Let's just look at this purely as an experiment and take out our own feelings on gender/society, or whatever. Is there really any way for these kids to truly make up their own mind? Aren't the older children just conforming to their parents ideals? And won't Storm be influenced not only by his/her parents wish to buck societal norms, but also by his/her older brothers in a household where doing the opposite of what society expects has become the norm? This whole family is being influenced by what the parents believe, and as good as their intentions may be, conforming to their influence is no better than conforming to society.
Children are easily influenced, and most (especially when very young) wish to please their parents. The fact that the parents are encouraging them to be different is resulting in the kids trying to do so to please them. They are doing what they think will please mom and dad, because they clearly think it is better to be different than be like everybody else.
I would like to see this family put to what we'll call "The Alex P. Keaton Test". If they had a child (for arguments sake we'll call Storm a boy in this scenario) that on his own decided he wanted to be a little Reaganite, wear a jacket and tie, and go out to eat at Hooters or something, would they support that? If their child wants to be like everybody else, or the opposite of what the parents stand for, will they still have this type of support for his/her wishes? I think that whether they realize it or not, they are steering their children into certain choices. And where they are taking pride in their children choosing to behave outside the norm, would they/do they show the same support if they pick out a hair style or outfit that is exactly what society would expect them to have?
This whole thing just reminds me of those Goth Kids in South Park. When in your little microcosm of society non-confomity becomes the norm (like when Stan was going to get F'd in the A on Saturday), isn't conforming to society the way to not conform with your group? When these kids get older and might feel the need to rebel against their parents, the parents might find themselves surrounded by a bunch of Alex Keatons.
One day these children will decide to be whatever they want, and I wish them the best. Like it or not, society will influence them. This whole experiment is making what can be a confusing time more confusing simply to prove a point, the parents point. And I don't mean confusion regarding their sexuality. I don't know what effect letting a boy dress like a girl would have on them, if any, in later life. And I don't mean what the result might be once they get out of the house and encounter other children, and the ridicule that can come from that. But let's face it, kids can be cruel, and the names Jazz, Kio and Storm alone are enough to get a kid picked on without anything else piled on top. I just mean the confusing message these kids are getting when it comes to being an individual. The message that being different for the sake of being different is the only way to be unique. And this whole idea that somebody who stands out from society is somehow more enlightened than one of the "sheep".
Personally I found their quote: "What we noticed is that parents make so many choices for their children. It's obnoxious." to be pretty obnoxious. It just reeks of a "we're more enlightened than most parents" mentality. And makes me think this is more of an exercise in their own individuality than that of their children. And where some parents are total dickheads and pressure little boys into sports, little girls into cheerleading or whatever, they are essentially doing the same thing, just in their own way. Individuality and progressive thinking is their sport, and they are living their lives through their children, just like the father who yells at his kids from the sidline of a soccer game.
"See a broad to get dat booty yak 'em, leg 'er down, a smack 'em yak 'em!"
I get their point about not wanting to raise kids with gender stereotypes, but because the parents and siblings are the greatest influence on a child at that age, and the parents and siblings are the only ones who know the gender, I would think Storm would be raised in the kind of environment they want anyway. They seem to be doing a decent enough not encouraging stereotypes with their other kids, and their genders aren't hidden.
I just think it shouldn't be so much about people knowing or not knowing the kids gender. Whats really important is what the kid is exposed to as influences. It wont take long for the kid to realize it has parts like mom or dad so maybe the most important focus is to surround it with people who don't strictly follow gender stereotypes. Hiding the kids gender just seems like a unnecessary step.
There are major hormonal and neurological differences between males and females, and those play a MAJOR role in determining identity. Ignoring this reality is not good for the child.
The bolded part is garbage. You don't have kids, so how do you now, other than what you read, scb? I know that my child, as well as my nieces and nephews never felt pressured by society at the tender ages of 2 - 5. Kids want what they want. Many boys show feminine tendencies while many girls show masculine interests. You can't blame society for that, that's just what the child naturally gravitates to. Parents can encourage a specific way of life, but if they let the child bloom on their own, they find what they lean towards without any help. The media does push sociological norms, but its up to parents themselves to limit television exposure.
Dude, could you please quit the shit about me not having kids already?? I know, because THESE kids' parents - note, they're not YOUR kids any more than they're my kids - said so in the article. And it's naive to think that simply "limiting television exposure" will protect their kids from the MILLIONS of messages they receive from numerous sources. Also, quit calling me scb. See what I mean about people refusing to respect the decisions others make for themselves, like their gender roles... or their names? It's this kind of attitude from people that makes these parents feel like they have to be extreme.
I'm just saying, you can have your opinion, but those with experience ultimately are the experts here. Sorry for being rude, but it's the truth. And I must admit it's weird to call you a symbol. It's like calling Prince by his symbol; it just doesn't make any sense, so people had to go back and refer to him by his name, rather than "Formerly known as Prince". What does "_" sound like anyway? Would you rather me call you "Formerly known as "scb"? I am kidding.
I agree with the bolded part here. And the only people with experience in this situation are THESE parents & kids. You & everyone else here has no more experience raising these people's kids & are no more experts than the rest of us. The only difference is that you seem to think you are greater experts than the parents themselves, and therefore fit to judge, criticize, & condemn how they raise their own children. Some of us, on the other hand, are saying these parents should be left to raise their kids as they see fit. Just like they/we aren't criticizing YOU for NOT raising your kids that way, you have no more right to criticize them.
Popping out a baby or knocking someone up does not automatically make someone a greater expert on anything, by the way.
And, since credentials & expertise are so important to you, I think my degree in gender studies makes me much more of an expert than you on the effect of gender roles on individuals & society.
Regarding my name... I see no reason for it to be problematic since we are communicating in writing. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be deliberately getting it wrong so as to be disrespectful.
