Gender Neutral Parenting

In a nation of multiple millions of human beings, I'd say that for practical purposes... "many" = 'other-than-rare' (at least fairly common).

Of course.

Indeed. And to me, the most important thing in this often ignorant, fearful and bigoted society... is that more people raising children would allow them to understand that all other human beings are not the same as they are; nor should we always expect them to be.

 

s

That's a pretty vague statement (in red). I don't think society is 'often' any of those things. In my work I have met literally thousands of people from all walks of life. They all work and support themselves just like me and at no time have I ever detected a hint of bigotry. Intelligence is much too subjective to judge and unless someone is just a blithering idiot I give them the benefit of the doubt until or if I get to know them. Being fearful is not necessarily a bad thing. A bit of healthy fear can keep one from getting killed but, like everything else, taken to extreme (being fearful of skin color) it is definitely a bad thing.

 

I would imagine the primary difference is that if you told a typical Scot he was wearing a dress, he'd probably punch your lights out. Roddy Piper built a career on that.

 

1) Ballet, itself, does involve largely feminine movements. While those movements can prove beneficial in masculine settings such as football games, it does not change the nature of the actual motions.

2) Calling people "dumb rednecks" who would "beat the crap out of their sons for showing an interest in ballet" actually betrays a latent misandrist streak in your own attitude; holding a subconscious prejudice against masculinity. Which you have, most likely, absorbed from the feminized anti-male culture around you like most westerners. So who's the real bigot here?

 

feminine movements?? lol

 

Unless "rednecks" don't exist at all, it was a perfectly valid characterisation. Out of all the "classes" in society those with lower levels of wealth and education are far more likely to take a homophobic attitude to things like Ballet. Stereotype my ass.

And you may make the distinction with respect to Ballet - that there is traditionally a "male" and "female" role (even though technically there is nothing stopping them from swapping the roles over - you could have a guy lift a guy or girl lift a girl). Most people on the lower end of the societal spectrum in America (how's the politically correct language?) would not view it the way you do, and think of it to be "gay" regardless. You correctly pointing out that it's more socially acceptable in Russia proves my point - that it's all about social perceptions.

- - - Updated - - -

Unless "rednecks" don't exist at all, it was a perfectly valid characterisation. Out of all the "classes" in society those with lower levels of wealth and education are far more likely to take a homophobic attitude to things like Ballet. Stereotype my ass.

And you may make the distinction with respect to Ballet - that there is traditionally a "male" and "female" role (even though technically there is nothing stopping them from swapping the roles over - you could have a guy lift a guy or girl lift a girl). Most people on the lower end of the societal spectrum in America (how's the politically correct language?) would not view it the way you do, and think of it to be "gay" regardless. You correctly pointing out that it's more socially acceptable in Russia proves my point - that it's all about social perceptions.

 

What's a "feminine" movement?

As for my dumb rednecks statement somehow amounting to a statement that conveys a "feminist anti-male" mindset, you're reading FAR too much into it. I LOL'ed over my cereal, so thanks.

 

Social perceptions/cultural differences then. So nothing inherently feminine about the form of a dress.

 

Interesting.. what are these drugs to curb male aggressiveness you mention?

I think "male aggressiveness" by and large is fairly useless in our modern society, a remnant of primitive human existence. The majority of men overcome their aggressive behaviour in order to function in a society where it is actually counterproductive to have such a disposition. Outlets for anger are important, but fostering creativity or more "gender neutral" activities are useful because they have a calming effect. People who constantly push their kids into "all male" competitiveness and oppose any form of activity that is even remotely "gender neutral" are likely fostering the counterproductive primal urges that lead to aggressive problem solving in other aspects of their lives.

 

Let me guess, you view the fact that they don't as blatant discrimination against homosexuals motivated by animus towards homosexuals.

 

??? There are no "rules" to say that Ballet isn't actually Ballet if the gender-roles aren't adhered to. I'm sure some performances have "mixed it up" so to speak.

