is funny in every situation. I've mentioned it a few times here in different threads: when a 'joke' sounds very much like the kind of bigoted and oppressive comments that we hear all day long, the 'joke' tends not to be very funny. This is particularly the case in a forum like this one, where people don't necessarily know each other very well. So, while I won't be offended if a good friend of mine tells me that "yeah yeah, all those political concerns of yours are very cute, but could you just take your clothes off and be pretty?" I am NOT going to find it funny if someone on this board that I don't know as well was to say something similar.

I think that it's worthwhile to ask ourselves what drives our use of humor -- especially when we are in a position of privilege -- and what are the effects of such humor. Does it help the conversation, or does it serve to silence and/or deligitimize the concerns of those having this conversation? Is it only a coincidence that 'humor' is very often used by the most privileged ones in a conversation where less privileged ones are challenging the status quo?

I agree, for the most part, but specifically in this context, free speech is assured by the rules of the board itself. Short of very rare issues that are ennumerated in the TOS, Lit allows all speech, positive or negative. While I can see that certain types of humour may have a chilling effect on conversation for the most sensitive among us, I would disagree that it has a silencing effect. Short of a mod editting/deleting a post, there is no silencing here.

As to incidences of humour, well, I see it from all sides here.

Insofar as not knowing someone, Marquis posted this on the first page of the thread:

If you can't see the blatant androcentrism and oppression of women in society, you are blind.

If you're not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. No one wants to accept the debt of their ancestors but we all feel entitled to our inheritance.

As human beings, we're all pretty much self interested and will do whatever we can get away with. We're all in the rat race and we all play "the game." It is the very least we can do to be honest about that.

That would tend to establish his position on the issue in my mind, and makes clear to me that he is pro-feminism, regardless of the joke here.

Now I'm not defending Marquis. He doesn't need the help. I am essentially defending humour. Frankly, I see even oppressor humour as valid if it is funny. The oppressor weakens himself when making jokes by softening his image, and, additionally, it gives rise to conversations about this. More oppurtunity for the oppressed to speak out. Admittedly, I see things differently. Priviledge, perhaps? Or it could just be my attitude; no idea, to be honest. I've been in situations where I was the oppressed, and have seen humour as an opening more than a boot to the neck.

ETA: A quick parse of the thread showed humour use was about a 1:1 ratios vis a vis male/female.

 

[Homburg]

I have 2 boys and 2 girls. We get most of the gender appropriate stuff as well as quite a lot of gender neutral materials. I do find I filter more of the girl toys than the boy toys. I have rules about the girl toys where I don't really have any rules with regard to the boy toys. No Barbie, No Bratz, that includes computer games, DVD's, toys, clothes etc. When my daughter gets old enough to throw a fit about this I will decide whether the battle is worth it. I do not want to make them more attractive by banning them but for now I can do it without her noticing. I used to try and protect her from the "damsel in distress" Disney princess movies but I have lost that battle. Why anyone would want to watch classic Disney cartoons over Miyazaki is completely beyond me but she does.

All the kids play with whatever they feel like. If my 6 year old boy wants to wear my 4 year old daugher's play high heels he does. This however does not happen very often, he's generally too busy trying to shoot someting. I can't tell you how mortified I was when everything he held in his hand turned into a gun at one stage. We got over it, stopped trying to fight it, stopped trying to figure out what it was we had exposed him to to cause it. I now play dead on a regular basis.

I originally had a strict No Barbie rule. Didn't matter. Other people would buy Barbie crap for her, and I just wasn't enough of an asshole to take the toy away from her. Happily, she doesn't really like Barbie all that much. The Barbie toys she likes are the ones with animals and veterinary themes, as that's her thing these days.

Bratz I despise. I may well be enough of an asshole to take those away. I haven't been tested like that yet.

Movies? Eh. Can't stop the marketing. Luckily the newer stuff isn't quite so DiD, but the old stuff is still so very good in many ways that I dig it. I'd rather let them watch it and explain later that she can do anything she wants, be anything she wants, and that it is better to get herself out of jams than to wait for rescue. She does it too. She tends to only holler for help when she really, really needs it. My eldest daughter kicks ass =)

And I'm with you on the gun thing. I'm pro-gun, and will teach my kids to shoot when they get old enough, but I did wonder when he first started doing it. I was taught to shoot at 5 years old, and been doing it since with no issues or problems. I expect my kids, girls and boys, will be the same way.

 

[alexanna]

Motherhood

Homburg elluded to the elephant in the room which is that the females have the children. Yes we can decide when to have them or not to have them at all but if they are going to be had we are the ones who have to do it.

I have squeezed out four and am recovering from a hysterectomy and A&P repair right now. The last 12 months have been hell simply because I am the woman in the relationship.

It was a very difficult decision to have my 3rd child. I wasn't sure I needed more than 2. My husband really really wanted more. It took him 2 years to convince me to have another one. Number 4 was unplanned (I am generally not fertile without help) and I was extremely depressed throughout that pregnancy.

I remember when I read "The Second Sex" by De Beauvoir I cried my eyes out as she explained the bondage motherhood places women in. Motherhood is all the wonderful things I was taught at church but there is a large price. Beyond just pregnancy and breastfeeding there is a bonding that occurs between a mother and child that does make it hard for her not to be the primary care giver and I don't think its healthy for the child for her not to be. From day one my babies respond to my voice and my smell. They WANT me more than anyone else right out of the gate. Its a nice ego boost but there are days, sometimes weeks where it feels more like shackles rather than love.

The question I struggle with is does society treat women who choose to have children like equals in the sense that they make no accomodation for any special needs or do we need to be made part of the ADA and given accomodation? In a society where men and women are treated as equals motherhood almost feels like a disability.

I really do feel that the burden of child bearing makes men and women inherently unequal. There are things I experience that my husband never will. Some good and some not. Most men I know are glad someone else can have their babies.

 

[Homburg]

The question I struggle with is does society treat women who choose to have children like equals in the sense that they make no accomodation for any special needs or do we need to be made part of the ADA and given accomodation? In a society where men and women are treated as equals motherhood almost feels like a disability.

Wow, that would put a LOT of people on disability =P

That said, there is support out there. WIC, EIC at tax time, education support, etc, all the way down to kids eating free at some restaurants and gyms having child-care on site. Is it enough? No, of course not. Motherhood is too large a burden for society to shoulder it entirely.

I really do feel that the burden of child bearing makes men and women inherently unequal. There are things I experience that my husband never will. Some good and some not. Most men I know are glad someone else can have their babies.

Absolutely! *shudder* I am SO glad that I did not have to go through that!

 

[DeservingBitch]

I agree, for the most part, but specifically in this context, free speech is assured by the rules of the board itself. Short of very rare issues that are ennumerated in the TOS, Lit allows all speech, positive or negative. While I can see that certain types of humour may have a chilling effect on conversation for the most sensitive among us, I would disagree that it has a silencing effect. Short of a mod editting/deleting a post, there is no silencing here.

As to incidences of humour, well, I see it from all sides here.

Insofar as not knowing someone, Marquis posted this on the first page of the thread:



That would tend to establish his position on the issue in my mind, and makes clear to me that he is pro-feminism, regardless of the joke here.

Now I'm not defending Marquis. He doesn't need the help. I am essentially defending humour. Frankly, I see even oppressor humour as valid if it is funny. The oppressor weakens himself when making jokes by softening his image, and, additionally, it gives rise to conversations about this. More oppurtunity for the oppressed to speak out. Admittedly, I see things differently. Priviledge, perhaps? Or it could just be my attitude; no idea, to be honest. I've been in situations where I was the oppressed, and have seen humour as an opening more than a boot to the neck.

ETA: A quick parse of the thread showed humour use was about a 1:1 ratios vis a vis male/female.

I was not talking about silencing in the sense of censor but rather in the sense of the concrete effects of some form of humor. In other words, some 'jokes' may have a silencing effect by deligitimizing someone's concerns or views on a topic. Or by making that person very uncomfortable in carrying on the conversation. Or in derailing the conversation. You get the point.

