How do you define gender?

[Melissa Louise]

Just now, Joker2 said:

This thread is actually making me want to push back against every single female and gender stereotype there is. I can’t imagine what my dc, who have actual issues, feel when hearing/reading this stuff. 

Having a female body is not a stereotype. 

[1234]

Just now, Melissa Louise said:

Having a female body is not a stereotype. 

Some people have a way of making it feel like it is. 

[Matryoshka]

29 minutes ago, SlowRiver said:

Young women and to some extent young men are often much more likely to be able to wear opposite sex clothing easily. Especially if they are thin.

Maybe girls with already boyish bodies.  But I could never fit into mens'/boys clothes even when I was young and really thin.  I still had boobs and hips, even with a 24" waist.

I still hate that men's T-shirts are the default when they're given out for some event.  Please print women's as well!  In order to fit over my boobs I have to get a shirt that can only be used as a nightshirt, and also makes me look fat.  I can wear a women's medium because it is shaped right.

Gender-neutral is not neutral if it still based on a man's body being somehow the default norm and women's being some kind of aberration.  I also refer to the book Invisible Women.  The default human is not a 180lb. male, no matter how much that's been the standard for forever.

[Melissa Louise]

Just now, Joker2 said:

Some people have a way of making it feel like it is. 

Some people are insistent on not listening. 

I am 101% against stereotyping on the basis of sex, of enforced masculinity and femininity, of enforced heterosexuality. 

I don't need to deny the reality of the female body to do it. The female body is value-neutral - it just is. It has implications for female life. 

Denying that it does is just....a fantasy. 

 

[SlowRiver]

7 minutes ago, Joker2 said:

This thread is actually making me want to push back against every single female and gender stereotype there is. I can’t imagine what my dc, who have actual issues, feel when hearing/reading this stuff. 

It's not gender neutral clothes that are the issue, it's the idea that they will solve some sort of problem that is caused by our sex. Make people see men and women as the same, or mean they don't notice who is male and who is female.It won't do that.

It's actually, even now, not that difficult to get gender neutral clothing in our society, especially casual ones for adults. Men and women both can easily wear a pair of straight leg jeans, a pair of converse or cowboy boots, a hoodie or a plaid lumberjack shirt, and a t-shirt. I worse that through the entirety of high-school as did about 70% of the other girls and 99% of the boys.

There is a big difference between something that is a fact about a population and a stereotype. It is not a stereotype to say women are generally shorter than men, with different proportions, smaller feet, etc.

[1234]

5 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Some people are insistent on not listening. 

I am 101% against stereotyping on the basis of sex, of enforced masculinity and femininity, of enforced heterosexuality. 

I don't need to deny the reality of the female body to do it. The female body is value-neutral - it just is. It has implications for female life. 

Denying that it does is just....a fantasy. 

 

I wish you nothing but the best, but you and I don’t have a good history engaging in these topics here. I shouldn’t have started and I’m going to stop now because we both know it won’t end well. I’m interested in what you have say so I’m not ignoring you but I won’t engage personally further. 

[Melissa Louise]

Just now, Joker2 said:

I wish you nothing but the best, but you and I don’t have a good history engaging in these topics here. I shouldn’t have started and I’m going to stop now because we both know it won’t end well. I’m interested in what you have say so I’m not ignoring you but I won’t engage personally further. 

Yep, fair enough. We get under each other's skin way too quickly. 

[Melissa Louise]

Also, @Joker2, I hope you know that part of why that happens is because I honestly don't know how we ended up having such divergent thoughts on this, and I get more frustrated with myself than anyone else that I can't seem to communicate to you where I'm coming from. So you end up thinking I just hate your son, and I don't. 

[1234]

2 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Also, @Joker2, I hope you know that part of why that happens is because I honestly don't know how we ended up having such divergent thoughts on this, and I get more frustrated with myself than anyone else that I can't seem to communicate to you where I'm coming from. So you end up thinking I just hate your son, and I don't. 

I know you don’t. I think I needed a few years from him coming out to know that. I became extremely protective of him in the beginning, for what I hope, are obvious reasons. I actually think we agree on a lot but how things have gone on this board make us a bit more twitchy. 

[Faith-manor]

8 minutes ago, LMD said:

I hear you, I do! 

Can I ask, was the issue with the dress itself, or the sexist assumptions that the dress represented?

I totally understand wanting to be seen and treated as a capable human instead of a walking uterus who can look pretty and do some tricks.

What I don't understand it the capitulation, it's like saying, yes, fine, female is lesser, I'll get rid of any female markers I can and then I might be seen as 'one of them' by the real humans sometimes? 

I want to be seen as a full human, tits and tears and blood and milk and birth and all. Those things are just as much a part of me, a part of my body, as my brain is.

We are very different people. Seriously. I don't even understand this line of questioning. I am not so attached to my outward appearance or reproductive organs that I view myself as less human because I don't care to emphasize tits, milk, etc. I consider myself a whole human without that and think I am still a whole human if my boobs and uterus are gone. I don't define humanness by these things. So I don't think we operate from the same frame of reference which is normal for me. I don't fit in with anyone except my own family who accepts me as is. 

My future, my very career hinged on that recital occurring within a male dominated, sexist, perverted system in which the more male I appeared, the more tough, the less feminine, the most "she can make it in a male world" I looked, the better my chances. They took that away from me and they forced me to appear to care a hell of a lot more about barbieness than I actually did. It was powerfully dehumanizing. I am not sure that women who are naturally more inclined towards the cultural expectations of females understand how demeaning it is to be treated this way. But they would not have been in my position because despite the fact that evening gowns are ridiculously impractical for pianists, harpists, bassists, cellists, bass clarinetists, and percussionists, not to mention that many bodices restrict breathing for vocalists when tuxedos do not, they would be eager to wear them. I respect that. They should do them. I was not allowed to do me.