Sticking to the traditional roles doesn't make it homophobic, but an attitude of "it can't be ballet if they change it" is.

 

We disagree.

 

Kids tell you what they're interested in and what they want to wear, you just have to pay attention.

I think its great if there is a movement for men to be free to be complete human beings. Its long overdue. My only concern about gender neutral changes are when they become a reason for ditching responsibility to kids. Because people still connect dedication to kids and the importance of parents to their feelings about gender roles. In the confusion and subsequent arguing and resentment over who is 'supposed' to do what, its harder to work together so kids become less of a focus for the now and time passes.
It shouldn't have to be that way and the answer cant be going backwards. You don't have kids with 'men' or 'women', you are both unique people so how things are done can realistically work for you both.
(and if you're a single parent you get to be the boss/tyrant which is too awesome.)
I wish that in public efforts to guide, help, whatever people are doing, that there was more encouragement given to keeping your kids a shared priority and the importance of working together regardless of feelings about the other parent, relationship status or career, which in my opinion tends to be overkill. I think gay marriage and parenting will be good for that in this country. We can all stay out each others bedrooms because some people really won't want to go there.

 

The truth isn't nonsense Junior.

 

Child being born creates an obligation of care and support on only two people in the world. The mother who gave birth and the man who fathered the child. Presumed to be the husband if she is married. The above you speak of is exactly what marriage does. Encourages heterosexual couples to marry before they procreate and encourages them to provide and care for the children they have created, together as opposed to apart or not at all.

The institution you want to seperate from child birth and providing and caring for children, and turn into an institution that is instead about sex, homosexual or heterosexual.

 

It already is just about sex for many heterosexuals (going by your logic) - couples who are infertile and post-menopausal who, in your words "want a cozy place to shag". They have that, gays don't. It accommodates quite happily the heterosexuals whose sex is equally 'pointless'.

 

Two separate issues. Why individual couples marry and why the government licenses and regulates the relationship. They don't necessarily match

 

hi dixon,
my post was about the thread which is gender neutral parenting which I think begins in part how parents treat each other when raising their kids. It was also about concerns over gender neutral how that affects parents working together, (that it doesn't need to be that way) and the children still need to be a priority over relationships/marriage issues (however composed) of parents. Because if you haven't noticed, parents commonly don't stay together. Kids shouldn't be forgotten, ignored or less of a priority because of that.

And your post.. what relevance does thoughts about what you wish having a child should create in two people, what you wish marriage would do for them and what you think family structures relationship institutions should be for everyone have anything to do with what I said? Not a damn thing, that's what.

 

Not really following the broken english but marriage helps achieve what you "said". More mothers and fathers providing and caring for THEIR children together as opposed to the alternative of apart or not at all.

 

Here's some more broken English for ya: The public should not be telling parents that they can't put their children first unless they have a one type of relationship with the other parent. Doing so encourages neglect. As parents you're #2, not #1

 

That's something the social conservatives don't get. I'm not out to force non-conformity among children, as that is actually a form of conformity. All I want to do is allow kids who aren't traditionally masculine and feminine to be allowed to explore their own gender.

 

I wouldn't raise a kid that way, but that's just me. If you want to pretend your kid doesn't have a set of balls or a vagina, that's your business, not mine.

 

If you've read through parts of this thread, that's not how we view gender. Of course guys have a set of balls and women have a vagina. The whole purpose of gender neutral parenting is recognizing that children's choices and interests shouldn't be shaped so harshly by gender perceptions in society.

 

To be honest, that sounds like a bunch pseudo mumble jumble, because nine out of ten little boys are going to end up acting like little boys, and etc. So, really what's the point?

I'm pretty opened minded, but I just see this as more hyper sensitivity.

 

Well, those nine boys would be fine and would be allowed to develop their masculine identity.

But even people who do follow traditional gender roles are often still limited by them in some way or another. They just happen to be normal enough to block out the parts of them that don't fit into societies perception of correct gender expression.