As for Marquis's comment, I was not really responding to it, but rather to the larger issue of the appropriateness of humor that you raised. But regarding his sympathetic positions re: feminism, I don't think that this in itself makes it necessarily OK then to use humor that may be innapropriate and/or offensive. For instance, I am very much committed to anti-racist struggles and politics and make those commitments very clear - that doesn't mean that I have a free pass on making racist joke or calling someone nigger 'as a joke'.

Just to be clear - my point is NOT that humor cannot or shouldn't be used when discussion serious issues. But the lines is often very thin between humor that is funny and productive, and 'humor' that only serves to reaffirm and reinforced the status quo. One needs to keep in mind that the intentions of the author of said humor do not directly translate into how it is perceived by the audience.

I think this was very well illustrated recently with the Borat movie. It is very clear that Sasha was using humor to make political comments about the racism and (hetero)sexism of american society. But those comments were totally lost on the frat boys who were sitting with me in the teather and who were laughing their asses off when hearing talks in the movie about 'bitches' and 'dirty jews'. At this point, it doesn't matter anymore what the intentions of the author were -- the effect is that those bigoted and sexist asshats were reinforced in their fucked up views, even if the purpose of the movie was the exact opposite. Make sense?

 

[Netzach]

Did you get the one that says: "a wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ" ???

Apparently that statement appeared in a full page USA Today ad in 1998. Signed by our beer buddy, no less!

Oh I'm sure he's a promise keeper type. I think it's amusing that all those stwong xtian men need something like that to do to keep them out of trouble, if they're really leaders at home you'd think the giant pep rallies would be superfluous.

 

[Homburg]

I was not talking about silencing in the sense of censor but rather in the sense of the concrete effects of some form of humor. In other words, some 'jokes' may have a silencing effect by deligitimizing someone's concerns or views on a topic. Or by making that person very uncomfortable in carrying on the conversation. Or in derailing the conversation. You get the point.

As for Marquis's comment, I was not really responding to it, but rather to the larger issue of the appropriateness of humor that you raised. But regarding his sympathetic positions re: feminism, I don't think that this in itself makes it necessarily OK then to use humor that may be innapropriate and/or offensive. For instance, I am very much committed to anti-racist struggles and politics and make those commitments very clear - that doesn't mean that I have a free pass on making racist joke or calling someone nigger 'as a joke'.

Oh, I'm not implying that offering support somehow gives a free pass. Just saying that the unknown is not quite so unknown if the person in question took the time to read the thread. You'd made the specific point that the reader may be unfamiliar with the joker, and thus unaware of the humour, as it appeared that Tyr51 was.

Just to be clear - my point is NOT that humor cannot or shouldn't be used when discussion serious issues. But the lines is often very thin between humor that is funny and productive, and 'humor' that only serves to reaffirm and reinforced the status quo. One needs to keep in mind that the intentions of the author of said humor do not directly translate into how it is perceived by the audience.

I think this was very well illustrated recently with the Borat movie. It is very clear that Sasha was using humor to make political comments about the racism and (hetero)sexism of american society. But those comments were totally lost on the frat boys who were sitting with me in the teather and who were laughing their asses off when hearing talks in the movie about 'bitches' and 'dirty jews'. At this point, it doesn't matter anymore what the intentions of the author were -- the effect is that those bigoted and sexist asshats were reinforced in their fucked up views, even if the purpose of the movie was the exact opposite. Make sense?

I'll have to take your word for it on Borat. I've not seen the movie. I do know wher eyou are coming from though. Context is important, but so is subtext, and it can easily be missed.

 

[DeservingBitch]

Oh, I'm not implying that offering support somehow gives a free pass. Just saying that the unknown is not quite so unknown if the person in question took the time to read the thread. You'd made the specific point that the reader may be unfamiliar with the joker, and thus unaware of the humour, as it appeared that Tyr51 was.