What is so bad about striving for a world in which humans are treated equitably simply for being humans, and not according to whatever box the bullies have sorted us into?  I mean I don't get the insistence that I am supposed to WANT to be all fruffy and "Look, I have boobs!" When men have to put their testicles in slings and adorn their penises with sequins and pearls in order to get an A on a piano recital, then maybe I will feel better about having to perform in an evening gown. Clearly, penises must need to be dressed up just like boobs. Oh wait. Not.

This is the problem. 

Again, I have no desire to be considered fully human because I have certain reproductive organs. Dogs have reproductive organs. That isn't what makes them dogs. So if a man loses his testicles, he is now not fully human? I am truly confused by "full human" and suspect that what is being hinted at here is I am a lesser person for not feeling female in the same way that others do. Marc Andre Hamelin is a whole human because we assume his prostate is intact? Is it relevant to his virtuoso abilities? As a human, music defines me far more than my organs do, way more. I suspect that is the same for Hamelin.

I was forced to put my perceived gender on grand display because they would have gone on stage, canceled the recital by lying and calling it a medical emergency, and thrown me out of the music department, preventing me from graduating. Since the student handbook included phrasing like "recitals are scheduled and allowed to advance at the sole discretion of the faculty and can be canceled at their discretion", I couldn't fight it. So ya. I capitulated. Let the insults fly.

Back to this " whole human" thing. Is an amputee not a whole human? Do we now define whole human as only those with specific parts intact and recognized by others as the parts that are most important? I mean, I genuinely do not understand. How are you fully human because you are proud of your boobs, but I am not because I am proud of my fingers instead? I would genuinely like to know because the way you phrased it made it sound like either I am not a whole human, or that reproductive organs primarily define being wholly human. I just don't understand.

I am rambling and incoherent. I am definitely unable to be clear nor able to adequately explain myself. I will step away from the conversation.

 

[Melissa Louise]

That's not remotely what LMD was saying. 

She was saying that there shouldn't be a cost to acknowledging the female body and female experience. 

[LMD]

51 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

We are very different people. Seriously. I don't even understand this line of questioning. I am not so attached to my outward appearance or reproductive organs that I view myself as less human because I don't care to emphasize tits, milk, etc. I consider myself a whole human without that and think I am still a whole human if my boobs and uterus are gone. I don't define humanness by these things. So I don't think we operate from the same frame of reference which is normal for me. I don't fit in with anyone except my own family who accepts me as is. 

My future, my very career hinged on that recital occurring within a male dominated, sexist, perverted system in which the more male I appeared, the more tough, the less feminine, the most "she can make it in a male world" I looked, the better my chances. They took that away from me and they forced me to appear to care a hell of a lot more about barbieness than I actually did. It was powerfully dehumanizing. I am not sure that women who are naturally more inclined towards the cultural expectations of females understand how demeaning it is to be treated this way. But they would not have been in my position because despite the fact that evening gowns are ridiculously impractical for pianists, harpists, bassists, cellists, bass clarinetists, and percussionists, not to mention that many bodices restrict breathing for vocalists when tuxedos do not, they would be eager to wear them. I respect that. They should do them. I was not allowed to do me.

What is so bad about striving for a world in which humans are treated equitably simply for being humans, and not according to whatever box the bullies have sorted us into?  I mean I don't get the insistence that I am supposed to WANT to be all fruffy and "Look, I have boobs!" When men have to put their testicles in slings and adorn their penises with sequins and pearls in order to get an A on a piano recital, then maybe I will feel better about having to perform in an evening gown. Clearly, penises must need to be dressed up just like boobs. Oh wait. Not.

This is the problem. 

Again, I have no desire to be considered fully human because I have certain reproductive organs. Dogs have reproductive organs. That isn't what makes them dogs. So if a man loses his testicles, he is now not fully human? I am truly confused by "full human" and suspect that what is being hinted at here is I am a lesser person for not feeling female in the same way that others do. Marc Andre Hamelin is a whole human because we assume his prostate is intact? Is it relevant to his virtuoso abilities? As a human, music defines me far more than my organs do, way more. I suspect that is the same for Hamelin.

I was forced to put my perceived gender on grand display because they would have gone on stage, canceled the recital by lying and calling it a medical emergency, and thrown me out of the music department, preventing me from graduating. Since the student handbook included phrasing like "recitals are scheduled and allowed to advance at the sole discretion of the faculty and can be canceled at their discretion", I couldn't fight it. So ya. I capitulated. Let the insults fly.

Back to this " whole human" thing. Is an amputee not a whole human? Do we now define whole human as only those with specific parts intact and recognized by others as the parts that are most important? I mean, I genuinely do not understand. How are you fully human because you are proud of your boobs, but I am not because I am proud of my fingers instead? I would genuinely like to know because the way you phrased it made it sound like either I am not a whole human, or that reproductive organs primarily define being wholly human. I just don't understand.

I am rambling and incoherent. I am definitely unable to be clear nor able to adequately explain myself. I will step away from the conversation.

 

Wow, okay, I obviously didn't express myseld well because you seem to have understood the opposite of what I meant. 

I'm sorry for your experiences. 

Eta - to the bolded, it is not 'my side' arguing for 'gender neutral language' which conventiently turns women into menstruators, front holes, uterus havers, birthing persons etc. While of course, men get to still be men. I'll reconsider when I see ejaculators and sperm producers and prostate havers. 

I wasn't denigrating you, or saying you capitulated by wearing a dress. I was saying that the movement to opt out of the female box, and leaving the rest of us females to be stuck with the oppressive stereotypes, is capitulating to the same regressive and sexist bullshit we've been fighting forever and it's a cop out for all women. 

Eta 2 - look, faith, I tried to leave this I really did. But you have no idea what sort of person I am, no idea of what sexism I have faced. I am, frankly, angry that you seem to think you're a special case and that the rest of those females who didn't seem to put up as much of a fight just don't get it. Sexism, exploitation and discrimination based on our sexed bodies is a pretty universal female experience. You are like other women, by virtue of your female body not your clothes, whether you or I like it or not.

