You know how some families start college funds for their children .... well this couple should start a therapy fund ... this kid is going to need it someday!
But the email sent recently by Kathy Witterick and David Stocker of Toronto, Canada to announce the birth of their baby, Storm, was missing one important piece of information. "We've decided not to share Storm's sex for now--a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm's lifetime (a more progressive place? ...)," it said.
That's right. They're not saying whether Storm is a boy or a girl.
There's nothing ambiguous about the baby's genitals. But as Stocker puts it: "If you really want to get to know someone, you don't ask what's between their legs." So only the parents, their two other children (both boys), a close friend, and the two midwives who helped deliver the now 4-month-old baby know its gender. Even the grandparents have been left in the dark.
Stocker and Witterick say the decision gives Storm the freedom to choose who he or she wants to be. "What we noticed is that parents make so many choices for their children. It's obnoxious," adds Stocker, a teacher at an alternative school.
.... see link for rest of story
This is about attention. The parents want it. They got it. This is downright awful to do to a child. To me, this is similar to the couple who named their child Hitler. Both sets of parents are so mind-fucked that they can't see past their distorted view of the world to think about what is best for the child.
I found this quote to be ironic, "what we noticed is that parents make so many choices for their children. It's obnoxious".... Aren't they making a choice for their child by withholding the child's gender? I'd say they are being obnoxious.
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.
It's already coming to that. This rampaging political correctness knows no bounds.
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.
It's already coming to that. This rampaging political correctness knows no bounds.
Yes. I often pee alongside women in the bathroom where there is frequent sexual assaults occuring.
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's that same ambiguity of sociology that is appealing to me. I think in the field, it's not seen as a final answer, thus the term "soft science" as opposed to the scientific fields where a + b =c. People do have to be careful not to apply the trend or evidence of the groups behavior to the individual. That's the other interesting part to me; how the individual defies the group trend, or adopts it. I see the conclusions of research often tempered with 'it depends', 'it suggests', or 'it opens an area up for further research'. It adds to the debate of individualty, perception of choice and responsiblity, of which there isn't a clear answer.
To go along with the topic of the thread and people's personal experience, lets go with the example of women being underrepresented in the field of engineering. People look at it and what factors may go into that. Some back up to girls experience in an elementary classroom and lower achievement in math. Is something happening in the classroom to steer girls away from math? Some say yes, so to counter that, those variable are intentionally changed in the classroom by teachers and staff, and an overt effort may be announced that they want girls to put more energy in math. Many parents in this thread are saying that they'll raise their kids to be whatever they want, and parents have been doing that more and more the last couple of generations, but the fact remains that the end result of career choice has been slow to change. A parent of a girl may have to intentionally make changes to counter the gender expectations in the larger society, as well as the school that the girl attends. Just to parent with the idea of 'you're free to do what you want' may not overcome the pressure from the group. In the example of girls and math, maybe there's an intentional focus of extra effort in that area, women in that field come for career day at school, and teachers and staff make a conscious effort to counter the bias of 'boys are better at math' that can be present at school.
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's that same ambiguity of sociology that is appealing to me. I think in the field, it's not seen as a final answer, thus the term "soft science" as opposed to the scientific fields where a + b =c. People do have to be careful not to apply the trend or evidence of the groups behavior to the individual. That's the other interesting part to me; how the individual defies the group trend, or adopts it. I see the conclusions of research often tempered with 'it depends', 'it suggests', or 'it opens an area up for further research'. It adds to the debate of individualty, perception of choice and responsiblity, of which there isn't a clear answer.
