No I wouldn't, because I wouldn't want the boy to be ridiculed.
This reminds me of when I was 8 yrs old, and getting my bedroom decorated for the first time (good old 70s woodchip + paint). My parents took me out to pick what colour of paint I wanted. I picked blue. They told me to pick another colour. It ended up yellow.
I'm guessing you're female and they didn't want a girl to have a boy colour, so did you agree with them?
And shouldn't we as adults stop kids being ridiculed for their choices rather than continuing it?
Wearing a princess dress is a choice a child can make, and it's rarely, if ever permanent.
When I see these things I have to wonder how much of it is the child's "choice" and how much of it is the parents, more often the mother, thrusting her wooly minded ideals onto the child.
There was a newspaper article being discussed quite recently on here along those lines and in that case it was quite clearly the mother forcing her ideas onto the child.
I also wonder whether it is only boys that suffer this kind of abuse....
I would insist that they get a handyman's outfit, a cowboy outfit, a fireman, or a soldier, with a big plastic gun so he could pretend to kill people - doing typical boy things! Or a Drs outfit, because men are doctors, definitely not a nurses outfit, as they are females.
I would need him to know, definitively at that age, that boys absolutely must commit to the gender stereotypes that the current society find socially acceptable. If he does not, even just once, then there is the possibility that wearing that dress could somehow change his life. Even his sexuality!
Dress up and imaginative play are so wrong at this age, when children's brains are still developing. If they suggested they wanted to be an astronaut, i would have to sit them down and tell them that the chances of this are so very remote, that its best not to try.
Get used to wearing a suit kid, as soon as possible. A shirt and tie. He will probably end up in a mundane middle management job, working too many hours.
Would you let your son have long hair and or get his earpierced?
No, because I think the former is untidy and the latter tacky. I wouldn't let a young boy have a Mohican haircut either. The boy would have to be at least 14 yrs old (i.e. old enough to realise such actions can have consequences) and paying for his own haircuts/piercings.
I'm guessing you're female and they didn't want a girl to have a boy colour, so did you agree with them?
Yes, yes, and it depends. I'd let a girl have a pastel blue bedroom, but not a dark blue one, as it's less masculine. I wouldn't let a boy have a pink bedroom. It may be stereotyping, but it's traditional.
Yes, yes, and it depends. I'd let a girl have a pastel blue bedroom, but not a dark blue one, as it's less masculine. I wouldn't let a boy have a pink bedroom. It may be stereotyping, but it's traditional.
Traditional from this point in time.
in the 1940s and 1950s and for a long period before, PINK was the colour you would use for a boy.
The very idea that colour has gender, or could affect a child in any way is utterly preposterous.
I don't see why not. When I was a little girl I used to wear both princess dresses and full football kits it didn't warp me. Of course, I'd say maybe wear it just at home or with friends as random kids can be judgemental.
I wouldn't outright ban it because then the kid might think there's something wrong with people who aren't gender stereotypical.
I fear that I will be facing exactly this sort of dilemma in the future.
My 18 month old son loves nothing more than playing with his big sister's dolls and prams, and dressing up in her Peppa Pig fairy costume. He also loves wearing her knickers.
I've recently invested in some toy guns and knives for him, but he's not showing much interest at the moment. Though he's getting into the cars and trucks I've got him, so there is still some hope.
But isn't this then perpetuating the negative association? You and some others say it's wrong, because they'll be bullied, by other kids who are also being told it is wrong by their parents. Isn't it time to change?
No. Its allowing for the fact that their already is a negative association, because the child in that case may not and not putting them into obviously unhelpful situations
You may think it's an idealistic utopia, but isn't it a positive thing to aim for, cutting down bullying behaviour?
It not about what I think. Its about the fact that bullying in schools probably goes back as far as schools do and trying to have aims of eradicating it is a nice idea but it rarely if ever works and putting a kid in that position because you think that their should be no bullying in a school where their probably is, is naïve to the point of being irresponsible.
in the 1940s and 1950s and for a long period before, PINK was the colour you would use for a boy.
