Come on.

Same. It always amazes me the number of famous people that turn out to have famous parents.

I posted on here before about an scientific experiment that was done where newborn babies were shown a picture of a face and a shape, and it was found that girls generally showed a preference for the face and boys preferred the shape. It was meant to show that biology plays a big part in determining interests.

http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/foru...9&postcount=19

How could you not know? I think she's the image of her mother! :eek:

I think the idea is to keep the child in white until they pick out a pink dress themselves, or give the child a normal brown teddybear until they pick out the action man etc.

Its more about allowing them to think their interests are normal and okay rather than ‘no, you’re a pink child, put the blue toy down you ****ing weirdo’ which i think is a cute idea.

The reason (sigh) people put pi9nk on a girl and blue on a boy is so as to avoid people saying my what a lovely baby boy when its a girl and vice versa

babies tend to look like babies and not baby boys and baby girls

its nowt to do with fecking genderising them

yes parents of newborns tend to get a bit offended if you mis gender their new little angel, they won't be picking out clothes for a while so do you keep them in beige babygros until they are 2?

So she wishes to defy stereotypes... but points out that her child is 'acting feminine'? The entire argument flies out of the window when one starts contradicting themselves. Seems as though she has absolutely no idea what she is doing or saying.

too much time and too much money makes jack a dull girl

"look, i'm really progressive, ain't I wonderful" is what this shouts out to me.

I don't know why you have to not be a girl to defy stereotypes anyway, it's kind of sexist imo

It's ironic, because that is stereotypical in itself. You can be a woman and possess typical male qualities and vice versa. Assuming that you must raise a child as a boy because they're not feminine enough, or a girl because they're not masculine enough... I think all of it is pretty contradictory. All that we are going to end up with is a confused generation of young children who have no idea how to act, because they've been brought up in such ambiguous surroundings. In my best screeching old lady voice... "won't somebody please think of the children?!"

Why put this responsibility on a child? That's the role of parent. It's a parents role to decide if their interests are normal, what if their interests aren't normal? should they just be left to it?

When they turn 16 and are able to make their own way in life, then they can do what they like, but until then, the parent is the boss and makes the decisions.

:laugh2:

But yeah, I mean women especially and to a point men have been fighting against these stereotypes for years, it feels like we're going backwards again

You’re basically an advert for a genderless upbringing because this post is ridiculous.

Which is great but alot of parents already do that without making a big "genderless" only wear white statement about it :laugh:

Well tbf, not many parents would need to make a statement about it because nobody cares what sarah from the nail salon does with her kids. We all only care now because this one is famous enough for a media outlet to report on something that a lot of parents already do.

Yeah it's ridiculous for parents to take responsibility for their children. Instead let the 4 year olds make the decisions, after-all, they haven't even started school yet and can't even tie their shoe laces or bath themselves, but they know the score on gender.

Yeah. We've reverted back to the same strict male/female rules we spent most of the 20th century trying to eliminate... except now you can actually change your gender if you're not suited to it. Of course I'm not against the whole idea of transitioning as I know there are people who would genuinely benefit from it, but we shouldn't be forcing it on children at such a young age and raising them so ambiguously. It's harmful. You hear all sorts of stories about people who have transitioned and end up being so much more unhappy than before.

Well, I've seen stories about non celebrities doing this aswell and it gets a similar reaction.

My point is that this is potentially damaging to how much ground we've gained trying to get rid of these gender stereotypes so it seems like a step backwards to me. Like, I'll give you an example, when I was in secondary school in the 90's, there was 2 boys in the Home Ec class. My son is 14 and he chose Home Ec as one of his options as did more than half the other boys in his year and it was perfectly normal where as before it was a "girls subject" That's a step forward imo, putting gender in strict male/female boxes again like this is focusing on stereotypes again and saying they're either male or female, that's the opposite of progression imo

So you don’t trust a 4 year old to know what toys they’d like to play with? That seems more like an issue with you than the rest of the world. Work on it.

Whoever is paying for the toys will decide what toys the child will play with.

You wouldn't buy your kid whatever toy they wanted? that's a bit mean

Exactly.

Depends how its done... everything could be gender neutral really, letting a toddler and child believe their ideas aren’t outside socially constructed norms doesn’t seem like a bad idea at all. They’ll develop their interests long before they work out what social norms are, and they’ll be comfortable in knowing their hobbies are about them personally, and not about the societal standards... which I think is pretty cute.

If you were a boy and you did Home EC (none did) you would have been beaten up and called a gay when i was at school.

Thankfully we all have moved on and boys can do home EC and get stabbed on the way home with their Apple Crumble. The stabbing can be filmed and put on youtube/twitter where children all around the world can call him a gay and rejoice in his attack via the comments.


:flutter: