Teaching Children

[Fury Aphrodisia]

If it's an advertising issue, then surely it's a responsibility of the companies promoting the items?

To a degree, I agree with you. However, I also find that the advertisers will do what sells. That's their job, wholly and completely. Our options in that case are to either A) do away with capitalism and in North America? Good luck. or B) cause most people to give up something that's been ingrained in them through learning (And not inherently) since the dawn of time. How do we do that when they've learned it so thoroughly? Easy... we convince them it's true. How do we do that? Well, glad you asked.....

These are no different than the feel-good social experiments you see on highly-edited Facebook videos that gain so many likes, reactions, shares and comments, with the difference being that this ... this is... uh...

Actually, it's no different. It's going to be as widely available as a Facebook video, it's going to be liked by the same kinds of people, disliked by the same kinds of people, either enrage or entrench the same sorts of sensibilities, meet the same kind of backlash, and in the end, be just as questionable in its authenticity.

[Sara Nilsson]

Unfortunately it's easier for women to wear men's clothing and what not than it is the other way around.  If a boy wants to play with a doll it's a huge deal.  I remember watching a 'What Would You Do?' episode about that very thing.  Now, it's been a while, and my memory is not that great, but the set up was this actor boy and his actor dad were in this toy shop.  The boy wants to buy a doll, and the dad gets on his case about it.  A lot of women came up to the dad and told him it shouldn't be a big deal if his son wants a doll.  But other men.. oh boy...  It's like if a guy shows any kind of feminine trait it makes him weak and less than.  He's not a real man.  It drives me up a wall.  If kids could be taught at a young age that people are individuals and don't usually fit neatly into a little box that would be super.

^^ That so much.

As someone who was expected to like traditional boy stuff it made many years of my life a living HELL! I wanted to play with dolls with the girls, jumprope etc. But any suggestion of that was enough to be bullied. No was supposed to like soccer, trucks, army guys. Later on it gets even worse.

A woman can wear mens clothing and no one bats an eye, she is just empowered, strong, independent. A man wearing womens clothing, a whimp, a sissy, a weakling.

For those of us that are not cis, don't fit into the standard template this can be harsh, downright dangerous at times. I would LOVE if a boy can pick up a doll and play with it one moment and pick up a tank and play with that the next and vice versa. That can only benefit everyone.

[DelightfullyMAD]

I do find the idea of allowing children to play with what they want to be a great notion.  I had a relatively unstructured upbringing, my mother mostly letting me just play with whatever I wanted... though in the end I usually ended up reading books instead.  Which always made grounding me sort of hard for my parents, since they couldn't really justify taking books away from me :P

Parents that want to let their kids play with whatever toys they like are perfectly fine.  Girls want to play with tanks and trucks?  Let em.  Boys wanna play with dolls and ovens?  Sure.  That being said, I have known some parents of kids who went to my middle school who did take this one step further.  They didn't just let their children pick the toys they wanted, they specifically treated their son like their daughter, and vice versa.  I am given to understand that there are some parents out there who are trying experimental parenting methods, and when you are using your own children as a social experiment, no matter how well meaning, that does rub me the wrong way.  Giving your son the option to play with a doll or an easy-bake is one thing, insisting that they do because you want to break the harmful male stereotype is another.

[Oniya]

I will point out that teaching your son how to cook - or your daughter how to use tools - is something we could use a lot more of.  How to handle the equipment safely.  How to follow the instructions.  How to deal with mistakes/emergencies.  They don't need to go all Emeril LeGasse or Rosie the Riveter, but being able to 'do for' yourself in both arenas is very useful in those first years out on your own.  Flat tire in the middle of nowhere (and no cell reception)?  Need to stretch what's in your fridge until pay-day?  These sorts of situations don't restrict themselves to gender - being able to deal with them shouldn't be limited either.

[DelightfullyMAD]

Nothing wrong with those sorts of things.  Some of my fondest memories was cooking with my mom, and even now I enjoy helping her cook whenever I go to visit.  On the flip side, bonding time with dad was... him walking me through how stocks and investments work.  Not terribly riveting or exciting when you're 12 years old, but later in life I am actually very grateful to him that he introduced me to those concepts as early as he did.  So many people in my age group still have no clue about how much of the market or the economy in general works, so I am very grateful for that.