Because it was before the use of chemical dyes, when pink was a much stronger and masculine look.
Pink on a girl has been traditional since the 1940s, so it's all most of us have ever known. Even my father, born in the mid 1930s, has no recollection of boys wearing pink.
Because it was before the use of chemical dyes, when pink was a much stronger and masculine look.
Pink on a girl has been traditional since the 1940s, so it's all most of us have ever known. Even my father, born in the mid 1930s, has no recollection of boys wearing pink.
But what does it matter?
Does anyone seriously think that something would happen of they painted a male baby's' room a soft pink?
And if so, what would be the negative consequence?
I fear that I will be facing exactly this sort of dilemma in the future.
My 18 month old son loves nothing more than playing with his big sister's dolls and prams, and dressing up in her Peppa Pig fairy costume. He also loves wearing her knickers.
I've recently invested in some toy guns and knives for him, but he's not showing much interest at the moment. Though he's getting into the cars and trucks I've got him, so there is still some hope.
I presume you're joking about the guns and knives
I didn't let my sons have guns at a young age (water pistols from about the age of 7 I think) The younger one was never interested in guns but the older one was and I think the first one he has was a playstation gun. Ironically he works with them now in the armed forces but as a toy, no way.
No, because I think the former is untidy and the latter tacky. I wouldn't let a young boy have a Mohican haircut either. The boy would have to be at least 14 yrs old (i.e. old enough to realise such actions can have consequences) and paying for his own haircuts/piercings.
Yes, yes, and it depends. I'd let a girl have a pastel blue bedroom, but not a dark blue one, as it's less masculine. I wouldn't let a boy have a pink bedroom. It may be stereotyping, but it's traditional.
Why is stereotyping and tradition right, and letting children (and even people as a whole) choose for themselves wrong?
I'm asking myself these questions as much as I'm asking others on here, cos my initial reaction is gawd no, not pink bedroom for my son, but then I have to examine my own reasoning for it and whether it is right. I feel scared that my son will be ridiculed yes, but shouldn't I as an adult and a mum be putting a stop to that ridicule? Or should I collude in it? It's not a comfortable position to be in I have to admit and it's making me examine my own values.
No. Its allowing for the fact that their already is a negative association, because the child in that case may not and not putting them into obviously unhelpful situations
I didn't say start it though, I said perpetuate it. Are we not guilty of perpetuating this negative attitude by continuing to denigrate this choice?
It not about what I think. Its about the fact that bullying in schools probably goes back as far as schools do and trying to have aims of eradicating it is a nice idea but it rarely if ever works and putting a kid in that position because you think that their should be no bullying in a school where their probably is, is naïve to the point of being irresponsible.
As my daughter was bullied and we had to change schools because of it, I would very much expect everyone to work towards solving it and putting an end to it rather than letting it continue saying "it's not what I think matters, it's been going on for ages" and leave the status quo. Change needs to happen IMHO, otherwise you just condemn future children to misery.
I didn't let my sons have guns at a young age (water pistols from about the age of 7 I think) The younger one was never interested in guns but the older one was and I think the first one he has was a playstation gun. Ironically he works with them now in the armed forces but as a toy, no way.
No, I'm not joking.
I bought him a commando set containing machine gun, handgun, grenade, bullet vest, knife, binoculars etc. I don't see any sort of harm in kids having toy weapons.
When I took my son to buy a DS a few years ago, he chose the pink one and often when I picked him up from his morning session at nursery he'd be wearing a purple taffeta dress pretending to iron.
He's a perfectly well adjusted 12yr old now, he's not traumatised by his childhood choices.
Its relatively simple. Young school children are not normally politically correct when they're in the playground and kids get bullied for far less than that. I agree with what has been said earlier, that we should teach kids not to behave like that but the fact is that kids were bullied back when I was at school and 18 years after I left school kids are still bullied now. We don't live in an idealistic utopia where anyone can express themselves in any way and sometimes children need decisions made on their behalf to protect them when they are too young or too small to protect themselves. Obviously you can't take account for every reason a child may be bullied but I'd say some things are more likely to cause it than others and this is one of those cases.