To go along with the topic of the thread and people's personal experience, lets go with the example of women being underrepresented in the field of engineering. People look at it and what factors may go into that. Some back up to girls experience in an elementary classroom and lower achievement in math. Is something happening in the classroom to steer girls away from math? Some say yes, so to counter that, those variable are intentionally changed in the classroom by teachers and staff, and an overt effort may be announced that they want girls to put more energy in math. Many parents in this thread are saying that they'll raise their kids to be whatever they want, and parents have been doing that more and more the last couple of generations, but the fact remains that the end result of career choice has been slow to change. A parent of a girl may have to intentionally make changes to counter the gender expectations in the larger society, as well as the school that the girl attends. Just to parent with the idea of 'you're free to do what you want' may not overcome the pressure from the group. In the example of girls and math, maybe there's an intentional focus of extra effort in that area, women in that field come for career day at school, and teachers and staff make a conscious effort to counter the bias of 'boys are better at math' that can be present at school.
fair enough, but the ambiguity is what makes me think...this isn't a science.
Why do girls need to be engineers? that is my main problem here...it is almost like we are giving into to the idea that girls don't have a preference. Maybe the majority of girls don't like engineering? maybe they are choosing to do what they want. You see we are taking the results and atempting to control for factors but simply unable to account for a girl not wanting to be an engineer...is it society that says she can't be? or is it the girl simply choosing something else...But that goes to my more pragmatist thought on the subject of life. There are always factors that a person weighs when he/she makes a decision, but ultimately that decision is up to the person making it...
or, and I am sure I will get savaged for this, maybe there simply is a biological tendency for our actions...tough for science to answer...I can tell you that if everyone was so affected by the evil forces of gender role stereotypes, how can we account for the deviance? how can we account for those who do not fit into those molds without making a conscious thought to deviate? did they have less forces at work? or was their brain wired a little differently...
now back off topic a little bit, all too often people who look at sociology in the same vain as chemistry or mathematics are the reason I dislike it the most. Because those in the field understand that the research is always going to be on going, we are never going to hit a definite, that doesn't mean the general public understands that. That doesn't mean we don't have people that use those same studies to create public policy and public opinion that can be shown to be wrong down the road by but the "damage" caused to individuals by the public policy based on research about a group dynamic may be deeply set...
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
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's that same ambiguity of sociology that is appealing to me. I think in the field, it's not seen as a final answer, thus the term "soft science" as opposed to the scientific fields where a + b =c. People do have to be careful not to apply the trend or evidence of the groups behavior to the individual. That's the other interesting part to me; how the individual defies the group trend, or adopts it. I see the conclusions of research often tempered with 'it depends', 'it suggests', or 'it opens an area up for further research'. It adds to the debate of individualty, perception of choice and responsiblity, of which there isn't a clear answer.
To go along with the topic of the thread and people's personal experience, lets go with the example of women being underrepresented in the field of engineering. People look at it and what factors may go into that. Some back up to girls experience in an elementary classroom and lower achievement in math. Is something happening in the classroom to steer girls away from math? Some say yes, so to counter that, those variable are intentionally changed in the classroom by teachers and staff, and an overt effort may be announced that they want girls to put more energy in math. Many parents in this thread are saying that they'll raise their kids to be whatever they want, and parents have been doing that more and more the last couple of generations, but the fact remains that the end result of career choice has been slow to change. A parent of a girl may have to intentionally make changes to counter the gender expectations in the larger society, as well as the school that the girl attends. Just to parent with the idea of 'you're free to do what you want' may not overcome the pressure from the group. In the example of girls and math, maybe there's an intentional focus of extra effort in that area, women in that field come for career day at school, and teachers and staff make a conscious effort to counter the bias of 'boys are better at math' that can be present at school.
fair enough, but the ambiguity is what makes me think...this isn't a science.
Why do girls need to be engineers? that is my main problem here...it is almost like we are giving into to the idea that girls don't have a preference. Maybe the majority of girls don't like engineering? maybe they are choosing to do what they want. You see we are taking the results and atempting to control for factors but simply unable to account for a girl not wanting to be an engineer...is it society that says she can't be? or is it the girl simply choosing something else...But that goes to my more pragmatist thought on the subject of life. There are always factors that a person weighs when he/she makes a decision, but ultimately that decision is up to the person making it...
or, and I am sure I will get savaged for this, maybe there simply is a biological tendency for our actions...tough for science to answer...I can tell you that if everyone was so affected by the evil forces of gender role stereotypes, how can we account for the deviance? how can we account for those who do not fit into those molds without making a conscious thought to deviate? did they have less forces at work? or was their brain wired a little differently...
now back off topic a little bit, all too often people who look at sociology in the same vain as chemistry or mathematics are the reason I dislike it the most. Because those in the field understand that the research is always going to be on going, we are never going to hit a definite, that doesn't mean the general public understands that. That doesn't mean we don't have people that use those same studies to create public policy and public opinion that can be shown to be wrong down the road by but the "damage" caused to individuals by the public policy based on research about a group dynamic may be deeply set...