Edited June 27, 2021 by LMD

[SKL]

1 hour ago, BaseballandHockey said:

Why would it imply that.  Does the fact that there’s no white section or Christian section make you feel that there is something wrong with being white or Christian?  

Because it would be a change from what people are used to, and we all know what that means.

[SKL]

37 minutes ago, SlowRiver said:

There is a big difference between something that is a fact about a population and a stereotype. It is not a stereotype to say women are generally shorter than men, with different proportions, smaller feet, etc.

I'll go a step further and say there's nothing wrong with my daughter wanting to buy feminine, in-style clothes as inspired by some of her female peers.

Just like there's nothing wrong with my other daughter opting out of said styles.

[MercyA]

On 6/25/2021 at 9:39 AM, marbel said:

I'm sorry to @MercyA for continuing the derail. 

I welcome your comments at any time and, FWIW, agree with you heartily. 🙂 

[SKL]

As for women in male-dominated careers, I could write a book about that.  It stinks, but I don't think it really has anything to do with how we dress.  The clothes thing is an excuse.  It happened to me too, in an accounting firm of all places, but I pushed back.  Maybe that's why I never made partner, though it's more likely just one factor.

I didn't read all the long posts about that aspect, but I hope that women who do manage to make the cut in such fields use their position to push for substantive change.  One example would be to insist on more practical dress codes for auditions or whatever.  (And to get male colleagues on board with that push, too.)  It would be likely to come at a cost to the woman pushing for it, but hopefully it would be worth it in the long run.

[maize]

35 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

We are very different people. Seriously. I don't even understand this line of questioning. I am not so attached to my outward appearance or reproductive organs that I view myself as less human because I don't care to emphasize tits, milk, etc. I consider myself a whole human without that and think I am still a whole human if my boobs and uterus are gone. I don't define humanness by these things. So I don't think we operate from the same frame of reference which is normal for me. I don't fit in with anyone except my own family who accepts me as is. 

My future, my very career hinged on that recital occurring within a male dominated, sexist, perverted system in which the more male I appeared, the more tough, the less feminine, the most "she can make it in a male world" I looked, the better my chances. They took that away from me and they forced me to appear to care a hell of a lot more about barbieness than I actually did. It was powerfully dehumanizing. I am not sure that women who are naturally more inclined towards the cultural expectations of females understand how demeaning it is to be treated this way. But they would not have been in my position because despite the fact that evening gowns are ridiculously impractical for pianists, harpists, bassists, cellists, bass clarinetists, and percussionists, not to mention that many bodices restrict breathing for vocalists when tuxedos do not, they would be eager to wear them. I respect that. They should do them. I was not allowed to do me.

What is so bad about striving for a world in which humans are treated equitably simply for being humans, and not according to whatever box the bullies have sorted us into?  I mean I don't get the insistence that I am supposed to WANT to be all fruffy and "Look, I have boobs!" When men have to put their testicles in slings and adorn their penises with sequins and pearls in order to get an A on a piano recital, then maybe I will feel better about having to perform in an evening gown. Clearly, penises must need to be dressed up just like boobs. Oh wait. Not.

This is the problem. 

Again, I have no desire to be considered fully human because I have certain reproductive organs. Dogs have reproductive organs. That isn't what makes them dogs. So if a man loses his testicles, he is now not fully human? I am truly confused by "full human" and suspect that what is being hinted at here is I am a lesser person for not feeling female in the same way that others do. Marc Andre Hamelin is a whole human because we assume his prostate is intact? Is it relevant to his virtuoso abilities? As a human, music defines me far more than my organs do, way more. I suspect that is the same for Hamelin.

I was forced to put my perceived gender on grand display because they would have gone on stage, canceled the recital by lying and calling it a medical emergency, and thrown me out of the music department, preventing me from graduating. Since the student handbook included phrasing like "recitals are scheduled and allowed to advance at the sole discretion of the faculty and can be canceled at their discretion", I couldn't fight it. So ya. I capitulated. Let the insults fly.

Back to this " whole human" thing. Is an amputee not a whole human? Do we now define whole human as only those with specific parts intact and recognized by others as the parts that are most important? I mean, I genuinely do not understand. How are you fully human because you are proud of your boobs, but I am not because I am proud of my fingers instead? I would genuinely like to know because the way you phrased it made it sound like either I am not a whole human, or that reproductive organs primarily define being wholly human. I just don't understand.

I am rambling and incoherent. I am definitely unable to be clear nor able to adequately explain myself. I will step away from the conversation.

 

I don't think that anyone in this conversation thinks what happened to you was right.

You should have been allowed to wear the tux.

What all of us want, and I presume you agree with, is to work towards a society in which appearing as clearly female, whether wearing an evening gown or not, would not cause a woman to be taken less seriously than any man.

Some of us believe that aspects of current trends are actually pushing us culturally in the opposite direction.

[SKL]

2 hours ago, Dmmetler said:

What I’ve seen is having, say, one section of jeans and measurements for inseam, waist, hips,  whether fabric has stretch, etc. If anything, it’s easier to find something that fits than when you have 12 designs labeled size 8, but no two fit the same. It’s the way men have been able to shop for years. 

 

This reminds me how my mom told me that young men used to call Wranglers "Stranglers" because of the fit (or lack thereof) in a certain male area.  😛

[MercyA]

On 6/25/2021 at 9:35 AM, Faith-manor said:

That really does not negate the near constant berating and degradation of women in this book. Not much actually makes up for god telling the Israelites to go genocide some folks, but preserve some young virgins for raping. The bible in its treatment of women and children is indefensible. I am sorry that such a huge number of persons still feel the need to twist themselves into knots trying to make it sound palatable and "loving".

I have a hard time with the some of the things God commanded the Israelites to do, no doubt, but I can't agree with your characterization of the New Testament.

Some of Jesus' closest friends were women. They were the first to find the empty tomb, the first to whom the resurrected Lord appeared. Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well even when it was culturally frowned upon. He saved the life of the woman caught in adultery. He defended the presence at His table of a woman known as sinful. And, through Paul, He commanded that husbands love their wives as self-sacrificially as He Himself loved the church.