It's not so much that the reader may not see the (attempt at) humor, but more that on a board such as this one (and you can't assume that people will go back to read the entire thread to figure out where one poster is coming from), it's not as easy to give people some credit as it is in real life. I may get away with making a joke that draws on race with a good friend of mine -- because my friend knows me (from behavior and not only words) and knows how to read said joke -- but I wouldn't expect anyone on a board like Lit to cut me the same slack and read the same joke as funny just because I made some declarations about my being anti-racist.

 

[DeservingBitch]

I'll have to take your word for it on Borat. I've not seen the movie. I do know wher eyou are coming from though. Context is important, but so is subtext, and it can easily be missed.

Not worth the 10$ in my opinion. His tv show was MUCH better and much funnier.

 

[Homburg]

It's not so much that the reader may not see the (attempt at) humor, but more that on a board such as this one (and you can't assume that people will go back to read the entire thread to figure out where one poster is coming from), it's not as easy to give people some credit as it is in real life. I may get away with making a joke that draws on race with a good friend of mine -- because my friend knows me (from behavior and not only words) and knows how to read said joke -- but I wouldn't expect anyone on a board like Lit to cut me the same slack and read the same joke as funny just because I made some declarations about my being anti-racist.

I actually do assume that people read the thread when it is a short one like this. If the pagecount is into double digits plus I can understand not reading everything, but 5 pages? Not that onerous, especially on a complex topic like this.

Not worth the 10$ in my opinion. His tv show was MUCH better and much funnier.

He irritates me. The only thing he's done that did not utterly grate on my nerves was Sweeney Todd, and his character was such that his annoying Demeanour was appropriate. Additionally, his character dies in a graphic manner, also a plus.

 

[alexanna]

That said, there is support out there. WIC, EIC at tax time, education support, etc, all the way down to kids eating free at some restaurants and gyms having child-care on site. Is it enough? No, of course not. Motherhood is too large a burden for society to shoulder it entirely.

My point isn't whether or not there are such things but just the inherent unequalness of shouldering more of the burden of bearing the next generation. Beyond the glass ceiling and the attitudes women who choose not to have children have to put up with because they might decide to some day, I chose to be unequal the moment I made the decision with my husband to have a child. His options were not curtailed to the degree that mine were.

At least I got to choose and went in with my eyes at least somewhat open. My husband has basically allowed me to continue to pursue my career to the fullest extent that I want to by shouldering close to half the load. He did not have to do this. I was basically at his mercy as to how much of the load he was going to shoulder. I guess I could always have witheld the bearing of more children.

For me there truly is a sense of being at the mercy of society and my husband to make motherhood less a burden. I am more or less comfortable with it at different times depending on the amount of reading\thinking I am doing on the subject at the time.

I am often at war with my biology.

 

[Marquis]

I hope you did not mean your response to be as hurtful as it was.

No, actually, I didn't. I appreciated your comments, I just couldn't resist.

I have pictures available for the appropriate persons, marquis.

Yeah?

 

[alexanna]

I originally had a strict No Barbie rule. Didn't matter. Other people would buy Barbie crap for her, and I just wasn't enough of an asshole to take the toy away from her. Happily, she doesn't really like Barbie all that much. The Barbie toys she likes are the ones with animals and veterinary themes, as that's her thing these days.

Bratz I despise. I may well be enough of an asshole to take those away. I haven't been tested like that yet.

All my Barbie dolls ever did was dress up and have sex, somtimes with Ken (actually he was a Donnie Osmond doll who's head was often in the toilet for various offenses he commited) but generally just with each other.

I LOVED them but thinking of my daughter having them makes me nervous. It isn't that I don't think she should have sexual feelings (I was orgasmic between 6&7 years old) I just don't like the idea of those sexual feelings getting associated with Barbie and consumerism at such a young age.

 

[intothewoods]

Eh, I'm not so sure that gender neutral stuff is all that wonderful. Little boys like toy cars and trains and such. It just works that way. My youngest son found his older brother Thomas the tank Engine stuff at about 18 months old. He had no concept of gender but he sure did love those trains. Wheels? Check. Cool noises? Check. Goes fast? Check. Right, it's heaven for little boys (big ones too). So Hot Wheels aren't all that bad, y'know?

Barbie, however, is satan. Yes, I know, I'm being unequal here, but that is because I see a big difference between the two. Hot Wheels vaguely reinforce gender stereotypes that boys like cars. Barbie reinforces the gender stereotype that girls lke dolls AND she presents an utterly fucked up view on how females should live, behave, and be focused on. And I don't even want to get started on the horrible body image that she reinforces. That said, I'm fine with baby dolls and the like. Little girls like dolls and such, so why not let them play with them. Those girls are more likely to need those nurturing and baby-handling skills than the boys will, simply because biology drops that role on mothers.

So I see some gender-intended toys as educational, plain and simple. Does it ladle more gender identity on them? Sure, but it also gives them introduction to important skills needed later on. And, as an aside, I have no problem with my sons playing with my daughters' dolls and play kitchens and such, and vice versa. Hell, I can't tell you how many times littlest brother had toenail and fingernail polish on because the girls decided they wanted to put some paint on him.

I think most people agree that many gendered behaviors and preferences are a mixture of environment and biology. It's fine to say, hey, boys like trains, but understand that it's not just that boys have a train gene.

I think it's good to have a mix, and not force kids one way or the other. But in my mind, it's more important to be aware of the different pressures on kids. It's not just a question of buying one thing or the other, but all of the marketing influences on us, on our kids, on our kids' friends. And our reactions to kids.

And I suppose at some level, I do work extra hard to introduce different things to my son, just as I would with a daughter, because there are eight million different people giving him loads of positive reinforcement that construction toys are awesome, and so yeah, I'll spend an extra five minutes really letting him get into cooking play. Because he doesn't always get quite as much ooohlala he likes trucks fawning.

Plus he likes pink.

 

[intothewoods]

Did you get the one that says: "a wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ" ???

Apparently that statement appeared in a full page USA Today ad in 1998. Signed by our beer buddy, no less!

He also equated sadomasochism and homosexuality to pedophilia. Good times!

 

[alexanna]

I think most people agree that many gendered behaviors and preferences are a mixture of environment and biology. It's fine to say, hey, boys like trains, but understand that it's not just that boys have a train gene.

I think it's good to have a mix, and not force kids one way or the other. But in my mind, it's more important to be aware of the different pressures on kids. It's not just a question of buying one thing or the other, but all of the marketing influences on us, on our kids, on our kids' friends. And our reactions to kids.

I agree wholeheartedly, especially about marketing. I think we can make a general statement that most boys like certain types of toys more than most girls and vice versa but its not necessarily ALOT more. It doesn't mean my daughter doesn't love to play with Thomas the Tank engine, she does, just not as much as dressing up like Cinderella and having her brother protect her with his big nerf gun while being attacked my imaginary creatures trying to "get her".

 

[Homburg]

I think most people agree that many gendered behaviors and preferences are a mixture of environment and biology. It's fine to say, hey, boys like trains, but understand that it's not just that boys have a train gene.

Why it is important to verbalise this? Am I forcing trains on my youngest? Nope. He found his brother's trains and fell in love with them. *shrug* Not
my doing. Is it so very central to raising kids that we have to sweat these details so much? Or do we just let them decide what they want to play with? Why label it as some sort of gender bias when you can just let the kid be a kid?

To me it smacks of pretension to worry overmuch about such things. Then again, my folks were pretty laissez-faire with me, and I turned out mostly okay. Well, mostly okay in my niche. Er, well, okay if you like sadists.

....

Right, I like myself. And I'm okay with my kids turning out like me, so my parents' model of parenting is cool by me.

I think it's good to have a mix, and not force kids one way or the other. But in my mind, it's more important to be aware of the different pressures on kids. It's not just a question of buying one thing or the other, but all of the marketing influences on us, on our kids, on our kids' friends. And our reactions to kids.

Short of turning off the television and homeschooling your kids, you cannot stop marketing. Hell, that won't even stop it, it just mutes a bunch of it. You're kid will be marketed to through clothes on the street, billboards, what they hear other kids talk about, etc. It's everywhere. It was also everywhere when we were kids. And when our parents were kids. So why treat it like some new evil now? No, I'm not pro-marketing, but I am also not willing to let marketing be the boogeyman for bad consumer decisions on my part, or their part. I control what my kids get, and I am perfectly happy to tell them no if I think something is silly. And they're bright enough to know that whining, wheedling, and begging gets them exactly nowhere.

And I suppose at some level, I do work extra hard to introduce different things to my son, just as I would with a daughter, because there are eight million different people giving him loads of positive reinforcement that construction toys are awesome, and so yeah, I'll spend an extra five minutes really letting him get into cooking play. Because he doesn't always get quite as much ooohlala he likes trucks fawning.

Plus he likes pink.

Meh. Construction toys are awesome. they reinforce the idea that building things is good. Better than toy guns (as much as I like them) or oversexed bratz dolls that promote destructive behaviour. I guess I'm weird in that I don't mind if my boys grow up to be men and my girls grow up to be women. I'm more worried about my boys growing up to be mashers and cads and my girls bringing home a pregnancy as teenagers.

I'd rather spend my time instilling virtues and my memes, and letting them come up with their own gender awareness at their pace. Frankly, they're going to do it anyway based on their internal make-up, so whatever.

Example: My oldest son is a sensitive kid, emotional, expressive, and a bit on the wimpy side. I don't give him one bit of grief for it. If he decides that he's not going to be a macho hairy beast like me *grunt* I don't care. If he grows up and decides that he wants to dress pretty and that boys are hot, so be it. I honestly don't care. But I'm not going to try to instill some gender neutrality because I likewise don't care if he does turns into *gasp* macho hairy beast like me. Same goes for my girls being girly or not. Don't care. It's their choice.

And the teen pregnancy thing goes for the boys as well as the girls. No babies before they're out of the house.

To be frank and probably unpopular, gender neutral parenting is too often just code for emasculation of little boys. I've watched more than one 'gender neutral' parent let their little girls do whatever while they focused entirely on reigning in the boy energy of their male offspring. No thanks. "Gender neutral parenting" in my book just means that I don't impose my ideas on what they should become, and that includes not forcefully exposing them to other choices. They'll find those choices on their own or ask for them if they want em, and I will support them regardless.

 

[Homburg]

I agree wholeheartedly, especially about marketing. I think we can make a general statement that most boys like certain types of toys more than most girls and vice versa but its not necessarily ALOT more. It doesn't mean my daughter doesn't love to play with Thomas the Tank engine, she does, just not as much as dressing up like Cinderella and having her brother protect her with his big nerf gun while being attacked my imaginary creatures trying to "get her".

Eldest daughter and eldest son tend to team up to 'protect' youngest daughter. Eldest daughter is not interested in being the damsel in distress. Youngest isn't usually, but she plays along because she's little, and because she's genial like that.

Having kids really is an education in so many things, and having four kids drills those lessons in ever so much more strongly.

 

[alexanna]

Right, I like myself. And I'm okay with my kids turning out like me, so my parents' model of parenting is cool by me.

This would explain why raising my daughters is so hard for me. Thank you for the clarity.

 

[intothewoods]

Why it is important to verbalise this? Am I forcing trains on my youngest? Nope. He found his brother's trains and fell in love with them. *shrug* Not
my doing. Is it so very central to raising kids that we have to sweat these details so much? Or do we just let them decide what they want to play with? Why label it as some sort of gender bias when you can just let the kid be a kid?

To me it smacks of pretension to worry overmuch about such things. Then again, my folks were pretty laissez-faire with me, and I turned out mostly okay. Well, mostly okay in my niche. Er, well, okay if you like sadists.

....

Right, I like myself. And I'm okay with my kids turning out like me, so my parents' model of parenting is cool by me.