I agree that the decision is up to the person making it, but there are many factors along the way that go into that decision. If women simply didn't have a preference for engineering, then wouldn't the field be %50 male %50 female? as the men would be making a similar preference choice. There's steps along the way that come into play, combining individual psychology, biology, family influence, peer influence, and societal influence. No one has been able to quantify how much weight each of those carries, which keeps things interesting. I think even a 3 year old who is making decisions is being influenced by all those factors.
I think often women and men make career decisions based on societal influence. A glaring historical example is older women will talk about their career options presented to them as "are you going to be a nurse or a teacher?".
I agree that research results from all fields are misused in determining policy. It's why I'd like to see more politicians with backgrounds in research so they can better digest the info.
But the email sent recently by Kathy Witterick and David Stocker of Toronto, Canada to announce the birth of their baby, Storm, was missing one important piece of information. "We've decided not to share Storm's sex for now--a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm's lifetime (a more progressive place? ...)," it said.
you all saw this part, right??? for now.. not forever.. not even for years, or even much longer. the child is an infant, less than 6 months old. it doesnt know what a boy is and it doesnt know what a girl is.. but it will. and when it does the previous neutrality of its gender will become a non issue, not to mention non existent. its a baby.... and it probably doesnt even know what that means.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
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.
Yeah, those liberals are nuts. Gender roles/norms/stereotypes are totally irrelevant to real life. Instead, we should be maintaining our efforts to keep men's & women's restrooms separated because men will naturally rape women who pee behind a stall door in their vicinity.
there are those of you here who are of the opinion that these parents in deciding not to reveal their babys gender publicly are harming this child in some way. when all they are doing is denying you access to information you all seem to think is your right. suck it up... its not your business. and if you think it is then youve got way too much time on your hands.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
there are those of you here who are of the opinion that these parents in deciding not to reveal their babys gender publicly are harming this child in some way. when all they are doing is denying you access to information you all seem to think is your right. suck it up... its not your business. and if you think it is then youve got way too much time on your hands.
there are those of you here who are of the opinion that these parents in deciding not to reveal their babys gender publicly are harming this child in some way. when all they are doing is denying you access to information you all seem to think is your right. suck it up... its not your business. and if you think it is then youve got way too much time on your hands.
It's the child's right, not the parents.
Sure, the child needs someone to speak for him/her, but the question comes down to whether these parents are doing an effective job of doing that. They "can" obviously do what they did. But, if they didn't know one would be talking about them.
I'd say the parents behavior is obnoxious:
ob·nox·ious
adj \äb-ˈnäk-shəs, əb-\
Definition of OBNOXIOUS
1
archaic : exposed to something unpleasant or harmful —used with to
2
archaic : deserving of censure
3
: odiously or disgustingly objectionable : highly offensive
there are those of you here who are of the opinion that these parents in deciding not to reveal their babys gender publicly are harming this child in some way. when all they are doing is denying you access to information you all seem to think is your right. suck it up... its not your business. and if you think it is then youve got way too much time on your hands.
It's the child's right, not the parents.
That's EXACTLY the parents' point. They've been clear that they are just letting the child decide if/when to disclose his/her sex, rather disclosing it to everyone without giving the child a choice in the matter.
there are those of you here who are of the opinion that these parents in deciding not to reveal their babys gender publicly are harming this child in some way. when all they are doing is denying you access to information you all seem to think is your right. suck it up... its not your business. and if you think it is then youve got way too much time on your hands.
It's the child's right, not the parents.