There are major hormonal and neurological differences between males and females, and those play a MAJOR role in determining identity. Ignoring this reality is not good for the child.
I don't think they've removed the kid's hormones or neurons.
I agree with the bolded part here. And the only people with experience in this situation are THESE parents & kids. You & everyone else here has no more experience raising these people's kids & are no more experts than the rest of us. The only difference is that you seem to think you are greater experts than the parents themselves, and therefore fit to judge, criticize, & condemn how they raise their own children. Some of us, on the other hand, are saying these parents should be left to raise their kids as they see fit. Just like they/we aren't criticizing YOU for NOT raising your kids that way, you have no more right to criticize them.
Popping out a baby or knocking someone up does not automatically make someone a greater expert on anything, by the way.
And, since credentials & expertise are so important to you, I think my degree in gender studies makes me much more of an expert than you on the effect of gender roles on individuals & society.
Regarding my name... I see no reason for it to be problematic since we are communicating in writing. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be deliberately getting it wrong so as to be disrespectful.
Let me get this straight, your education and expertise is in gender studies and you support this???
Please explaine to me, as I think you are just looking through your liberal glasses on this one...
from my very limited education on this, I understand the goal, but there is no end goal to this and it's silly. The kid is still going to be exposed to all of the cultural conditioning eventually and so what will the parents have achieved?
I said "liberal" because this line of thought seems to come mainly from (probably your)left-wing academia. But the whole gay/coming out stuff just further exposes hypocrisy in the "conditioning" argument. According to these people:
- Gays were conditioned to be either a "man" or a "woman," but the fact that they choose not to join either of those groups represents their break from, and protest against societal conditioning. But:
- A man who acts manly acts so because society has told him to do so, not because of things like testosterone, etc. A girl who acts feminine because of conditioning, etc.
Their argument basically boils down to "If you are of a non-conventional gender, then you have stood up to conditioning. If you consider yourself a man or a woman, then you are the victim of societal conditioning." By this line of logic, no one naturally feels compelled to act masculine or feminine; they're just following societal directives. The only way to "break free" from societal constraints on gender is to defy all traditional sets of masculine or feminine values. Stupid, huh?
At least that's how it's shoved down our at the very liberal university's people (you probably) attend.
There are major hormonal and neurological differences between males and females, and those play a MAJOR role in determining identity. Ignoring this reality is not good for the child.
Cool article. But all that reinforces is that men like blue and women like pink in age group of 20-26, which doesnt likely reflect what their preferences were at a young age despite their environmental surroundings.
This started out really interesting, but goes on to say that a wider human preference for blue might have come from blue skies (did the women prefer ripe fruit over blue skies, or did they just like rainy days?:
"Human vision is trichromatic, meaning that we have three colour-sensitive pigments in our eyes - like chimps, gorillas and other apes. Biologists believe trichromatic vision in primates came about as a result of the need to distinguish ripened fruit, as well as young, nutritious leaves, in a forest canopy.
However, early human societies almost certainly engaged in a division of labour between the sexes, with men travelling long distances to hunt wild game. Women, meanwhile, foraged locally for fruit and berries.
Dr Hurlbert suggests that this division of labour may be at the root of why girls now prefer pink.
"Evolution may have driven females to prefer reddish colours - reddish fruits, healthy, reddish faces. Culture may exploit and compound this natural female preference," she said.
As for the wider human preference for blue, Dr Hurlbert said this may have something to do with our love for the grassy plains of our place of origin, in Africa, where the sky is an important feature of the landscape.
"I would favour evolutionary arguments here," she said. "Going back to our 'savannah' days, we would have a natural preference for a blue sky, because it signalled good weather."
People can have all kind of degrees in whatever but it comes down to living it and putting yourself in your child's place. Feeling what they feel and learning from them.... with them... for them and hopefully passing on all that is good about yourself.
This is a messed up thing to do to a child and someday this kid will tell them so.
Way to much thinking about stupid stuff and not enough feeling the real stuff.
I'm so glad all you "experts" know what's best for everyone else's kids. Sounds like you don't actually think parenthood makes people experts; the criteria for being an expert - even on one's own kids - is to agree with you.
We live in a sad world full of sad, judgmental, self-important people who need to get their own lives & keep their noses out of everyone else's.
I'm so glad all you "experts" know what's best for everyone else's kids. Sounds like you don't actually think parenthood makes people experts; the criteria for being an expert - even on one's own kids - is to agree with you.
We live in a sad world full of sad, judgmental, self-important people who need to get their own lives & keep their noses out of everyone else's.
Wasn't that comment judgmental in itself?
And it was in the news, so nobody here went looking to put their nose into that family's business, they put their own business out there. It's a current event, hence the discussion on the Moving Train.
"See a broad to get dat booty yak 'em, leg 'er down, a smack 'em yak 'em!"
idiots. what is this going to prove? by the time the child is able to set aside gender biases to the point of making any sort of impact on its life, it will:
a) have long disclosed its gender
b) been so fucked up from identity crises that it will need extensive therapy
Why will he/she have an identity crisis?
because the kid is being raised as an "it" rather than who it is. the grandparents don't even know the sex? that's fucking ridiculous.
look, I'm a guy. always have been, always will be. I played with fucking barbies as a kid. my parents didn't give a shit. probably saved them money from buying me GI Joes, I just played with my sister's dolls. I knew my sex, the point was so did other people, and I STILL acted how I wanted, based on my the fact that my parents reacted to my wants and needs and interests. it had nothing to do with people giving me a blue blanket for christmas instead of a pink one.
gimme a break.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
And it was in the news, so nobody here went looking to put their nose into that family's business, they put their own business out there. It's a current event, hence the discussion on the Moving Train.