I said earlier in the thread I can understand a parent's concern their kid might be ridiculed, but the above is hardly justification for calling parents who let their four year old wear a dress to a costume party 'screwed up' and comparing them to serial killers, or people here 'nut jobs'. The messed up kids you referred to earlier, were they the bullies or the kids being bullied?
The boy from my daughter's party was not bullied, and wore the costume to more parties. Where is the harm?
I would insist that they get a handyman's outfit, a cowboy outfit, a fireman, or a soldier, with a big plastic gun so he could pretend to kill people - doing typical boy things! Or a Drs outfit, because men are doctors, definitely not a nurses outfit, as they are females.
I would need him to know, definitively at that age, that boys absolutely must commit to the gender stereotypes that the current society find socially acceptable. If he does not, even just once, then there is the possibility that wearing that dress could somehow change his life. Even his sexuality!
Dress up and imaginative play are so wrong at this age, when children's brains are still developing. If they suggested they wanted to be an astronaut, i would have to sit them down and tell them that the chances of this are so very remote, that its best not to try.
Get used to wearing a suit kid, as soon as possible. A shirt and tie. He will probably end up in a mundane middle management job, working too many hours.
What if he wanted to dress like Hitler or the kkk would that be ok?
I said earlier in the thread I can understand a parent's concern their kid might be ridiculed, but the above is hardly justification for calling parents who let their four year old wear a dress to a costume party 'screwed up' and comparing them to serial killers, or people here 'nut jobs'.
The reference to the Wests was to prove the point that I wasn't saying that married parents are always better than single parents. It wasn't a comparison.
The messed up kids you referred to earlier, were they the bullies or the kids being bullied?
Kids who are bullied often end up becoming bullies so I'd say the answer to that could be both.
The boy from my daughter's party was not bullied, and wore the costume to more parties. Where is the harm?
Children often don't tell parents if they're bullied so the fact the parents don't know is not proof it didn't happen or wont happen later due to the parents advertising the picture/s and even if in that one isolated case the child had no problems in later life due to pictures being made public on their behalf, its still not proof of why its fine to apply that across the board.
Comments
I'd let a young boy have long hair. Wouldn't let him have his ear pierced at a young age.
As for the Princess costume - not a chance. There's a reason it ends in "ess" you know.
Actually, Princess costumes on young girls are pretty tasteless too come to think of it.
I'm guessing you're female and they didn't want a girl to have a boy colour, so did you agree with them?
And shouldn't we as adults stop kids being ridiculed for their choices rather than continuing it?
Wearing a princess dress is a choice a child can make, and it's rarely, if ever permanent.
When I see these things I have to wonder how much of it is the child's "choice" and how much of it is the parents, more often the mother, thrusting her wooly minded ideals onto the child.
There was a newspaper article being discussed quite recently on here along those lines and in that case it was quite clearly the mother forcing her ideas onto the child.
I also wonder whether it is only boys that suffer this kind of abuse....
Fair enough if other people don't see a problem in it, but no, I would not have my boy in a princesses dress
I would insist that they get a handyman's outfit, a cowboy outfit, a fireman, or a soldier, with a big plastic gun so he could pretend to kill people - doing typical boy things! Or a Drs outfit, because men are doctors, definitely not a nurses outfit, as they are females.
I would need him to know, definitively at that age, that boys absolutely must commit to the gender stereotypes that the current society find socially acceptable. If he does not, even just once, then there is the possibility that wearing that dress could somehow change his life. Even his sexuality!
Dress up and imaginative play are so wrong at this age, when children's brains are still developing. If they suggested they wanted to be an astronaut, i would have to sit them down and tell them that the chances of this are so very remote, that its best not to try.
Get used to wearing a suit kid, as soon as possible. A shirt and tie. He will probably end up in a mundane middle management job, working too many hours.