That's EXACTLY the parents' point. They've been clear that they are just letting the child decide if/when to disclose his/her sex, rather disclosing it to everyone without giving the child a choice in the matter.
No, it is not. THEY are making a decision to withhold the child's sex.
They can do that if they want. But, I can also say they are horrible parents that are making a socially liberal point (which is stupid) at the expense of their own child's well-being.
This child is going to wonder... why me and not my brothers?
Why was I treated differently?
This is the key here ... that and the grandparents are out of the loop.
That's EXACTLY the parents' point. They've been clear that they are just letting the child decide if/when to disclose his/her sex, rather disclosing it to everyone without giving the child a choice in the matter.
No, it is not. THEY are making a decision to withhold the child's sex.
They can do that if they want. But, I can also say they are horrible parents that are making a socially liberal point (which is stupid) at the expense of their own child's well-being.
Please (re-)read the article and show me where they said they are not allowing the child to disclose his/her own sex.
Just because someone doesn't provide information to others about SOMEONE ELSE'S genitals, doesn't mean they are deciding for that person that the information will be withheld. For instance, just because I don't chose to tell everyone about some guy's tiny penis, even if they ask and think they have a right to know, it doesn't mean I am personally making the decision to withhold this information on behalf of the guy. He is still free to tell whoever he wants - just like the parents of this child have explicitly said that s/he will be free to share his/her gender if s/he wants to.
Reading comprehension sure is declining in this country.
A COUPLE who concealed the sex of their child and raised it as 'gender neutral' for FIVE YEARS have finally revealed - it's a BOY.
Beck Laxton, 46, and partner Kieran Cooper, 44, decided not to reveal baby Sasha's gender in the hope it would let its 'real' personality shine through.
They referred to it as "The Infant" and only allowed their child to play with 'gender-neutral toys' in their television-free home.
During the first five years of his life, Sasha has alternated between girls' and boys' outfits, leaving friends, playmates and relatives guessing.
But Beck and Kieran have finally revealed his masculinity to the world after it became harder to conceal when Sasha started primary school.
Yesterday Beck, a web editor, said: "I wanted to avoid all that stereotyping. Stereotypes seem fundamentally stupid. Why would you want to slot people into boxes?
A COUPLE who concealed the sex of their child and raised it as 'gender neutral' for FIVE YEARS have finally revealed - it's a BOY.
Beck Laxton, 46, and partner Kieran Cooper, 44, decided not to reveal baby Sasha's gender in the hope it would let its 'real' personality shine through.
They referred to it as "The Infant" and only allowed their child to play with 'gender-neutral toys' in their television-free home.
During the first five years of his life, Sasha has alternated between girls' and boys' outfits, leaving friends, playmates and relatives guessing.
But Beck and Kieran have finally revealed his masculinity to the world after it became harder to conceal when Sasha started primary school.
Yesterday Beck, a web editor, said: "I wanted to avoid all that stereotyping. Stereotypes seem fundamentally stupid. Why would you want to slot people into boxes?
Good luck, little dude! Hopefully everything will work out and you will avoid an adult life crammed full of therapy.
Nicely done. Very sad. I hope everything works out for him. I wonder if they will ever reveal what toys he liked the best and what outfits he preferred to wear.
Some of that article really bothered me though... she would "ban" finding out the sex of the child via ultrasound. Really? So you are upset that others don't like your choice and now you want to force your choice on others?
Oh, and the fact that when the kid liked running around naked outside, they stopped him specifically so he didn't reveal his gender and then encouraged dolls to play with specifically to hide his gender more. I thought the purpose was to allow him to play with what he liked, not what someone told him was the right toy to play with.
I honestly think that the boy's parents still choose all his toys and how long her could play with them for their little experiment and to try to ensure a specific outcome. How is that different than what other people do that they were claiming to be such a travesty.