[Sara Nilsson]

I will point out that teaching your son how to cook - or your daughter how to use tools - is something we could use a lot more of.  How to handle the equipment safely.  How to follow the instructions.  How to deal with mistakes/emergencies.  They don't need to go all Emeril LeGasse or Rosie the Riveter, but being able to 'do for' yourself in both arenas is very useful in those first years out on your own.  Flat tire in the middle of nowhere (and no cell reception)?  Need to stretch what's in your fridge until pay-day?  These sorts of situations don't restrict themselves to gender - being able to deal with them shouldn't be limited either.

I don't know how it is in the US, but in Sweden we kinda do in school (but need to do lots better). Everyone has to learn how to cook in home economics (I think the translation would be) and handling basic tools is taught in woodworking that all has to take same as all have to learn how to use needle and thread. Like you said, teaching kids how to change tires etc would be good. Goddess knows I changed mine plenty of times. Darn old beetle had a tendency to have blowouts.

Heck my mom can change tires and she is a tiny handicapped thing.

These are not boy/girl things, they are adult things and people should know them.

[DelightfullyMAD]

Absolutely.  I love to cook, and like I said, I've been helping my mom cook since almost as long as I've been able to walk.  Still have a burn mark from when I was like 5 when I accidentally touche the stove, actually.  Although, I do have to admit that learning to cook did allow me the ability to cook things that have not been good for my waist.  Baking brownies has something of a therapeutic effect for me, as it is the first thing I actually learned to make myself, but as the saying goes 'With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility'.

I guess my thing is that I have something of an issue with toying around with children's development.  It's a personal sticking point for me, and I will readily admit that, and I will also admit that progress can't be made without at least some experimentation, but I still have something of a base response when I hear about cases of more extreme parenting methods.  My mind always goes to the worse case scenario, and I can't help but think 'what if that doesn't work?'  It's one thing when we are trying to come up with new methods of doing things where there is no real stakes, but the issue for me is that, where children are concerned, there is always a stake.  That does make things a bit complicated, I know, because sticking to the old tried-and-true isn't always for the best, but the risk involved in new ideas carries a great deal of possible damage.

One reason I have this hang up is that one of my cousins and her husband have taken to using such an experimental method of child raising.  They have opted to let their son just learn things at his own pace, and I do mean everything.  Long story short... he is now 6 years old, and still isn't potty trained.  It's left me a little hesitant in regards to experimental parenting.

[Oniya]

I don't know how it is in the US, but in Sweden we kinda do in school (but need to do lots better). Everyone has to learn how to cook in home economics (I think the translation would be) and handling basic tools is taught in woodworking that all has to take same as all have to learn how to use needle and thread. Like you said, teaching kids how to change tires etc would be good. Goddess knows I changed mine plenty of times. Darn old beetle had a tendency to have blowouts.

Heck my mom can change tires and she is a tiny handicapped thing.

These are not boy/girl things, they are adult things and people should know them.

We used to have Home Economics in school (your translation was perfect, by the way) and while it was an elective class usually targeted at the girls, there were boys that chose to take the class as well.  Same with both wood and metal shop.  I can operate a sewing machine, a belt sander, a band saw and an oxy-acetylene torch if I need to.  Sadly, many places have cut these classes due to budgets, and it's left to the parents (many of whom don't have time to teach these skills, especially when both parents work.)  We've made a point of teaching Little Oni the basics, but I wonder about some of the kids in her school not having these sorts of skills.

(EDIT to note Mad's last post)

I'm assuming home-schooled?  Purely because the kindergartens I've encountered require that the kids be toilet trained.  Also, 'social pressures' tend to get kids more enthused about not wearing diapers.

[DelightfullyMAD]

Yep, home schooled, nail on the head.  If he had been going to kindergarten and elementary, then certainly social pressures would have taken place.  Even then though, the initial humiliation would have likely been quite traumatic, and not something I'd wish on a child.

To their credit, they are becoming aware that they are going to have to take steps to properly teach him, as several other members of the family have called them out, but the issue remains the same.

[Oniya]

Just to be clear (since I realize it could be interpreted as such), it's not the 'home-schooling' aspect so much as the 'absence of classmates' aspect that came through there.  There are numerous home-schooling communities that provide the social interactions that are just as necessary to development as the 'book learning'.  (It also gives the parents a bit of a break every so often when the kids are together for a particular learning experience.)  Even without a traumatic humiliation, a child is going to notice that their compatriots are not requiring adult assistance in certain tasks and will want that type of independence as well - whether it's buttoning a sweater, tying their shoes, or using the restroom.

[DelightfullyMAD]

Yeah, that aspect is why they are having to reevaluate their methods.  The child has made inquiries into this subject themselves, so I do thankfully think that my cousin has gotten the point.

I mainly used that example to note why I have a certain degree of squeamishness when it comes to alternative parenting methods, having seen the results of it close up.  Of course, in a way, all parenting is unique, but much like a cliche, some methods have withstood the test of time for a reason.  Not to say that we can't try and improve and come up with new ideas, but I think some people want to veer way off the rails for it's own sake.

[Fury Aphrodisia]

I've taken a little while to stew about this, and I'm afraid my position hasn't changed much.

As parents, it's our JOB to influence a child's development. Everything you do in terms of raising a child is experimental. Yes, it carries with it the chance to do damage: This is why parenting is such a big responsibility. But there is no safe alternative. Not a single one. Because children are not universally the same, there is no universally-applicable parenting method. "What if that doesn't work" is often repeated as a concern for parents, with mother's in particular falling prey to the phenomenon known as "mom guilt." To be clear, dads and other caregivers go through it too. The process of dissecting every small decision from "Did I make him wash his hands in water that was warm enough?" to "What if she remembers in twenty years that I made her eat her strawberries and it's traumatized her?"

It comes from every small decision, and everything you learn about your children along the way determines how you adjust to what that specific child needs for themselves. The process of raising my first son and the process of raising my second son is a lot different. What requires direct conversation with my oldest, a thorough explanation of why what he's done is unacceptable or necessary (as applicable) is needed before he can modify future behaviour. The youngest, however, will throw things, hit me and scream his tiny little growl in my face, so it's necessary to simply pick him up and move him to let him know that trying to throw down a challenge to mommy won't get him what he wants.

Do I wonder if forcing him to submit to my need to change his diaper might build in him a rebellious nature? You betcha. But I can't just ask him to let me change it like I did with his brother at that age. So, I've had to modify how I do things, modify what I do.

But conversely, what we're talking about here isn't experimental. It's literally stripping away all the experimental crap and letting them just play with whatever they want. I can't understand what's so experimental about not forcing them to restrict their imaginations and their ideas of what is acceptable for them based on their gender. This is concerning to me because it insinuates that the default position is to lock them in boxes from a young age until all they know is what we've allowed of them based on an arbitrary genetic expression.

So, in summary, everything a parent does is experimental. Except this. How did we come to a place where letting kids play with whatever age-appropriate toys they want is a partisan, controversial issue?

[Lustful Bride]

Funnily enough I was just watching a video on the matter.
Its funny but has a few good points.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

https://youtu.be/FR86c4_LVkQ

[Remiel]

I'd definitely like to see the experiment carried out, but in a framework that is devoid of all agendas or biases.  In other words, I would have an isolated group of children in which traditional gender roles were implicitly or explicitly reinforced, and another group in which traditional gender roles were undermined.  For example, in the first group I would have two toy chests: one labelled "Boys" and the other "Girls."  The "Boys" chest would contain traditional male toys such as cars, toy soldiers, and so on, while the "Girls" chest would contain dolls and similar things.  The second group would have the same two chests, but the labels would be switched.  Or perhaps there could even be a third group who would have just one big chest with no label.

To ensure a fair experiment, I would make sure to bring the parents in on it (for, as Oniya pointed out, it undermines the experiment if children are subject to one set of influences at school and another at home).  As for concerns about the children being "lab rats", I would assume that the experiment would conform to all acceptable ethical guidelines (e.g. don't intentionally create a situation where children can be bullied, and intervene if you notice bullying happening), be transparent to the parents, and subject to peer review.

It would be very interesting to compare the two groups after some period of time to see what effect, if any, the influences had on aggressive behavior, self-confidence, and relationships with their peers.

In any event, I would watch that show.

[Fury Aphrodisia]

Remiel making a reality science show with kids.  :D

That said, you might get better results if the children were in a "boarding school" sort of a situation, removing parental influence while maintaining the ability to monitor the children, as much for the parents' peace of mind as anything else.

[Mera1506]

So, I saw an advert this afternoon for a TV program, associated with this article

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/proginfo/2017/33/no-more-boys-and-girls

I am fundamentally opposed to this kind of treatment, simply because we are different, there are neurological and biological differences between the genders.

Worse than this, I think teaching it to children is wrong, because they wont teach them anything else, just...this fallacy.

I am going to try and watch the program, but I fear it will be incredibly biased and wont look at other possible reasons for these differences, such as personal choices or situations, and heralds something horrible for our children

Please note, I am completely pro-equality of opportunity, I deeply believe that everyone has the right to try and do whatever they want, but, it must be accepted that not everyone will want to do everything.

I'm so sick and tired of politics being pushed on little kids, let them be kids, please. If you want to promote treating people equally you don't need politics. But just the treat others as you would like them to treat you.
stop denying basic human biology, boys and girls are hardwired differently from birth and these people seem to think that's wrong for some reason. It's not wrong at all, it's called evolution. When babies one day old are tested to see if they look more at an object or a face and the boys for the vast majority look far more at the object and the girls far more at the face it cannot be socialisation.
It translates to women dominating fields that are based on working with people and animals as men dominate fields that is more object centered, like engineering.
But apparently pushing politics on children while denying basic human biology is OK these days.

[Oniya]

Might want to look up people like Helen Blanchard, Edith Clarke, Esther Conwell and Grace Hopper.

Also Hedy Lamarr, Sophie Germain and Vera Rubin

[Oniya]

And this lady, who (among other things) was the chief engineer on the Hawker Hurricane that helped win the Battle of Britain.

[HannibalBarca]

Within any population there's drift.  I took enough psychology and statistics to know not everyone falls within three standard deviations from the norm.

I was a very healthy but lanky kid as a teen.  Even as a cis male, I would have had a very hard time qualifying as a firefighter--even with copious exercise, I just couldn't build the muscle mass.  But I knew girls who were more muscular than me without anywhere near the effort I put out to bulk up.  The women who qualify as firefighters may be a smaller number than the men who do, but there are still women who can qualify easier than some men.

The problem, Mera, is when certain individuals (often organized into groups within a culture) try to impress upon others their views on what people should and shouldn't do.  It can happen with groups from the Left, Middle, or Right...but I've found in my forty-nine years of sociological observation that conservatives do it a lot more than other groups, primarily because of their observed greater need to belong to an in-group, and conform to traditional standards.

[MisledBloodshed]

I'm so sick and tired of politics being pushed on little kids, let them be kids, please. If you want to promote treating people equally you don't need politics. But just the treat others as you would like them to treat you.
stop denying basic human biology, boys and girls are hardwired differently from birth and these people seem to think that's wrong for some reason. It's not wrong at all, it's called evolution. When babies one day old are tested to see if they look more at an object or a face and the boys for the vast majority look far more at the object and the girls far more at the face it cannot be socialisation.
It translates to women dominating fields that are based on working with people and animals as men dominate fields that is more object centered, like engineering.
But apparently pushing politics on children while denying basic human biology is OK these days.

Even where there is differences between men and women that are biological there are a lot that very clearly aren't.

The whole pink/blue thing was basically nonexistent in the past, babies of both genders wore dresses for quite a while, high heel shoes were first designed for men, all that. There is so much that is entirely cultural which changes as culture changes. That's damn near as old as people.

No one wants to make kids all exactly the same, but the differences can't be neatly packaged into 'boy do this girl do that.' Gender roles actively hurt people who don't fit in them, so anything that reduces the severity of that impact is a plus in my book. If you really want to let kids be kids then let them be kids instead of boys or girls. Let them do what they want without getting sent home crying because they had the wrong colour backpack.

I don't have kids of my own but I do have a few small ones in my general area of influence and it's absolute bullcrap when i see them getting hurt because society decided that men can only have approximately 2 emotions. I see it regularly. I'm kinda mad about it.