I don't think I twist myself into knots over Scripture. I agree that there are those who would like to explain away parts of it to make it sound more "palatable," but I am not at all convinced they are wise in doing so. 

[Teaching3bears]

1 hour ago, maize said:

And some attempts at gender-neutral language are actively erasing females from the language. I do not see how that is going to help. Avoiding words associated with women such as mother, breast-feeding, etc. in favor of "gender-neutral" does not help us progress towards a less sexist (i.e. less devaluing of women) society.

This!  And so many professions dominated by women are paid so little and devalued even though they are important.  We have such a long way to go.  

[pinball]

2 minutes ago, SKL said:

This reminds me how my mom told me that young men used to call Wranglers "Stranglers" because of the fit (or lack thereof) in a certain male area.  😛

Crotchal region...

remember “shrink to fit” Levi’s?

Oh, those were awful. You had to guess if they’d shrink enough!

[MercyA]

Just so you all know (if it isn't already obvious), I'm way behind in my own thread. I've skimmed around some, but am now trying to thoroughly catch up by reading straight through. I'm still on page 5 or so. If I seem to be ignoring anyone, I'm not! I'll get there. 😉 

But right now I need to make lunch for tomorrow and get my Sunday School lesson ready.

Love to all.

[Murphy101]

7 hours ago, Dmmetler said:

I don't think it's so much gender blindness as that there has been decades of work towards gender/sex equality, and it hasn't happened, so let's try something else. 
 

Wait a sec.  Are you suggesting there has been no improvement at all towards sex equality? Because I seriously beg to differ. Equality has come a long way.  I’ll agree that it has further to go, but I won’t say it hasn’t happened.  Because I can read write go to school get a job own property and much more that my own mother seriously struggled to manage on par with men from her same demographic.  

Because a lot of discrimination has nothing to do with physical organs and everything to do with gender roles.

This seems disingenuous to me because gender roles are entirely based on sex. Yet another reason I say there is zero difference between gender and sex.

I accidentally deleted your comment hoping for a day when skin/sex will be on par with brunettes and redheads. 

But I’m going to tell you that there’s a LOT of stereotype comments about redheads and blondes out there.  Probably not as bad as skin or sex comments but still plentiful and usually not positive. 

[HeartString]

2 hours ago, TravelingChris said:

I always felt fully included when people said Hey guys.

The solution is universal adoption of ya'll.  🙂

2 hours ago, SKL said:

I know, when I was young I always thought "guys" meant "people."  I used it in groups of males, females, and both.

Same.    Guys pretty much just means people for me.   I've noticed that family/friend group also use Dude as a gender neutral word.  

[Teaching3bears]

I agree that I have never felt left out by “guys” but can you imagine someone calling a mixed group “gals” or “girls” or “ladies”?

When I was growing up in the seventies both clothing and toys were more gender-neutral for girls.  There was not  much pink.  Today you walk into ToysRUs and there are aisles that are completely pink and many toys are made in a pink version when they weren’t before: legos, baby toys etc.  In the eighties, with all the baggy clothing and shoulder pads, I felt that we were all supposed to look like men and I felt ashamed of my female parts.  I even remember it being chic for women to wear ties for a while.  And men sometimes wore pink.  

Something that perplexed me is how small children, in the schoolyard, almost always seem to segregate themselves by gender when they play.  
 

 

[Catwoman]

23 minutes ago, Teaching3bears said:

I agree that I have never felt left out by “guys” but can you imagine someone calling a mixed group “gals” or “girls” or “ladies”?

When I was growing up in the seventies both clothing and toys were more gender-neutral for girls.  There was not  much pink.  Today you walk into ToysRUs and there are aisles that are completely pink and many toys are made in a pink version when they weren’t before: legos, baby toys etc.  In the eighties, with all the baggy clothing and shoulder pads, I felt that we were all supposed to look like men and I felt ashamed of my female parts.  I even remember it being chic for women to wear ties for a while.  And men sometimes wore pink.  

Something that perplexed me is how small children, in the schoolyard, almost always seem to segregate themselves by gender when they play.  
 

 

Wow, that’s so sad. 😞 

Why would you have felt ashamed about your female parts back in the ‘80s, just because you wore some baggy clothes? There were plenty of other options available if you felt uncomfortable in the baggy stuff. I hate to think that some stupid fashion style made you feel badly about yourself.

I was modeling during the 80s, and most of what I wore was very short and formfitting, with very high heels, big hair, and a lot of makeup, so even though I do remember the big boxy jackets, I also remember that whenever my friends and I wore those jackets, we paired them with tight miniskirts or very slim pencil skirts, which were anything but masculine. There were a lot of very sexy clothes back in the 80s! (And honestly, my clothes weren’t gender neutral in the ‘70s, either, so maybe we were shopping in different stores! 😉 )

And those 1980s shoulder pads were amazing for helping create the illusion of an hourglass figure. I loved those things!

 

[LucyStoner]

1 hour ago, pinball said:

Crotchal region...

remember “shrink to fit” Levi’s?

Oh, those were awful. You had to guess if they’d shrink enough!

My dad said that when he was working for the US Geological Survey as an 18-20 yo in Wyoming back in the early 1960s, he would get a pair of levi's, jump in the river and let them shrink while they dried in the sun.  I'm not entirely sure if he wasn't pulling my leg.  This was before the tech fabrics we have today so hiking in jeans didn't sound as silly as it does today. His job consisted of plotting out the mileage on trails and pounding markers into the ground.  

[Murphy101]

32 minutes ago, Teaching3bears said:

I agree that I have never felt left out by “guys” but can you imagine someone calling a mixed group “gals” or “girls” or “ladies”?

When I was growing up in the seventies both clothing and toys were more gender-neutral for girls.  There was not  much pink.  Today you walk into ToysRUs and there are aisles that are completely pink and many toys are made in a pink version when they weren’t before: legos, baby toys etc.  In the eighties, with all the baggy clothing and shoulder pads, I felt that we were all supposed to look like men and I felt ashamed of my female parts.  I even remember it being chic for women to wear ties for a while.  And men sometimes wore pink.