I have a little girl. Sure, she has all the little girl stuff now. She had a mix of toys as a baby/toddler, she naturally gravitated towards the princess, fairies, etc toys. Now she is into Dinosaurs. I just think you let them run with their interests. Is there some social norms that sway them, I'm sure, but you can't tell me that the boy wasn't swayed by his parents social norms. She even said so herself. Sad.
calm down everyone... the boy will be going to school soon enough and will be subjected to all the sexist stereotypes and prejudices that society has to offer.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
calm down everyone... the boy will be going to school soon enough and will be subjected to all the sexist stereotypes and prejudices that society has to offer.
Mr. Moustache.
Adelaide 17/11/2009, Melbourne 20/11/2009, Sydney 22/11/2009, Melbourne (Big Day Out Festival) 24/01/2014
Are parents just lazy and use the excuse to let there child “be what they want to be” because it takes to much effort for them to teach there children? I see it every day….kids with no manners because most of there parents do not have them themselves or is it the parent feels that a child can act however they want to express there individuality? Girls are different from boys and it is the parents JOB to teach there children the freaking difference! Example…Girls do not sit with there legs spread especially when wearing a dress. Boys do not hit girls.
Children need to be trained and taught what is expected from them as a human, as a girl or boy, as a mother, as a father, as a citizen of society. When you do not teach your children, they become brats or just plain confused.
“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
I agree with you, but I don't think these people believe they are doing anything to harm their child. I think they think they are doing the best thing. While I think it is a silly idea, and a bit mean to the grandparents, I don't think it is child abuse and I don't feel it will do any real long term harm. Once people know the baby's sex, in a year or two, the baby won't even remember that noone else knew its sex.
I just think that what they've done with their other sons is extreme enough and has proved their point that what sex the children are should not have to influence their preferences.
So much of who we are comes in the first year of life ...
we catch those vibes, we bond, identify differences, mimic, store in our subconscious...
it all makes us us
and yes you might be right about remembering
but boy the big brothers won't let this child forget :?
Really comes down to being made different ... to feel different within the family...
this child will wonder why ... the extended family will wonder why
do the parents think it is abuse ? ... they are obtuse ... really
it is all about them, incredibly insensitive
I agree with eveything you said. And I do think it is unfair to the boy and his family. And I do think his parents are grandstanding. But I just can't bring myself to judge them as bad people or not caring for their child, because I think they are doing what they think is right, and as parents that's really all we can do, so who am I to judge when I'm sure I've made my own mistakes and I've certainly seen people make what I think are bigger mistakes than these parents, yet they are still doing their best. It's just that we all have a different idea of what is best.
Yes, all parents make mistakes but the biggest is putting themselves before their child
which in my opinion is just what these parents did
Comments
This is about attention. The parents want it. They got it. This is downright awful to do to a child. To me, this is similar to the couple who named their child Hitler. Both sets of parents are so mind-fucked that they can't see past their distorted view of the world to think about what is best for the child.
I found this quote to be ironic, "what we noticed is that parents make so many choices for their children. It's obnoxious".... Aren't they making a choice for their child by withholding the child's gender? I'd say they are being obnoxious.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
It's already coming to that. This rampaging political correctness knows no bounds.
Yes. I often pee alongside women in the bathroom where there is frequent sexual assaults occuring.
It's that same ambiguity of sociology that is appealing to me. I think in the field, it's not seen as a final answer, thus the term "soft science" as opposed to the scientific fields where a + b =c. People do have to be careful not to apply the trend or evidence of the groups behavior to the individual. That's the other interesting part to me; how the individual defies the group trend, or adopts it. I see the conclusions of research often tempered with 'it depends', 'it suggests', or 'it opens an area up for further research'. It adds to the debate of individualty, perception of choice and responsiblity, of which there isn't a clear answer.