Here's a summary of many - not all - of the posts in this thread:
These parents are retarded, stupid, dumbass idiots who are going to ruin their child's life because they are just attention whores who don't care to stand in the child's shoes, don't have the child's best interest in mind, are obviously unsatisfied with the kid's sex, & probably have some domestic issues. The kid is probably a hermaphrodite. Everyone's opinions & knowledge is completely invalid if: (a) they don't have kids, or (b) they have kids - or are even the parents of these kids - but don't agree with me. I am an expert & only I & those who agree with me understand the role of gender stereotypes in our society, know anything about child development, or know what's best for everyone else's kids.
I find this form of "discussion" to be problematic - in this thread & in the rest of this forum - and my comment was meant to describe the problem. I considered that it might be taken wrong & went back to delete it, but you had already quoted it. That's fine, though, because I think it needs to be said.
I see what you're saying, but if it helps any, the parents in question here did make judgmental comments about people who raise their kids in the "traditional" manner. I think if the parents weren't so smug about it people might not be as upset.
"See a broad to get dat booty yak 'em, leg 'er down, a smack 'em yak 'em!"
What it comes down to for me is the child not the parents.
My focus has always been on the good of the child.
This is not good for the child.
I guess there are those who feel a parent has a right to experiment on one child in the family...
to set them apart... draw attention... deny grandparents love and acceptance for real bonding.
I have felt this is child abuse and any judgement I have made on the parents is driven from that.
They are being selfish and doing what they want, this child is at their mercy.
"Give a child all that they need and some of what they want."
This child needs and deserves to be known as a little girl or little boy,
most especially to those who love them.
Sexuality/ gender is a part of our identity and there is nothing wrong with that.
Gender roles can be addressed in a healthy way within the home...
this is not it.
These parents have not yet been challenged, some of the real things to worry about
life threatening illness, debilitating injury, learning disabilities, bully's, drug addiction,
rebellion, runaway syndrome, teenage pregnancy, mental illness, depression, failure,
broken hearts
and their own damn guilt for not being able to keep their children from these things.
Lets check back in 20 years and see what they think is important at that point.
Society gender issues most likely will not be at the top.
I speak from experience and from the heart of an old Mom who has not always done it right.
Making a statement, at the expense of a child, I am glad though I have never done.
And it was in the news, so nobody here went looking to put their nose into that family's business, they put their own business out there. It's a current event, hence the discussion on the Moving Train.
Here's a summary of many - not all - of the posts in this thread:
These parents are retarded, stupid, dumbass idiots who are going to ruin their child's life because they are just attention whores who don't care to stand in the child's shoes, don't have the child's best interest in mind, are obviously unsatisfied with the kid's sex, & probably have some domestic issues. The kid is probably a hermaphrodite. Everyone's opinions & knowledge is completely invalid if: (a) they don't have kids, or (b) they have kids - or are even the parents of these kids - but don't agree with me. I am an expert & only I & those who agree with me understand the role of gender stereotypes in our society, know anything about child development, or know what's best for everyone else's kids.
I find this form of "discussion" to be problematic - in this thread & in the rest of this forum - and my comment was meant to describe the problem. I considered that it might be taken wrong & went back to delete it, but you had already quoted it. That's fine, though, because I think it needs to be said.
So, it needs to be said that you're being as judgemental as the rest of us? GOOD.
And you're "summary" isn't accurate.
I agree with Pandora, this whole 'experiment' is about the parents and their need to prove a point. A selfish motive, which also hurts the grandparents.
Does it matter if the baby is a boy or a girl? Why?
Yes, because as was already stated, how the hell do you ask how "it's" doing if you don't know what pronoun to use?
I usually say "how's your baby doing?". I always have the hardest time remembering babies names because I don't have an image or personality to associate to the name to help my recall.
What it comes down to for me is the child not the parents.
My focus has always been on the good of the child.
This is not good for the child.
I guess there are those who feel a parent has a right to experiment on one child in the family...
to set them apart... draw attention... deny grandparents love and acceptance for real bonding.
I have felt this is child abuse and any judgement I have made on the parents is driven from that.
They are being selfish and doing what they want, this child is at their mercy.
"Give a child all that they need and some of what they want."
This child needs and deserves to be known as a little girl or little boy,
most especially to those who love them.
Sexuality/ gender is a part of our identity and there is nothing wrong with that.
Gender roles can be addressed in a healthy way within the home...
this is not it.
These parents have not yet been challenged, some of the real things to worry about
life threatening illness, debilitating injury, learning disabilities, bully's, drug addiction,
rebellion, runaway syndrome, teenage pregnancy, mental illness, depression, failure,
broken hearts
and their own damn guilt for not being able to keep their children from these things.
Lets check back in 20 years and see what they think is important at that point.
Society gender issues most likely will not be at the top.
I speak from experience and from the heart of an old Mom who has not always done it right.
Making a statement, at the expense of a child, I am glad though I have never done.
I think calling it child abuse is a little harsh. It's kind of hard to narrow down what people in this thread have a problem with. I don't think not telling the grandparents the sex of the child harms the child in any way. That shouldn't inhibit the grandparents from bonding with the baby, and if it does, there's something going on with the grandparents. Pop-pop is just struggling with not knowing whether to get the kid a football or a doll so much so he can't be around the kid? I agree that the parents are being selfish and grandstanding. Chances are good the kid will turn out fine. A baby doesn't need to know if it's a boy or a girl because he/she doesn't know the difference. The kid's going to find out she/he's different from the opposite sex in the same time other kids do and learn society's rules that go with it.
I'm surprised no one has commented on their approach to education yet. I have a bigger issue with that than anything else.
I think calling it child abuse is a little harsh. It's kind of hard to narrow down what people in this thread have a problem with. I don't think not telling the grandparents the sex of the child harms the child in any way. That shouldn't inhibit the grandparents from bonding with the baby, and if it does, there's something going on with the grandparents. Pop-pop is just struggling with not knowing whether to get the kid a football or a doll so much so he can't be around the kid? I agree that the parents are being selfish and grandstanding. Chances are good the kid will turn out fine. A baby doesn't need to know if it's a boy or a girl because he/she doesn't know the difference. The kid's going to find out she/he's different from the opposite sex in the same time other kids do and learn society's rules that go with it.