Something that perplexed me is how small children, in the schoolyard, almost always seem to segregate themselves by gender when they play.  

I have used both gals and guys. And no men were offended. Just yesterday I told my own cluster of kids, “Let’s go, ladies!” even though only 3/5 where girls.  Likewise my girls are not offended when I say guys. At homeschool gatherings/discussions, it is common to say gals or ladies even if there’s 1-3 homeschooling dads. I’ve not seen them get offended about it. 

Like some others, I do not remember ever seeing boys and girls segregated into lines. And men who were pink don’t bother me. And may I just say that every female I know is annoyed that all pink items are made like crap compared to the not pink marketed to males stuff? I think nearly all my girls stopped buying stuff supposedly marketed to women for that reason. Men’s razors? Better. Men’s socks? Better. Men’s sneakers? Better.  And often cheaper of the same price.

There’s brain and emotional development reasons and, yes some social factors too, for why very young children play the ways they do. It’s absolutely fascinating to read about it.  Well to me anyways. 

[LucyStoner]

41 minutes ago, Teaching3bears said:

I agree that I have never felt left out by “guys” but can you imagine someone calling a mixed group “gals” or “girls” or “ladies”?

When I was growing up in the seventies both clothing and toys were more gender-neutral for girls.  There was not  much pink.  Today you walk into ToysRUs and there are aisles that are completely pink and many toys are made in a pink version when they weren’t before: legos, baby toys etc.  In the eighties, with all the baggy clothing and shoulder pads, I felt that we were all supposed to look like men and I felt ashamed of my female parts.  I even remember it being chic for women to wear ties for a while.  And men sometimes wore pink.  

I agree that it feels we have gone backwards.  To the bolded though, ain't no one walking into the TRU these days.  

When we were selling a wooden crib in 2005, one of the potential buyers decided it looked "too masculine" for the girl they were expecting.  Blink?  What?  What the heck is gendered about a piece of wood furniture?  

 

[Catwoman]

25 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

My dad said that when he was working for the US Geological Survey as an 18-20 yo in Wyoming back in the early 1960s, he would get a pair of levi's, jump in the river and let them shrink while they dried in the sun.  I'm not entirely sure if he wasn't pulling my leg.  This was before the tech fabrics we have today so hiking in jeans didn't sound as silly as it does today. His job consisted of plotting out the mileage on trails and pounding markers into the ground.  

It was true!

Back in the 80s, there were guys who would do the same thing to get their jeans to fit just the way they wanted them to, but they would also scrub certain areas of the wet jeans while they were wearing them to lighten the color just a bit, to accentuate body parts they wanted people to notice... like the butt, the thighs, and what pinball so eloquently referred to as the “crotchal region.” 😉 

Your dad probably did it for more practical reasons, but the method really did work! 

 

Edited June 27, 2021 by Catwoman

[Ausmumof3]

 

2 hours ago, LucyStoner said:

I agree that it feels we have gone backwards.  To the bolded though, ain't no one walking into the TRU these days.  

When we were selling a wooden crib in 2005, one of the potential buyers decided it looked "too masculine" for the girl they were expecting.  Blink?  What?  What the heck is gendered about a piece of wood furniture?  

 

Which implies if they had a boy that would buy a new crib or what?  Baby furniture seems like a pretty practical place for gender neutral!

Edited June 27, 2021 by Ausmumof3

[LucyStoner]

9 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

 

Which implies if they had a boy that would buy a new crib or what?  Baby furniture seems like a pretty practical place for gender neutral!

I haven’t the foggiest.  When my older son was born, my only friend with a child a bit older than mine had a girl. We accepted all her handmedown clothes because babies do not care what color their pajamas are.  

[Ausmumof3]

Just now, LucyStoner said:

I haven’t the foggiest.  When my older son was born, my only friend with a child a bit older than mine had a girl. We accepted all her handmedown clothes because babies do not care what color their pajamas are.  

Think we had all white … babies look so cute in white anyway.

[LucyStoner]

Just now, Ausmumof3 said:

Think we had all white … babies look so cute in white anyway.

An elderly co-worker of my husbands crocheted a remarkably beautifully made baby blanket for our older son.  It was a pale purple.  People assumed that he was a girl whenever we used that blanket in his stroller or car seat.  I didn’t care, it wasn’t like I was going to turn my nose up at that very generous and nice blanket.  It was all natural fiber and is one of the very few baby items we have saved.  Same situation with a friends mom who knitted a gorgeous teal baby sweater, socks and hat.  It was like boys are supposed to be dressed in camo or something.  Not playing that game.  

[LucyStoner]

8 hours ago, Joker2 said:

That’s what people say but I, my trans son, and my NB dc have no issue. When I was in high school, I was cheerleader and we did skits a few times that required wearing men’s clothing (including jeans) and no one had an issue. I often would find myself with no clean jeans and grab a pair from one of my brothers. I don’t think it’s as big of a problem as people think/say.

I just don’t see how an option of gender neutral clothing for those who want it should be a big deal. 

My nieces are all very petite and men's (or teen boy) clothing doesn't come close to fitting them.  One is 5 feet tall and looks to be staying 5 feet tall.  One is 5'1 and the other is 5'3 and they are both definitely at their tallest.  Both of my siblings reproduced with shorter than average people.  My SIL is 4'11 and my exBILs mom is 5 feet tall (and he's low average for height himself- I have a couple of inches on him height wise for sure).  My mom, my brother (transman) and I all could wear men's clothes off the rack but my mom and sibling were/are 6 feet tall and I am the shortest woman in my mom's family because I didn't crack 5'10 (thereby killing my hoop dreams, lol).  Anything that isn't too long for them in the men's department is too narrow to accommodate curves.  My older son bought some women's t-shirts unknowingly and despite being the largest non-plus size (my son is very slim but he's 6'1), the shirts didn't come close to fitting his shoulders.  He was baffled as to why these "large" shirts were so small on him.  I had to clue him in that a large woman's t-shirt is waaaay different than a men's shirt. He wears a small or medium men's shirt (small tall or med tall if we can find it).  I have really appreciated gender neutral clothing makers like TomboyX that make the styles fit a wide range of bodies, including female curves. 