To go along with the topic of the thread and people's personal experience, lets go with the example of women being underrepresented in the field of engineering. People look at it and what factors may go into that. Some back up to girls experience in an elementary classroom and lower achievement in math. Is something happening in the classroom to steer girls away from math? Some say yes, so to counter that, those variable are intentionally changed in the classroom by teachers and staff, and an overt effort may be announced that they want girls to put more energy in math. Many parents in this thread are saying that they'll raise their kids to be whatever they want, and parents have been doing that more and more the last couple of generations, but the fact remains that the end result of career choice has been slow to change. A parent of a girl may have to intentionally make changes to counter the gender expectations in the larger society, as well as the school that the girl attends. Just to parent with the idea of 'you're free to do what you want' may not overcome the pressure from the group. In the example of girls and math, maybe there's an intentional focus of extra effort in that area, women in that field come for career day at school, and teachers and staff make a conscious effort to counter the bias of 'boys are better at math' that can be present at school.
fair enough, but the ambiguity is what makes me think...this isn't a science.
Why do girls need to be engineers? that is my main problem here...it is almost like we are giving into to the idea that girls don't have a preference. Maybe the majority of girls don't like engineering? maybe they are choosing to do what they want. You see we are taking the results and atempting to control for factors but simply unable to account for a girl not wanting to be an engineer...is it society that says she can't be? or is it the girl simply choosing something else...But that goes to my more pragmatist thought on the subject of life. There are always factors that a person weighs when he/she makes a decision, but ultimately that decision is up to the person making it...
or, and I am sure I will get savaged for this, maybe there simply is a biological tendency for our actions...tough for science to answer...I can tell you that if everyone was so affected by the evil forces of gender role stereotypes, how can we account for the deviance? how can we account for those who do not fit into those molds without making a conscious thought to deviate? did they have less forces at work? or was their brain wired a little differently...
now back off topic a little bit, all too often people who look at sociology in the same vain as chemistry or mathematics are the reason I dislike it the most. Because those in the field understand that the research is always going to be on going, we are never going to hit a definite, that doesn't mean the general public understands that. That doesn't mean we don't have people that use those same studies to create public policy and public opinion that can be shown to be wrong down the road by but the "damage" caused to individuals by the public policy based on research about a group dynamic may be deeply set...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I agree that the decision is up to the person making it, but there are many factors along the way that go into that decision. If women simply didn't have a preference for engineering, then wouldn't the field be %50 male %50 female? as the men would be making a similar preference choice. There's steps along the way that come into play, combining individual psychology, biology, family influence, peer influence, and societal influence. No one has been able to quantify how much weight each of those carries, which keeps things interesting. I think even a 3 year old who is making decisions is being influenced by all those factors.
I think often women and men make career decisions based on societal influence. A glaring historical example is older women will talk about their career options presented to them as "are you going to be a nurse or a teacher?".
I agree that research results from all fields are misused in determining policy. It's why I'd like to see more politicians with backgrounds in research so they can better digest the info.
you all saw this part, right??? for now.. not forever.. not even for years, or even much longer. the child is an infant, less than 6 months old. it doesnt know what a boy is and it doesnt know what a girl is.. but it will. and when it does the previous neutrality of its gender will become a non issue, not to mention non existent. its a baby.... and it probably doesnt even know what that means.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Yeah, those liberals are nuts. Gender roles/norms/stereotypes are totally irrelevant to real life. Instead, we should be maintaining our efforts to keep men's & women's restrooms separated because men will naturally rape women who pee behind a stall door in their vicinity.
"What we noticed is that parents make so many choices for their children. It's obnoxious," adds Stocker
and she's not? :wtf:
Parents are the last to see what they do to their children ...
until its done.
As parents, everything will either come back to haunt you or make you proud.
if you feel ... put yourself in their shoes, that's harder than you think,
and with some luck, hopefully it will be the later.
then drop them into the ocean or something
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
obnoxious - adjective - extremely unpleasant
origin from LATIN obnoxius 'exposed to harm'
there are those of you here who are of the opinion that these parents in deciding not to reveal their babys gender publicly are harming this child in some way. when all they are doing is denying you access to information you all seem to think is your right. suck it up... its not your business. and if you think it is then youve got way too much time on your hands.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Best post of the entire thread.
It's the child's right, not the parents.
Sure, the child needs someone to speak for him/her, but the question comes down to whether these parents are doing an effective job of doing that. They "can" obviously do what they did. But, if they didn't know one would be talking about them.
I'd say the parents behavior is obnoxious:
ob·nox·ious
adj \äb-ˈnäk-shəs, əb-\
Definition of OBNOXIOUS
1
archaic : exposed to something unpleasant or harmful —used with to
2
archaic : deserving of censure
3
: odiously or disgustingly objectionable : highly offensive
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
That's EXACTLY the parents' point. They've been clear that they are just letting the child decide if/when to disclose his/her sex, rather disclosing it to everyone without giving the child a choice in the matter.
No, it is not. THEY are making a decision to withhold the child's sex.
They can do that if they want. But, I can also say they are horrible parents that are making a socially liberal point (which is stupid) at the expense of their own child's well-being.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Why was I treated differently?
This is the key here ... that and the grandparents are out of the loop.
Please (re-)read the article and show me where they said they are not allowing the child to disclose his/her own sex.
Just because someone doesn't provide information to others about SOMEONE ELSE'S genitals, doesn't mean they are deciding for that person that the information will be withheld. For instance, just because I don't chose to tell everyone about some guy's tiny penis, even if they ask and think they have a right to know, it doesn't mean I am personally making the decision to withhold this information on behalf of the guy. He is still free to tell whoever he wants - just like the parents of this child have explicitly said that s/he will be free to share his/her gender if s/he wants to.
Reading comprehension sure is declining in this country.
Beck Laxton, 46, and partner Kieran Cooper, 44, decided not to reveal baby Sasha's gender in the hope it would let its 'real' personality shine through.
They referred to it as "The Infant" and only allowed their child to play with 'gender-neutral toys' in their television-free home.
During the first five years of his life, Sasha has alternated between girls' and boys' outfits, leaving friends, playmates and relatives guessing.
But Beck and Kieran have finally revealed his masculinity to the world after it became harder to conceal when Sasha started primary school.
Yesterday Beck, a web editor, said: "I wanted to avoid all that stereotyping. Stereotypes seem fundamentally stupid. Why would you want to slot people into boxes?
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4075523/Its-a-boy-Couple-reveal-sex-of-their-gender-neutral-kid-after-five-years.html
...........................
I could probably stereotype Beck ... :geek:
Good luck, little dude! Hopefully everything will work out and you will avoid an adult life crammed full of therapy.
Nicely done. Very sad. I hope everything works out for him. I wonder if they will ever reveal what toys he liked the best and what outfits he preferred to wear.
Some of that article really bothered me though... she would "ban" finding out the sex of the child via ultrasound. Really? So you are upset that others don't like your choice and now you want to force your choice on others?
Oh, and the fact that when the kid liked running around naked outside, they stopped him specifically so he didn't reveal his gender and then encouraged dolls to play with specifically to hide his gender more. I thought the purpose was to allow him to play with what he liked, not what someone told him was the right toy to play with.
I honestly think that the boy's parents still choose all his toys and how long her could play with them for their little experiment and to try to ensure a specific outcome. How is that different than what other people do that they were claiming to be such a travesty.
I have a little girl. Sure, she has all the little girl stuff now. She had a mix of toys as a baby/toddler, she naturally gravitated towards the princess, fairies, etc toys. Now she is into Dinosaurs. I just think you let them run with their interests. Is there some social norms that sway them, I'm sure, but you can't tell me that the boy wasn't swayed by his parents social norms. She even said so herself. Sad.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Mr. Moustache.
Children need to be trained and taught what is expected from them as a human, as a girl or boy, as a mother, as a father, as a citizen of society. When you do not teach your children, they become brats or just plain confused.
we catch those vibes, we bond, identify differences, mimic, store in our subconscious...
it all makes us us
and yes you might be right about remembering
but boy the big brothers won't let this child forget :?
Really comes down to being made different ... to feel different within the family...
this child will wonder why ... the extended family will wonder why
do the parents think it is abuse ? ... they are obtuse ... really
it is all about them, incredibly insensitive
Yes, all parents make mistakes but the biggest is putting themselves before their child
which in my opinion is just what these parents did