I'm surprised no one has commented on their approach to education yet. I have a bigger issue with that than anything else.
I will ask again since "-" didn't address my post "I understand the goal, but there is no end goal to this and it's silly. The kid is still going to be exposed to all of the cultural conditioning eventually and so what will the parents have achieved?
Also what sense does it make to have "grandpa" and "grandma", Mom and Dad, if they are trying to exclude that from their child's idenity...
What it comes down to for me is the child not the parents.
My focus has always been on the good of the child.
This is not good for the child.
I guess there are those who feel a parent has a right to experiment on one child in the family...
to set them apart... draw attention... deny grandparents love and acceptance for real bonding.
I have felt this is child abuse and any judgement I have made on the parents is driven from that.
They are being selfish and doing what they want, this child is at their mercy.
"Give a child all that they need and some of what they want."
This child needs and deserves to be known as a little girl or little boy,
most especially to those who love them.
Sexuality/ gender is a part of our identity and there is nothing wrong with that.
Gender roles can be addressed in a healthy way within the home...
this is not it.
These parents have not yet been challenged, some of the real things to worry about
life threatening illness, debilitating injury, learning disabilities, bully's, drug addiction,
rebellion, runaway syndrome, teenage pregnancy, mental illness, depression, failure,
broken hearts
and their own damn guilt for not being able to keep their children from these things.
Lets check back in 20 years and see what they think is important at that point.
Society gender issues most likely will not be at the top.
I speak from experience and from the heart of an old Mom who has not always done it right.
Making a statement, at the expense of a child, I am glad though I have never done.
I think calling it child abuse is a little harsh. It's kind of hard to narrow down what people in this thread have a problem with. I don't think not telling the grandparents the sex of the child harms the child in any way. That shouldn't inhibit the grandparents from bonding with the baby, and if it does, there's something going on with the grandparents. Pop-pop is just struggling with not knowing whether to get the kid a football or a doll so much so he can't be around the kid? I agree that the parents are being selfish and grandstanding. Chances are good the kid will turn out fine. A baby doesn't need to know if it's a boy or a girl because he/she doesn't know the difference. The kid's going to find out she/he's different from the opposite sex in the same time other kids do and learn society's rules that go with it.
I'm surprised no one has commented on their approach to education yet. I have a bigger issue with that than anything else.
Yes I agree child abuse is a harsh word for what they are doing. I used the term to make a point though that I think it is that wrong.
The fact that the grandparents don't know the sex of the child to me is a very telling fact. Of course they love the child whatever the sex but it changes the bonding because the parents are choosing to exclude them from the inner circle. A friend gets to know instead. :wtf:
As far as the kid turning out fine ....
this experiment may have some negative results but having parents that
are selfish and grandstanders most definitely will.
San Francisco needs to step up to the plate!!! Canada and now Sweden have raised the bar when it comes to adults confusing other adults about the gender of their child.
STOCKHOLM – At the "Egalia" preschool, staff avoid using words like "him" or "her" and address the 33 kids as "friends" rather than girls and boys. From the color and placement of toys to the choice of books, every detail has been carefully planned to make sure the children don't fall into gender stereotypes. "Society expects girls to be girlie, nice and pretty and boys to be manly, rough and outgoing," says Jenny Johnsson, a 31-year-old teacher. "Egalia gives them a fantastic opportunity to be whoever they want to be."
The taxpayer-funded preschool which opened last year in the liberal Sodermalm district of Stockholm for kids aged 1 to 6 is among the most radical examples of Sweden's efforts to engineer equality between the sexes from childhood onward.
Breaking down gender roles is a core mission in the national curriculum for preschools, underpinned by the theory that even in highly egalitarian-minded Sweden, society gives boys an unfair edge.
To even things out, many preschools have hired "gender pedagogues" to help staff identify language and behavior that risk reinforcing stereotypes.
I'm calling a spade a spade ... this isn't about gender roles, it's about ending masculinity. I love this:
Lego bricks and other building blocks are intentionally placed next to the kitchen, to make sure the children draw no mental barriers between cooking and construction.
HA! We have the exact same thing happen at real world construction job sites at lunch .... we call it the Roach Coach
It's just not right to experiment with children.It is hard to believe how messed up this world is becoming. I wonder if they will tell the child it is human?
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
It's just not right to experiment with children.It is hard to believe how messed up this world is becoming. I wonder if they will tell the child it is human?
That's phase 2
On the other hand, Sweden should be proud because these are rich people problems. When you crusade for dissolving gender roles amongst five year olds, it's a great sign you really don't have to worry about things like ethnic cleansing, warlords controlling the food supply, or toilet paper rationing.
Then you have grade-school age boys using the girls' bathrooms because it's "who they are." Ridiculous and absurd. Soon, this will be common practice in adult bathrooms and you'll have rapes and other sexual violence.
By the time the kid is old enough to speak or communicate, his or her sex will be very apparent.
agree. i dont think it matters what sex this child is now. what business is it of anyones anyway. i feel our preoccupation with asking the sex of a newborn is a hang over from when to have anything other than a boychild was considered a disappointment and if you had the misfortune of birthing a girlchild, well.. maybe next time youll have a boy. pfft. the health of the child is paramount.. everything else is distraction.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Long before a child can speak, express themselves, they are learning who they are
and how the world interacts with them. From day one.
This little experiment to one child in the family is very irresponsible
and very telling and detrimental.
Of course the child's health is the most important factor but that includes mental health.
This is just another example of thoughtless adults manipulating children
for their own satisfaction, in this case, to prove something they want selfishly.
Looks like someone needs to take a sociology class.
sociology of gender, sociology of race class and gender, sociology of crime, sociology of murder(not actual title of course but basic name of course), intro to criminology, social theory, class sociology, conflict theory, juvenile justice, theory on juvenile delinquency, among countless others
sociology/criminology major in college...but whatever you say....maybe because I don't believe everything that comes out of a sociology professors mouth I should take more classes
My take a class comment was a response to your class comment earlier. I'm curious why you minimize effects of gender roles with your knowledge? If that's your kid in the photo (to personalize this), I'm sure you're aware of the low expectations for fathers in our society.
right, and I was referring to the parents of the child. I get from your comments on here you may be a student of the social science as well, and here is my biggest problem. All we get is statistical "answers" that may or may not have been controlled for properly...sociology answers question on the macro level and then people apply these to individuals in a way that can be damaging in my opinion. These macro "forces", that for the most part are seen through self reported surveys and analyzing incomplete data like the UCR from the FBI, and the perceived damage they can do are simply very educated guesses at particular problems for the group. But they then get applied to individuals and that is where things get very messy for me. I would consider myself a pragmatist, and it is very hard for me to find a purpose to the uses of sociology other than in a controlled environment...I worked on my degree over the course of many years, and as such I gained my needed life experience outside of the controlled university setting that showed me that as much as sociology can be a good representative of what is happening, it can very rarely, if ever, tell you why it is happening with any sort of accuracy. It is like shining a mirror on a crime scene after the crime has been committed. It is very interesting, and the experiments that are done about mob mentality, the stanford study...all of those things are very interesting because they stay applied to the group...
I understand that sex and gender really are two separate things...because one is female does not mean they have to take on traditional gender roles, but our physical make up leads us to certain tendencies, our biology pulls us in certain directions, and my fear when we start to do things like this to a child or a group of children at one school we are not solving the "problem"(not sure if I concede that traditional gender roles are really a problem that needs solving, more I think as parents it is important to constantly remind our children(and yes that is my daughter) that they literally can do anything they want to do. The kid should be free to explore its own life, not forced to ignore traditional gender roles because the parents are hipsters...some men and women actually enjoy fitting into traditional gender roles and they don't do it because someone forced them into it. Forcing the child to not be able to express what it wants is more damaging than seeing other little girls treated like princesses for a day...
I am aware of low expectations of fathers, but that is a problem throughout ALL OF NATURE...at first I actually thought that was a shot at me for some reason, but I am going to default to the idea that it wasn't meant that way...low expectations placed on fathers is something that doesn't apply to every father...which brings me back around to the beginning of my way too long of a rant...sociology is at its basic roots, a science of over-generalizations. I am glad I studied it as it made me think, but fortunately my studies in anatomy, biology, and philosophy have opened my eyes to the faults of the science...I applaud what sociologists attempt to do, it is just too difficult to make the leap with them.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
San Francisco needs to step up to the plate!!! Canada and now Sweden have raised the bar when it comes to adults confusing other adults about the gender of their child.
STOCKHOLM – At the "Egalia" preschool, staff avoid using words like "him" or "her" and address the 33 kids as "friends" rather than girls and boys. From the color and placement of toys to the choice of books, every detail has been carefully planned to make sure the children don't fall into gender stereotypes. "Society expects girls to be girlie, nice and pretty and boys to be manly, rough and outgoing," says Jenny Johnsson, a 31-year-old teacher. "Egalia gives them a fantastic opportunity to be whoever they want to be."
The taxpayer-funded preschool which opened last year in the liberal Sodermalm district of Stockholm for kids aged 1 to 6 is among the most radical examples of Sweden's efforts to engineer equality between the sexes from childhood onward.
Breaking down gender roles is a core mission in the national curriculum for preschools, underpinned by the theory that even in highly egalitarian-minded Sweden, society gives boys an unfair edge.
To even things out, many preschools have hired "gender pedagogues" to help staff identify language and behavior that risk reinforcing stereotypes.
There are so many things wrong with the thought behind that school, but her are a few lines that jumped out at me:
Those bent on shattering gender roles "say there's a hierarchy where everything that boys do is given higher value, but I wonder who decides that it has higher value," she says. "Why is there higher value in playing with cars?"
Who says that? Talk about a straw man argument...
At Egalia — the title connotes "equality" — boys and girls play together with a toy kitchen, waving plastic utensils and pretending to cook. One boy hides inside the toy stove, his head popping out through a hole.
Lego bricks and other building blocks are intentionally placed next to the kitchen, to make sure the children draw no mental barriers between cooking and construction.
Maybe Sweden is different than the US today, but cooking isn't really a "female" job anymore... Almost every guy I know at least shares the cooking duties for the family. And hell, turn on the Food Network, and there are probably more guys with cooking shows then women.
Egalia is unusual even for Sweden. Staff try to shed masculine and feminine references from their speech, including the pronouns him or her — "han" or "hon" in Swedish. Instead, they've have adopted the genderless "hen," a word that doesn't exist in Swedish but is used in some feminist and gay circles. "We use the word "Hen" for example when a doctor, police, electrician or plumber or such is coming to the kindergarten," Rajalin says. "We don't know if it's a he or a she so we just say 'Hen is coming around 2 p.m.' Then the children can imagine both a man or a woman. This widens their view."
Why make up an ambiguous pronoun? Why not just say the doctor or police or electrician is coming and leave it at that? It's not like when the person comes they won't notice if it's a man or a woman.
Jay Belsky, a child psychologist at the University of California, Davis, said he's not aware of any other school like Egalia, and he questioned whether it was the right way to go.
"The kind of things that boys like to do — run around and turn sticks into swords — will soon be disapproved of," he said. "So gender neutrality at its worst is emasculating maleness."
Totally agree, and like you said Jason, it's about ending masculinity. Why? If women are seen as inferior in that culture, then why not elevate them? Why the need to tear down masculinity?
