Jude...

[Kincaid]

On the experience with your baby crying and your response being different than your husbands...
I am the bio mom of our baby and my partner is the stay-at-home-mom (we are a lesbian couple with a 20 month old). She was there for his birth and for every second of his life thereafter, and is the "primary caregiver."
However, she doesn't get the gut-level hysteria I get when baby cries. Her nipples never leaked milk. She never woke up in the night "just knowing" that baby needed to be checked on. Just like your DH she didn't get the hormonal level affects. It's not because one of us was male and the other female... it was post-birth hormones at work! It's not a male/female thing as much as it is a oxytocin post-partum result :)

I agree with you I don't see anything "wrong" with being female! Or girly! But it is great to step back and see where we think some things are male/female when really they are just our perceptions at work.

There is a famous study of a newborn dressed in pink. In the experiment, people see the newborn in pink with a bow and they say "How delicate! How tiny! How precious! Be careful, she is fragile. What a little sweetie, listen to her little cry, she wants her mommy, she is scared. She is going to be mommy's little helper. Look at her face, she is so feminine and delicate."
They take the SAME newborn, dress it in blue, and bring it out again. Same people now say "Look at what a big baby! He's such a little brute! I bet he gives his mom and dad fits. Listen to that loud cry - he knows what he wants! He doesn't want to wait. That boys knows what he wants, he will be walking before you know it."

SAME BABY. The color the baby is wearing affects so many perceptions in people - how big people thought the baby was, its temperment, how loud they thought the baby cried, how "attached" to its mother... just the color of the clothes!

[sdbc]

I'm just chiming in with my humble opinion. :)

My impression of everything to do with child-rearing, is that a child will be most likely to do as you do, not as you say. I believe that in a "traditional" family (or one version, anyway) where the mother stays home and cares for the children and the father goes and works out of the home, and the mother is the nurturing and the father is more of a disciplinarian, then the boys and the girls in those families will more likely take on those roles later in life. Not in every case, but more often than not. If the mother pursues a career, and the father is also a nurturer, then the children will likely take on those roles. More than anything, modeling the behavior you hope to see will be what does it. And that's not to say a stay-at-home mom won't raise an ambitious career-driven daughter if the mom is commanding of respect at home and in the community.

One of my sisters-in-law is a senior VP in advertising. They have a son and a daughter, and they did everything they could to keep her from wearing dresses and being girly. *All* she wants to do is play with dolls and wear dresses at 4 years old. Whatever. I'll bet you anything that when she grows up, she will be both feminine AND an achiever. If she chooses a career, she'll have the will to do whatever she wants, and if she decides to stay home with children, she will be sure to have the respect of her husband.

I personally have a career outside the home, as well (a professor), and my husband has a career as well, but is extremely nurturing. My daughter likes playing with her baby doll, reading books, doing puzzles, art, nature, but isn't into trucks or action figures even though she's been given the opportunity. Am I worried? No. I hope, like Jude, that she will be kind and nurturing, driven AND aggressive when she needs to be. I guess I'm just coming at the same goal differently. My personal belief is that it really doesn't matter what she wears to accomplish this goal. What matters is our expectation and our example.

So, I guess that my opinion is that if someone raises a child in a gender-neutral way, it wouldn't hurt, as long as the parent did not actively discourage the child's natural tendencies or wishes if they happen to fall in gender-sterotypical categories. I feel like strengths should be encouraged, ragardless of whether they are stereotypical or not, because encouraging strength leads to high self-esteem. On the other hand, the same golas *could* be accomplished if a child is raised wearing dresses or racing stripes, again, as long as strengths are encouraged, even if they fall outside of gender stereotypes. Maybe this is what Jude means, anyway. :) These two sides seem almost the same to me.

Sue, mommy to Aurora (Rory) born 5/13/04

[lizajane]

i always say, "whatever." i just let them grab a bag and whatever toy is in it will make my kid happy, i am sure.

schuyler loves a hairbow in his hair, LOL!!

[sadie427]

Fascinating discussion. It's easy to get caught up in the clothing and toys part of this, but I don't think that is the most important thing. I went to get Sammy dress-up clothes, and I got a pilot hat, construction hat, and a magician cape. I did think about what kind of dress-up play I didn't want to encourage--decided against a pirate hat, or a policeman outfit, as I didn't want to encourage anything with swords or guns. Now I'm thinking I should get him a tutu, too. He does like Angelina Ballerina and Dora the Explorer. But really I think it's more important what he sees and experiences--for all he knows, all mommies are doctors and all daddies take you to school and cook dinner. If the idea is for him to grow up to be a nurturing individual and to be respectful of other people's differences, I'm not sure how much it matters what he looks like or what he plays with. But I do agree kids shouldn't be steered towards a particular interest based on gender--it's just hard to avoid that unless you are very conscious of it.

[smkinc]

Wow, this is a great post! I thought I'd just add my personal experience. The most important thing to teach our children is that it's okay to be who they are.

To keep this brief, I grew up allowed to do a variety of 'male' and 'female' activities, and because of the area of the country I lived in, we were all dressed fairly similarly in middle and high school (rural area mostly everyone wore jeans and t-shirts, yes there were gender themes/cuts, but it was not a high fashion sort of school). I was the only girl on my youth soccer team, but gave it up to be a girl scout. I was 1 out of 3 girls in a 100 student hunter's safety course. I went to college in engineering and am now working as a manager in a very male dominated profession. I regularly am in meetings where I'm the only female present.

The message I was sent as a youngster was--you can do anything you want to do, you can do whatever the boys do. The only problem with that was that somewhere along the line I internalized that the messsage was being like a boy=good, being like a girl=okay. I like being a girl/woman, but felt that in order to 'succeed' I needed to suppress my feminity. This became especially difficult when struggling with infertility.

In the last few years I've embraced my feminitiy more. I now wear pink to important business meetings and I'm happier with myself and my life than I've ever been!

BTW--why can't they make more attractie boy's shoes? My DS always goes for the girls shoes and why not? Hmm-black/brown/navy shoes or red sparkly ones--I think most toddlers would make the same choice!

Mary

[hardysmom]

I can't agree more with trying to allow kids to be thermselves in a gender neutral way! Though it can be a challenge. It is also true, in our culture, that it is easier with girls than boys since, as an adult, being called a "tomboy" isn't as neg. as being called a "girly-man."

My sister, who happens to be a lesbian, probably fits the "sporty/tomboy" stereotype. 2 yrs ago, she adopted a baby girl who is turning out to be a big time girly girl. I think we all expect our kids to be somewhat like ourselves, but it doesn't always work out that way. My neice wants everything to be princess pink and frilly. The more frilly, the better. To my sister's credit, she has allowed her to explore the pink side of herself, though it is seems a little awkward at times. Of course, our mother thinks this is hilarious since I think she wanted my sister to be old-school feminine and had the challenge of raising an incredibly talented athlete who didn't see much need for frills.

My 4 yr old DS is obsessed with cars and other "boy" things, but also loves to play kitchen, have tea parties and has stolen all of his sisters' dolls. Many moms (and even more grandmas) have made comments about how he needs more boys to play with. It is very weird. Personally, I think it is great that, at 4 he is more into Pooh than Spiderman.

On the other hand, my 2 yr old twin girls are a great experiment. One is naturally very girly-girl. Even at this young age, she won't leave the house without a bow and loves to try on clothes and say "so pretty!" Her twin sister is more of a tomboy. Her favortite toys are planes which she flys around the house. She gravitates more to the boy section at toy stores.

As a parent, it is so fun to watch.

Stephanie

[sdbc]

Mary, this really resonated with me: "The message I was sent as a youngster was--you can do anything you want to do, you can do whatever the boys do. The only problem with that was that somewhere along the line I internalized that the messsage was being like a boy=good, being like a girl=okay."

I think sometimes parents bend over backwards telling girls that "you can do anything a boy can do" that they end up sending a message that *in general* boys are better, or worse yet, that somehow that if you can't do something a boy can do, you aren't as good (and there ARE biological differences that make men physically stronger in some respects). I think a better message to send would be "you can do anything you want to do if you really set your mind to it" --and then be accepting and encouraging of whatever natural strengths and inclinations the child has.


Sue, mommy to Aurora (Rory) born 5/13/04

[kijip]

>I remember an interesting lecture in sociology class dealing
>with gender. It seems that people are not nearly so hostile
>to women who have sex changes to become men as opposed to men
>who want to become women. The switch from female to male is
>more (subconsciously) understood because it is a more
>"powerful" position in society.

It is exactly the opposite IME and from what I have read and studied. Males giving up power (MTF, male-to-female) is seen as non-threatening whereas females gaining power by becoming male is seen as a serious attack on masculinity. Perhaps you remember the rape and murder or Brandon Teena in Nebraska? Unfourtunatly FTM attacks are quite common. I have a very close family relationship with a post-op and hormone therapy FTM and have lived the issues around it extensively. MTFs are far more visible in society (think of the pop culture references) than FTMs are generally. It is ok to forfeit power but claiming it is something that sparks deep seated feelings in many people.