I think it's important to be a conscious parent. I think you're kidding yourself if you don't think your reactions have an impact on your youngest's love for trains. And how his brother reacted, or his friends, or all of the above. Of course, let the kid be a kid - and I would never suggest you say, well, you've had an hour of boy play today, now how about an hour of girl play to balance it out?

I see your pretension, and I raise you that it's pretentiously anti-intellectual to diss using your brain. Must you analyze your kids' every move to be a good parent? No, of course not. Is there anything wrong with thinking about these issues, and thinking about parenting choices? Nope. I don't sit around on pins and needles reading parenting theory all day, like some obsessed yuppie parents out there, but thinking about your parenting choices isn't a bad thing, actually.

Short of turning off the television and homeschooling your kids, you cannot stop marketing. Hell, that won't even stop it, it just mutes a bunch of it. You're kid will be marketed to through clothes on the street, billboards, what they hear other kids talk about, etc. It's everywhere. It was also everywhere when we were kids. And when our parents were kids. So why treat it like some new evil now? No, I'm not pro-marketing, but I am also not willing to let marketing be the boogeyman for bad consumer decisions on my part, or their part. I control what my kids get, and I am perfectly happy to tell them no if I think something is silly. And they're bright enough to know that whining, wheedling, and begging gets them exactly nowhere.

Again, the difference is being conscious of such marketing, and teaching your kids to be too. I'm fairly anti-homeschooling, but I think a lot about where my kid will go to school, and I do turn off the tv. Marketing is more sophisticated these days, and tv has changed since we were kids, and certainly since when our parents were kids. But I don't treat it like the bogeyman either. Technology, tv, etc., is all a part of our lives. I just make good choices.

Meh. Construction toys are awesome. they reinforce the idea that building things is good. Better than toy guns (as much as I like them) or oversexed bratz dolls that promote destructive behaviour. I guess I'm weird in that I don't mind if my boys grow up to be men and my girls grow up to be women. I'm more worried about my boys growing up to be mashers and cads and my girls bringing home a pregnancy as teenagers.

I'd rather spend my time instilling virtues and my memes, and letting them come up with their own gender awareness at their pace. Frankly, they're going to do it anyway based on their internal make-up, so whatever.

Example: My oldest son is a sensitive kid, emotional, expressive, and a bit on the wimpy side. I don't give him one bit of grief for it. If he decides that he's not going to be a macho hairy beast like me *grunt* I don't care. If he grows up and decides that he wants to dress pretty and that boys are hot, so be it. I honestly don't care. But I'm not going to try to instill some gender neutrality because I likewise don't care if he does turns into *gasp* macho hairy beast like me. Same goes for my girls being girly or not. Don't care. It's their choice.

And the teen pregnancy thing goes for the boys as well as the girls. No babies before they're out of the house.

To be frank and probably unpopular, gender neutral parenting is too often just code for emasculation of little boys. I've watched more than one 'gender neutral' parent let their little girls do whatever while they focused entirely on reigning in the boy energy of their male offspring. No thanks. "Gender neutral parenting" in my book just means that I don't impose my ideas on what they should become, and that includes not forcefully exposing them to other choices. They'll find those choices on their own or ask for them if they want em, and I will support them regardless.

Dude, I am not a gender neutral parent. What the hell is that. I just don't bury my head in the sand and pretend there are eight million different influences on my child. I don't allow toy guns in my house, and I would never buy a freaking bratz doll. I also would never dream of emasculating my son - I don't even know how I could - he's 3 and the boy is here. He's a little person. Construction toys are awesome, and when he goes whole hog into that, I watch and learn. When he makes me coffee and bakes me cakes, I make the same fuss.

Look, I really detest the oh heaven forbid too much thinking kneejerk reaction so common these days, so forgive me if I'm testy. Thinking is good. It's what me and my people do best. Because I think and make choices about things like toy color just the same as I think and make choices about what I'm cooking this week doesn't mean I say, well, sweet pea, here's a new pink dress - don't ever forget that boys can also wear pink dresses, my darling little pumpkin.