I just don't get lengths that they are going to in this social experiment. And the kids who go there, obviously have parents who are aware of gender roles, so these kids going through this school probably aren't being "changed" much anyway, they are getting this at home.
"Different gender roles aren't problematic as long as they are equally valued," says Tanja Bergkvist, a 37-year-old blogger and a leading voice against what she calls "gender madness" in Sweden.
EXACTLY
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Then you have grade-school age boys using the girls' bathrooms because it's "who they are." Ridiculous and absurd. Soon, this will be common practice in adult bathrooms and you'll have rapes and other sexual violence.
More liberalism at work.
really? that's what you think it will come too? While I agree that this whole gender neutral movement is stupid, don't pull anything reaching for your slippery slope argument.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Comments
Children are easily influenced, and most (especially when very young) wish to please their parents. The fact that the parents are encouraging them to be different is resulting in the kids trying to do so to please them. They are doing what they think will please mom and dad, because they clearly think it is better to be different than be like everybody else.
I would like to see this family put to what we'll call "The Alex P. Keaton Test". If they had a child (for arguments sake we'll call Storm a boy in this scenario) that on his own decided he wanted to be a little Reaganite, wear a jacket and tie, and go out to eat at Hooters or something, would they support that? If their child wants to be like everybody else, or the opposite of what the parents stand for, will they still have this type of support for his/her wishes? I think that whether they realize it or not, they are steering their children into certain choices. And where they are taking pride in their children choosing to behave outside the norm, would they/do they show the same support if they pick out a hair style or outfit that is exactly what society would expect them to have?
This whole thing just reminds me of those Goth Kids in South Park. When in your little microcosm of society non-confomity becomes the norm (like when Stan was going to get F'd in the A on Saturday), isn't conforming to society the way to not conform with your group? When these kids get older and might feel the need to rebel against their parents, the parents might find themselves surrounded by a bunch of Alex Keatons.
One day these children will decide to be whatever they want, and I wish them the best. Like it or not, society will influence them. This whole experiment is making what can be a confusing time more confusing simply to prove a point, the parents point. And I don't mean confusion regarding their sexuality. I don't know what effect letting a boy dress like a girl would have on them, if any, in later life. And I don't mean what the result might be once they get out of the house and encounter other children, and the ridicule that can come from that. But let's face it, kids can be cruel, and the names Jazz, Kio and Storm alone are enough to get a kid picked on without anything else piled on top. I just mean the confusing message these kids are getting when it comes to being an individual. The message that being different for the sake of being different is the only way to be unique. And this whole idea that somebody who stands out from society is somehow more enlightened than one of the "sheep".
Personally I found their quote: "What we noticed is that parents make so many choices for their children. It's obnoxious." to be pretty obnoxious. It just reeks of a "we're more enlightened than most parents" mentality. And makes me think this is more of an exercise in their own individuality than that of their children. And where some parents are total dickheads and pressure little boys into sports, little girls into cheerleading or whatever, they are essentially doing the same thing, just in their own way. Individuality and progressive thinking is their sport, and they are living their lives through their children, just like the father who yells at his kids from the sidline of a soccer game.
I just think it shouldn't be so much about people knowing or not knowing the kids gender. Whats really important is what the kid is exposed to as influences. It wont take long for the kid to realize it has parts like mom or dad so maybe the most important focus is to surround it with people who don't strictly follow gender stereotypes. Hiding the kids gender just seems like a unnecessary step.
It all feels very showy.
There are major hormonal and neurological differences between males and females, and those play a MAJOR role in determining identity. Ignoring this reality is not good for the child.
I agree with the bolded part here. And the only people with experience in this situation are THESE parents & kids. You & everyone else here has no more experience raising these people's kids & are no more experts than the rest of us. The only difference is that you seem to think you are greater experts than the parents themselves, and therefore fit to judge, criticize, & condemn how they raise their own children. Some of us, on the other hand, are saying these parents should be left to raise their kids as they see fit. Just like they/we aren't criticizing YOU for NOT raising your kids that way, you have no more right to criticize them.
Popping out a baby or knocking someone up does not automatically make someone a greater expert on anything, by the way.
And, since credentials & expertise are so important to you, I think my degree in gender studies makes me much more of an expert than you on the effect of gender roles on individuals & society.
Regarding my name... I see no reason for it to be problematic since we are communicating in writing. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be deliberately getting it wrong so as to be disrespectful.
I don't think they've removed the kid's hormones or neurons.
Please explaine to me, as I think you are just looking through your liberal glasses on this one...
from my very limited education on this, I understand the goal, but there is no end goal to this and it's silly. The kid is still going to be exposed to all of the cultural conditioning eventually and so what will the parents have achieved?
I said "liberal" because this line of thought seems to come mainly from (probably your)left-wing academia. But the whole gay/coming out stuff just further exposes hypocrisy in the "conditioning" argument. According to these people:
- Gays were conditioned to be either a "man" or a "woman," but the fact that they choose not to join either of those groups represents their break from, and protest against societal conditioning. But:
- A man who acts manly acts so because society has told him to do so, not because of things like testosterone, etc. A girl who acts feminine because of conditioning, etc.
Their argument basically boils down to "If you are of a non-conventional gender, then you have stood up to conditioning. If you consider yourself a man or a woman, then you are the victim of societal conditioning." By this line of logic, no one naturally feels compelled to act masculine or feminine; they're just following societal directives. The only way to "break free" from societal constraints on gender is to defy all traditional sets of masculine or feminine values. Stupid, huh?
At least that's how it's shoved down our at the very liberal university's people (you probably) attend.
Godfather.
Cool article. But all that reinforces is that men like blue and women like pink in age group of 20-26, which doesnt likely reflect what their preferences were at a young age despite their environmental surroundings.