[Murphy101]

9 hours ago, regentrude said:

Not my experience. It is quite common that girls are expected to do more household chores than boys, that their dress is more scrutinized and restricted, that they have earlier curfews and not the same freedom, that they have tighter restrictions when they want to date....

But let’s also not forget. Males usually are not the enforcers of such things in society.  Usually other females are the enforcers of such social strictures.    That has not been the case in my household. Because the matriarch of my household (me) will not enforce such things.

[Murphy101]

6 hours ago, MercyA said:

I have a hard time with the some of the things God commanded the Israelites to do, no doubt, but I can't agree with your characterization of the New Testament.

Some of Jesus' closest friends were women. They were the first to find the empty tomb, the first to whom the resurrected Lord appeared. Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well even when it was culturally frowned upon. He saved the life of the woman caught in adultery. He defended the presence at His table of a woman known as sinful. And, through Paul, He commanded that husbands love their wives as self-sacrificially as He Himself loved the church.

I don't think I twist myself into knots over Scripture. I agree that there are those who would like to explain away parts of it to make it sound more "palatable," but I am not at all convinced they are wise in doing so. 

I’m going to suggest listening to Bible in a Year with Fr Mike again. He may not go into a lot of depth in that 20ish minutes a day but he does explain it well. 

2 hours ago, LucyStoner said:

I haven’t the foggiest.  When my older son was born, my only friend with a child a bit older than mine had a girl. We accepted all her handmedown clothes because babies do not care what color their pajamas are.  

5 kids in 6 years and the 5th was my first girl. Her wardrobe was a mix of mostly boys hand me downs and pink ruffles.  She didn’t care. Same with the boys that came after 2 girls.  And for baby girl I knit her a Link outfit and a Serenity/Firefly sweater. Every one of my kids have insisted those outfits are a MUST keepsake for their kids some day.   People forget it wasn’t that long ago that all babies wore dresses or “gowns” until about age 3 or 4. 

[Guest]

10 hours ago, LMD said:

It's not just a fair minded mother calling her daughter beautiful - it's the ubiquitous barage from the whole culture that girls' worth is mainly in their looks. There were posts upthread about girls identifying as non binary because being a girl means being a pretty girl. I think it's an uncontroversial statement that women and girls are judged exponentially more on their looks.

I grew up in a family where “being a girl meant being a pretty girl” and it certainly did affect how I parented my kids. (One girl, two boys.) My family had four girls, one boy (and the boy was the caboose baby, so reality was we were all girls for formative years). My mother definitely got a lot of vicarious pride from going to church with her group of magnificent daughters. My mother went to an hours-long procedure of washing our hair and setting it in curlers Saturday evenings, so we would look as feminine and beautiful as possible Sunday morning. (FWIW, I embraced all the feminine things and liked having long hair with curls, though not the “Shirley Temple” way my mom made it be for church; my closest sister loathed all of it and there were many tear-filled fights between them as my mom tried to make this tomboyish sister conform to Polly Flinders dresses, lace tights, curled hair, Mary Janes, but that is another story.) 

I never wanted my kids - but especially my girl - to get the message that her value is in how pretty/feminine she looks. I was very judicious about how often I complimented physical appearance; I mostly kept it to occasions like Prom. I also tried never to curtail my daughter’s activities based on if it would mess up her hair or because her clothing wasn’t suitable. So, no dresses and Mary Janes to go to the park...😏

Even as a grown-assed adult, my mother still persists in mainly being proud of how I look. When I went to the *hospital* to see her after an emergency, she nevertheless would remark to any nurse/doctor/administrative staff that her “beautiful” daughter was here. Not helpful, smart, generous or charitable - beautiful. 

[Dmmetler]

8 hours ago, LucyStoner said:

My dad said that when he was working for the US Geological Survey as an 18-20 yo in Wyoming back in the early 1960s, he would get a pair of levi's, jump in the river and let them shrink while they dried in the sun.  I'm not entirely sure if he wasn't pulling my leg.  This was before the tech fabrics we have today so hiking in jeans didn't sound as silly as it does today. His job consisted of plotting out the mileage on trails and pounding markers into the ground.  

Jeans are almost snakebite proof for US snakes, so they’re commonly worn for fieldwork where the risk is moderate-They’re a lot more comfortable than leather gaiters. 

[TravelingChris]

12 hours ago, Matryoshka said:

Yes.  Might be different in the parts of the country that say y'all, but 'you guys' and just 'guys' is gender neutral here.  It's even used for all-female groups.

And I sometimes say one or sometimes say the other. That comes from growing up in a very diverse environment and then moving a lot as an adult.

[TravelingChris]

12 hours ago, SKL said:

An additional option?  Fine, if the stores want to invest in that.

But taking away the girls/women and boys/men sections?  IMO that's ridiculous.  Besides being inconvenient, it implies that there is something wrong with identifying as male or female.

I completely agree

[TravelingChris]

12 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

'Young bodies' = sex denial.  Bodies are immutably sexed. 

We already live in a world where the male body is the default. Read Invisible Women by Caroline Criado Perez for a multitude of examples, from medication, to car safety, to number of public toilets provided. 

Pretending half the population falls into some generic, sexless body doesn't help fix that. It hinders it. 

Yes, Yes, Yes.    And about the car safety--- this is one of my regular rants.  They design air bags for men who don't wear seat belts---wtf??????   That leads to the deaths and maiming of females, particularly older females.

[TravelingChris]

12 hours ago, Matryoshka said:

Well, many of us are not shaped like that.  I could never fit in women's Levi's because they were cut (imho) too much like men's - way too straight.  To get men's pants that would fit my hips would mean they'd be ginormous in the waist. 

 

12 hours ago, Catwoman said:

Yes! I was just going to post the exact same thing!

Yep, same here.  I have a curvy body--so smaller waist and bigger hips.  I also could never buy Levi jeans.

[TravelingChris]

9 hours ago, LucyStoner said:

I agree that it feels we have gone backwards.  To the bolded though, ain't no one walking into the TRU these days.  

When we were selling a wooden crib in 2005, one of the potential buyers decided it looked "too masculine" for the girl they were expecting.  Blink?  What?  What the heck is gendered about a piece of wood furniture?  

 

Huh?

[TravelingChris]

6 hours ago, LucyStoner said:

I haven’t the foggiest.  When my older son was born, my only friend with a child a bit older than mine had a girl. We accepted all her handmedown clothes because babies do not care what color their pajamas are.  

We didn't want to know what gender our first baby was-we wanted the surprise.  So yes, we had gowns in many colors.  And as it is, my dd2 favorite color is blue.  

And yes, to the poster above that both blonde and red haired people get teased.  Particularly my red headed dd2.  I just got called Red, which I didn't care about.  And dh, as an adult, had women tell him that it is a shame that he has strawberry blond hair-- on one bus, an older woman grabbed his hair and said she wished she had scissors there to cut it so she could bring it to her hairdresser.

[TravelingChris]

1 hour ago, Dmmetler said:

Jeans are almost snakebite proof for US snakes, so they’re commonly worn for fieldwork where the risk is moderate-They’re a lot more comfortable than leather gaiters. 

Oh, thank you for this.   I will keep this in mind when hiking.

[LucyStoner]

Just now, TravelingChris said:

We didn't want to know what gender our first baby was-we wanted the surprise.  So yes, we had gowns in many colors.  And as it is, my dd2 favorite color is blue.  

And yes, to the poster above that both blonde and red haired people get teased.  Particularly my red headed dd2.  I just got called Red, which I didn't care about.  And dh, as an adult, had women tell him that it is a shame that he has strawberry blond hair-- on one bus, an older woman grabbed his hair and said she wished she had scissors there to cut it so she could bring it to her hairdresser.

We did the same in part to be surprised and in part because I didn’t want to get a bunch of really gendered stuff as gifts or too much feedback on our name choices.  

[Pam in CT]

re fact-based population averages...

11 hours ago, SlowRiver said:

...There is a big difference between something that is a fact about a population and a stereotype. It is not a stereotype to say women are generally shorter than men, with different proportions, smaller feet, etc.

vs social expectations-driven stereotypes

2 hours ago, Quill said:

I grew up in a family where “being a girl meant being a pretty girl” and it certainly did affect how I parented my kids....My mother definitely got a lot of vicarious pride from going to church with her group of magnificent daughters. My mother went to an hours-long procedure of washing our hair and setting it in curlers Saturday evenings, so we would look as feminine and beautiful as possible Sunday morning. (FWIW, I embraced all the feminine things and liked having long hair with curls, though not the “Shirley Temple” way my mom made it be for church; my closest sister loathed all of it and there were many tear-filled fights between them as my mom tried to make this tomboyish sister conform to Polly Flinders dresses, lace tights, curled hair, Mary Janes, but that is another story.) 

...Even as a grown-assed adult, my mother still persists in mainly being proud of how I look. When I went to the *hospital* to see her after an emergency, she nevertheless would remark to any nurse/doctor/administrative staff that her “beautiful” daughter was here. Not helpful, smart, generous or charitable - beautiful. 

 

Nine pages in, and I'm truly flummoxed how anyone can argue that BOTH of these are real.  Yes, uterus and menstruation and breastfeeding exist, stemming directly from sex organs; as do population averages re height and shape, within which there are individuals who are very tall compared to the female average or very slight compared to the male.  Some individuals never bear children, whether by choice or circumstance or infertility, and thus never experience the biological experiences of pregnancy or breastfeeding.

Yes, culture-based expectations exist on roles and looks and behavior. Some individuals are fully comfortable within those expectations, other individuals chafe at specific *aspects or limitations* of those expectations-- clothing/makeup/manicures, how women are expected to behave in bed, career, compensation, roles within household/family -- of some of those expectations (FWIW, that's where I land personally). Other individuals really experience a pretty deep revulsion against the entire package.

I feel like that much is directly verifiable, empirically?  There ARE averages that can be measured. There ARE individuals whose testimony about their own personal struggles against social expectations/limitations we have heard right on this thread.

______

 

So nine pages in, I am discerning two issues that are more subjective or exploratory.

1. Whether "gender" is useful language to convey that bucket of cultural/social expectations that do not derive directly from sex organs; and
2. Whether individuals who experience a pretty deep revulsion against that whole package of cultural/social expectations (clothing/makeup/manicures, how women are expected to behave in bed, career, compensation, roles within household/family) are, in this moment, processing that into a determination to reshape their physical bodies rather than try to reshape societal expectations.

 

Nine pages in, I don't think (?) that any of us who've pushed back on the language of "gender" to label ~~clothing/makeup/manicures, how women are expected to behave in bed, career, compensation, roles within household/family~~ deny that such social and cultural expectations do exist.  Only that "gender" as a word isn't useful, or the correct terminology, to describe that bucket of stuff.  

Is that correct?

 

I'm much more interested in the second question. I have been frankly astonished, over the last five years, at *how many* young people experience ~~some version~~ of dysphoria. The sheer numbers. Unless there's some explanation for what is different, in this moment, that is causal to that distress... it suggests that a STAGGERING NUMBER of people must have felt a staggering weight of un-languaged in-actionable distress in all prior generations.

Which perhaps is true.

[TravelingChris]

2 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

re fact-based population averages...

vs social expectations-driven stereotypes

 

Nine pages in, and I'm truly flummoxed how anyone can argue that BOTH of these are real.  Yes, uterus and menstruation and breastfeeding exist, stemming directly from sex organs; as do population averages re height and shape, within which there are individuals who are very tall compared to the female average or very slight compared to the male.  Some individuals never bear children, whether by choice or circumstance or infertility, and thus never experience the biological experiences of pregnancy or breastfeeding.

Yes, culture-based expectations exist on roles and looks and behavior. Some individuals are fully comfortable within those expectations, other individuals chafe at specific *aspects or limitations* of those expectations-- clothing/makeup/manicures, how women are expected to behave in bed, career, compensation, roles within household/family -- of some of those expectations (FWIW, that's where I land personally). Other individuals really experience a pretty deep revulsion against the entire package.

I feel like that much is directly verifiable, empirically?  There ARE averages that can be measured. There ARE individuals whose testimony about their own personal struggles against social expectations/limitations we have heard right on this thread.

______

 

So nine pages in, I am discerning two issues that are more subjective or exploratory.

1. Whether "gender" is useful language to convey that bucket of cultural/social expectations that do not derive directly from sex organs; and
2. Whether individuals who experience a pretty deep revulsion against that whole package of cultural/social expectations (clothing/makeup/manicures, how women are expected to behave in bed, career, compensation, roles within household/family) are, in this moment, processing that into a determination to reshape their physical bodies rather than try to reshape societal expectations.

 

Nine pages in, I don't think (?) that any of us who've pushed back on the language of "gender" to label ~~clothing/makeup/manicures, how women are expected to behave in bed, career, compensation, roles within household/family~~ deny that such social and cultural expectations do exist.  Only that "gender" as a word isn't useful, or the correct terminology, to describe that bucket of stuff.  

Is that correct?

 

I'm much more interested in the second question. I have been frankly astonished, over the last five years, at *how many* young people experience ~~some version~~ of dysphoria. The sheer numbers. Unless there's some explanation for what is different, in this moment, that is causal to that distress... it suggests that a STAGGERING NUMBER of people must have felt a staggering weight of un-languaged in-actionable distress in all prior generations.

Which perhaps is true.

I don't think we did.  At least not since the 70's.  I really think it may have something to do with marketing that has been done---I also noticed the change at stores and it is all like if you are a girl, you have to have everything pink and purple (and a gross pink and purple too).  I got very angry a few years ago at Target where they had birthday cards and Star Wars was boys and I can't remember what girls were but I found a non gendered Star Wars card for dd2.  Both  of my dds are much bigger Star Wars fans than my son.  My son is actually a much bigger Sci Fi fan and not really much into Star Wars.  ANd another issue is social media.  All I know is that a few years ago we had a young girl commit suicide because she did not feel she was a girl and liked a list of things that so-called girls didn;t like-- but that list that the mom had talked about was basically identical to things I liked to do as a young girl.  

If it was a phenomenon just happening in the South, I could see where very distinct gender roles could be an issue- but you are describing this phenomen happening in a very liberal area so I can't think that that is the issue.  I don't know-somebody upthread mentioned the whole issue of pornography.  OF course, there was pornography when I was growing up but it wasn't as pervasive as it is now with the internet.  I know several years ago on this board we had a thread about the pornification of young woman- where their boyfriends were pressuring them or maybe other girls were doing it too- to have the kind of bodies that appear in porn-no hair down there, etc.  Maybe that has something to do with it since that wouldn't be area based.

 

[Catwoman]

3 hours ago, Quill said:

I grew up in a family where “being a girl meant being a pretty girl” and it certainly did affect how I parented my kids. (One girl, two boys.) My family had four girls, one boy (and the boy was the caboose baby, so reality was we were all girls for formative years). My mother definitely got a lot of vicarious pride from going to church with her group of magnificent daughters. My mother went to an hours-long procedure of washing our hair and setting it in curlers Saturday evenings, so we would look as feminine and beautiful as possible Sunday morning. (FWIW, I embraced all the feminine things and liked having long hair with curls, though not the “Shirley Temple” way my mom made it be for church; my closest sister loathed all of it and there were many tear-filled fights between them as my mom tried to make this tomboyish sister conform to Polly Flinders dresses, lace tights, curled hair, Mary Janes, but that is another story.) 

I never wanted my kids - but especially my girl - to get the message that her value is in how pretty/feminine she looks. I was very judicious about how often I complimented physical appearance; I mostly kept it to occasions like Prom. I also tried never to curtail my daughter’s activities based on if it would mess up her hair or because her clothing wasn’t suitable. So, no dresses and Mary Janes to go to the park...😏

Even as a grown-assed adult, my mother still persists in mainly being proud of how I look. When I went to the *hospital* to see her after an emergency, she nevertheless would remark to any nurse/doctor/administrative staff that her “beautiful” daughter was here. Not helpful, smart, generous or charitable - beautiful. 

 

I’m not sure why your dd couldn’t have it both ways — there is no reason you can’t compliment a person for her intelligence and her sense of humor and how great she was at a sport or a hobby, but also frequently tell her how beautiful she is. I agree that focusing only on physical appearance is a bad idea, but hardly ever mentioning it might lead your dd to believe that you’re not complimenting her because she isn’t attractive enough. I’m sure your dd looks lovely a lot more often than on special occasions, so what’s the harm in telling her she looks great in her new outfit on any normal day, or that her new eyeshadow brings out her beautiful eyes, or whatever?

It seems like you feel your mom went too far in one direction, but is it possible that you might be going a bit too far in the other direction?

And honestly, I think it’s sweet that your mom still tells people how beautiful you are. I know you wish she would say smart or capable, but it’s still pretty cool that she loves you and is proud of you, and that she will always view you as her beautiful, perfect daughter. (And she probably also knows how smart and capable you are, and is proud of those things, too; it’s just that she may have been happiest when people complimented her on her looks, so she assumes you feel the same way she does.) If your mom is telling complete strangers how gorgeous you are, she is most likely also bragging to everyone she knows about all of the other great, intelligent, capable things you do, too. Just because she isn’t saying those things in front of you doesn’t mean she’s not annoying everyone else with her stories about how brilliant you are and what a wonderful mom you are, and how you have great new career...and on... and on... and on. 😉 She loves you and she thinks you’re amazing, and she wants everyone else to know it, too!