Of course it is, because if you saw a girl in jeans or dungarees, you wouldnt notice.
Of course, neither would you think that it would change her sexuality - which is really what everyone is worrying about isnt it?
Yes, yes, and it depends. I'd let a girl have a pastel blue bedroom, but not a dark blue one, as it's less masculine. I wouldn't let a boy have a pink bedroom. It may be stereotyping, but it's traditional.
Traditional from this point in time.
in the 1940s and 1950s and for a long period before, PINK was the colour you would use for a boy.
The very idea that colour has gender, or could affect a child in any way is utterly preposterous.
I wouldn't outright ban it because then the kid might think there's something wrong with people who aren't gender stereotypical.
My 18 month old son loves nothing more than playing with his big sister's dolls and prams, and dressing up in her Peppa Pig fairy costume. He also loves wearing her knickers.
I've recently invested in some toy guns and knives for him, but he's not showing much interest at the moment.
No. Its allowing for the fact that their already is a negative association, because the child in that case may not and not putting them into obviously unhelpful situations
It not about what I think. Its about the fact that bullying in schools probably goes back as far as schools do and trying to have aims of eradicating it is a nice idea but it rarely if ever works and putting a kid in that position because you think that their should be no bullying in a school where their probably is, is naïve to the point of being irresponsible.
Pink on a girl has been traditional since the 1940s, so it's all most of us have ever known. Even my father, born in the mid 1930s, has no recollection of boys wearing pink.
But what does it matter?
Does anyone seriously think that something would happen of they painted a male baby's' room a soft pink?
And if so, what would be the negative consequence?
I presume you're joking about the guns and knives
I didn't let my sons have guns at a young age (water pistols from about the age of 7 I think) The younger one was never interested in guns but the older one was and I think the first one he has was a playstation gun. Ironically he works with them now in the armed forces but as a toy, no way.
Why is stereotyping and tradition right, and letting children (and even people as a whole) choose for themselves wrong?
I'm asking myself these questions as much as I'm asking others on here, cos my initial reaction is gawd no, not pink bedroom for my son, but then I have to examine my own reasoning for it and whether it is right. I feel scared that my son will be ridiculed yes, but shouldn't I as an adult and a mum be putting a stop to that ridicule? Or should I collude in it? It's not a comfortable position to be in I have to admit and it's making me examine my own values.
As my daughter was bullied and we had to change schools because of it, I would very much expect everyone to work towards solving it and putting an end to it rather than letting it continue saying "it's not what I think matters, it's been going on for ages" and leave the status quo. Change needs to happen IMHO, otherwise you just condemn future children to misery.
No, I'm not joking.
I bought him a commando set containing machine gun, handgun, grenade, bullet vest, knife, binoculars etc. I don't see any sort of harm in kids having toy weapons.
He's a perfectly well adjusted 12yr old now, he's not traumatised by his childhood choices.
I said earlier in the thread I can understand a parent's concern their kid might be ridiculed, but the above is hardly justification for calling parents who let their four year old wear a dress to a costume party 'screwed up' and comparing them to serial killers, or people here 'nut jobs'. The messed up kids you referred to earlier, were they the bullies or the kids being bullied?
The boy from my daughter's party was not bullied, and wore the costume to more parties. Where is the harm?
What if he wanted to dress like Hitler or the kkk would that be ok?
Of course not, because that would be offensive to those who'd suffered at the hands of racism/nazism.
Little boy who wants to play dress up in girls clothes is not offending anyone.
Yep. End thread. Please, for the love of god.....
The reference to the Wests was to prove the point that I wasn't saying that married parents are always better than single parents. It wasn't a comparison.
Kids who are bullied often end up becoming bullies so I'd say the answer to that could be both.
Children often don't tell parents if they're bullied so the fact the parents don't know is not proof it didn't happen or wont happen later due to the parents advertising the picture/s and even if in that one isolated case the child had no problems in later life due to pictures being made public on their behalf, its still not proof of why its fine to apply that across the board.