This started out really interesting, but goes on to say that a wider human preference for blue might have come from blue skies (did the women prefer ripe fruit over blue skies, or did they just like rainy days?:
"Human vision is trichromatic, meaning that we have three colour-sensitive pigments in our eyes - like chimps, gorillas and other apes. Biologists believe trichromatic vision in primates came about as a result of the need to distinguish ripened fruit, as well as young, nutritious leaves, in a forest canopy.
However, early human societies almost certainly engaged in a division of labour between the sexes, with men travelling long distances to hunt wild game. Women, meanwhile, foraged locally for fruit and berries.
Dr Hurlbert suggests that this division of labour may be at the root of why girls now prefer pink.
"Evolution may have driven females to prefer reddish colours - reddish fruits, healthy, reddish faces. Culture may exploit and compound this natural female preference," she said.
As for the wider human preference for blue, Dr Hurlbert said this may have something to do with our love for the grassy plains of our place of origin, in Africa, where the sky is an important feature of the landscape.
"I would favour evolutionary arguments here," she said. "Going back to our 'savannah' days, we would have a natural preference for a blue sky, because it signalled good weather."
This is a messed up thing to do to a child and someday this kid will tell them so.
Way to much thinking about stupid stuff and not enough feeling the real stuff.
I'm so glad all you "experts" know what's best for everyone else's kids. Sounds like you don't actually think parenthood makes people experts; the criteria for being an expert - even on one's own kids - is to agree with you.
We live in a sad world full of sad, judgmental, self-important people who need to get their own lives & keep their noses out of everyone else's.
Wasn't that comment judgmental in itself?
And it was in the news, so nobody here went looking to put their nose into that family's business, they put their own business out there. It's a current event, hence the discussion on the Moving Train.
because the kid is being raised as an "it" rather than who it is. the grandparents don't even know the sex? that's fucking ridiculous.
look, I'm a guy. always have been, always will be. I played with fucking barbies as a kid. my parents didn't give a shit. probably saved them money from buying me GI Joes, I just played with my sister's dolls. I knew my sex, the point was so did other people, and I STILL acted how I wanted, based on my the fact that my parents reacted to my wants and needs and interests. it had nothing to do with people giving me a blue blanket for christmas instead of a pink one.
gimme a break.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Here's a summary of many - not all - of the posts in this thread:
These parents are retarded, stupid, dumbass idiots who are going to ruin their child's life because they are just attention whores who don't care to stand in the child's shoes, don't have the child's best interest in mind, are obviously unsatisfied with the kid's sex, & probably have some domestic issues. The kid is probably a hermaphrodite. Everyone's opinions & knowledge is completely invalid if: (a) they don't have kids, or (b) they have kids - or are even the parents of these kids - but don't agree with me. I am an expert & only I & those who agree with me understand the role of gender stereotypes in our society, know anything about child development, or know what's best for everyone else's kids.
I find this form of "discussion" to be problematic - in this thread & in the rest of this forum - and my comment was meant to describe the problem. I considered that it might be taken wrong & went back to delete it, but you had already quoted it. That's fine, though, because I think it needs to be said.
My focus has always been on the good of the child.
This is not good for the child.
I guess there are those who feel a parent has a right to experiment on one child in the family...
to set them apart... draw attention... deny grandparents love and acceptance for real bonding.
I have felt this is child abuse and any judgement I have made on the parents is driven from that.
They are being selfish and doing what they want, this child is at their mercy.
"Give a child all that they need and some of what they want."
This child needs and deserves to be known as a little girl or little boy,
most especially to those who love them.
Sexuality/ gender is a part of our identity and there is nothing wrong with that.
Gender roles can be addressed in a healthy way within the home...
this is not it.
These parents have not yet been challenged, some of the real things to worry about
life threatening illness, debilitating injury, learning disabilities, bully's, drug addiction,
rebellion, runaway syndrome, teenage pregnancy, mental illness, depression, failure,
broken hearts
and their own damn guilt for not being able to keep their children from these things.
Lets check back in 20 years and see what they think is important at that point.
Society gender issues most likely will not be at the top.
I speak from experience and from the heart of an old Mom who has not always done it right.
Making a statement, at the expense of a child, I am glad though I have never done.
So, it needs to be said that you're being as judgemental as the rest of us? GOOD.
And you're "summary" isn't accurate.
I agree with Pandora, this whole 'experiment' is about the parents and their need to prove a point. A selfish motive, which also hurts the grandparents.
Yes, because as was already stated, how the hell do you ask how "it's" doing if you don't know what pronoun to use?
I usually say "how's your baby doing?". I always have the hardest time remembering babies names because I don't have an image or personality to associate to the name to help my recall.
I think calling it child abuse is a little harsh. It's kind of hard to narrow down what people in this thread have a problem with. I don't think not telling the grandparents the sex of the child harms the child in any way. That shouldn't inhibit the grandparents from bonding with the baby, and if it does, there's something going on with the grandparents. Pop-pop is just struggling with not knowing whether to get the kid a football or a doll so much so he can't be around the kid? I agree that the parents are being selfish and grandstanding. Chances are good the kid will turn out fine. A baby doesn't need to know if it's a boy or a girl because he/she doesn't know the difference. The kid's going to find out she/he's different from the opposite sex in the same time other kids do and learn society's rules that go with it.
I'm surprised no one has commented on their approach to education yet. I have a bigger issue with that than anything else.
Also what sense does it make to have "grandpa" and "grandma", Mom and Dad, if they are trying to exclude that from their child's idenity...
The fact that the grandparents don't know the sex of the child to me is a very telling fact. Of course they love the child whatever the sex but it changes the bonding because the parents are choosing to exclude them from the inner circle. A friend gets to know instead. :wtf:
As far as the kid turning out fine ....
this experiment may have some negative results but having parents that
are selfish and grandstanders most definitely will.
STOCKHOLM – At the "Egalia" preschool, staff avoid using words like "him" or "her" and address the 33 kids as "friends" rather than girls and boys. From the color and placement of toys to the choice of books, every detail has been carefully planned to make sure the children don't fall into gender stereotypes. "Society expects girls to be girlie, nice and pretty and boys to be manly, rough and outgoing," says Jenny Johnsson, a 31-year-old teacher. "Egalia gives them a fantastic opportunity to be whoever they want to be."
The taxpayer-funded preschool which opened last year in the liberal Sodermalm district of Stockholm for kids aged 1 to 6 is among the most radical examples of Sweden's efforts to engineer equality between the sexes from childhood onward.
Breaking down gender roles is a core mission in the national curriculum for preschools, underpinned by the theory that even in highly egalitarian-minded Sweden, society gives boys an unfair edge.
To even things out, many preschools have hired "gender pedagogues" to help staff identify language and behavior that risk reinforcing stereotypes.
.......
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110627/ap_on_re_eu/eu_fea_sweden_gender_neutral_tots;_ylt=Ajk1yzxgT7qcGYdSS7DvR4as0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTFpMDVibzMwBHBvcwMzNgRzZWMDYWNjb3JkaW9uX21vc3RfcG9wdWxhcgRzbGsDbm9oaW1vcmhlcnBy
I'm calling a spade a spade ... this isn't about gender roles, it's about ending masculinity. I love this:
Lego bricks and other building blocks are intentionally placed next to the kitchen, to make sure the children draw no mental barriers between cooking and construction.
HA! We have the exact same thing happen at real world construction job sites at lunch .... we call it the Roach Coach
On the other hand, Sweden should be proud because these are rich people problems. When you crusade for dissolving gender roles amongst five year olds, it's a great sign you really don't have to worry about things like ethnic cleansing, warlords controlling the food supply, or toilet paper rationing.
Then you have grade-school age boys using the girls' bathrooms because it's "who they are." Ridiculous and absurd. Soon, this will be common practice in adult bathrooms and you'll have rapes and other sexual violence.
More liberalism at work.
agree. i dont think it matters what sex this child is now. what business is it of anyones anyway. i feel our preoccupation with asking the sex of a newborn is a hang over from when to have anything other than a boychild was considered a disappointment and if you had the misfortune of birthing a girlchild, well.. maybe next time youll have a boy. pfft. the health of the child is paramount.. everything else is distraction.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
and how the world interacts with them. From day one.
This little experiment to one child in the family is very irresponsible
and very telling and detrimental.
Of course the child's health is the most important factor but that includes mental health.
This is just another example of thoughtless adults manipulating children
for their own satisfaction, in this case, to prove something they want selfishly.
right, and I was referring to the parents of the child. I get from your comments on here you may be a student of the social science as well, and here is my biggest problem. All we get is statistical "answers" that may or may not have been controlled for properly...sociology answers question on the macro level and then people apply these to individuals in a way that can be damaging in my opinion. These macro "forces", that for the most part are seen through self reported surveys and analyzing incomplete data like the UCR from the FBI, and the perceived damage they can do are simply very educated guesses at particular problems for the group. But they then get applied to individuals and that is where things get very messy for me. I would consider myself a pragmatist, and it is very hard for me to find a purpose to the uses of sociology other than in a controlled environment...I worked on my degree over the course of many years, and as such I gained my needed life experience outside of the controlled university setting that showed me that as much as sociology can be a good representative of what is happening, it can very rarely, if ever, tell you why it is happening with any sort of accuracy. It is like shining a mirror on a crime scene after the crime has been committed. It is very interesting, and the experiments that are done about mob mentality, the stanford study...all of those things are very interesting because they stay applied to the group...
I understand that sex and gender really are two separate things...because one is female does not mean they have to take on traditional gender roles, but our physical make up leads us to certain tendencies, our biology pulls us in certain directions, and my fear when we start to do things like this to a child or a group of children at one school we are not solving the "problem"(not sure if I concede that traditional gender roles are really a problem that needs solving, more I think as parents it is important to constantly remind our children(and yes that is my daughter) that they literally can do anything they want to do. The kid should be free to explore its own life, not forced to ignore traditional gender roles because the parents are hipsters...some men and women actually enjoy fitting into traditional gender roles and they don't do it because someone forced them into it. Forcing the child to not be able to express what it wants is more damaging than seeing other little girls treated like princesses for a day...
I am aware of low expectations of fathers, but that is a problem throughout ALL OF NATURE...at first I actually thought that was a shot at me for some reason, but I am going to default to the idea that it wasn't meant that way...low expectations placed on fathers is something that doesn't apply to every father...which brings me back around to the beginning of my way too long of a rant...sociology is at its basic roots, a science of over-generalizations. I am glad I studied it as it made me think, but fortunately my studies in anatomy, biology, and philosophy have opened my eyes to the faults of the science...I applaud what sociologists attempt to do, it is just too difficult to make the leap with them.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
There are so many things wrong with the thought behind that school, but her are a few lines that jumped out at me:
Who says that? Talk about a straw man argument...
Maybe Sweden is different than the US today, but cooking isn't really a "female" job anymore... Almost every guy I know at least shares the cooking duties for the family. And hell, turn on the Food Network, and there are probably more guys with cooking shows then women.
Why make up an ambiguous pronoun? Why not just say the doctor or police or electrician is coming and leave it at that? It's not like when the person comes they won't notice if it's a man or a woman.
Totally agree, and like you said Jason, it's about ending masculinity. Why? If women are seen as inferior in that culture, then why not elevate them? Why the need to tear down masculinity?
I just don't get lengths that they are going to in this social experiment. And the kids who go there, obviously have parents who are aware of gender roles, so these kids going through this school probably aren't being "changed" much anyway, they are getting this at home.
EXACTLY
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
really? that's what you think it will come too? While I agree that this whole gender neutral movement is stupid, don't pull anything reaching for your slippery slope argument.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln