Would you allow your sons to be feminine?

JRant

mynameis905 wrote: »

Since we're excluding skirts and tights, what exactly do you mean by 'feminine' clothing?

Here's a man wearing leggings



And here's Bogart in a coat with a belt looking about as manly as is physically possible.



I can't see anything remotely effeminate about either.

Unless you accessories with a nice clutch and pink boa.

dazed+confused

One eyed Jack wrote:

No OP, I wouldn't allow my son to dress in feminine clothing as he would look ridiculous. It's a recipe for stress, resentment, and problems.

falseatheist wrote:

Why exactly? Not that your opinion is wrong but i'm just wondering

As said above, life is hard enough for a young lad without making any more difficult than it needs to be.

One eyed Jack

Zillah wrote: »

You're not conforming to our preference, no, but you are conforming to the views of millions of insecure bullies who you are afraid might take issue with your son not being the very picture of manhood as they view it.

Clothes don't cause harm to people, judging people for their appearance is what causes harm, and you're already setting your son up to be one of the people that does that.

Nope, that's completely and utterly untrue. Well, I suppose it would be true for you if you choose to view things that way, but I don't. By that standard, everyone's a bully because everyone has their own opinions on how people should and shouldn't present themselves, so the term "bully" loses any meaning.

I'm setting my son up to be more considerate of other people besides just himself and his own comfort.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No OP, I wouldn't allow my son to dress in feminine clothing as he would look ridiculous. It's a recipe for stress, resentment, and problems.

So is dressing like a goth. Or a punk. Or in Marvel Hero gear. Your heart is in the right place as usual. Where it brings you however is useless. As usual.

When you dress to identify with a group or label - you tend always to bring the ire of some other group outside that label or group. But you also bring the security of those _in_ it too. Even the attempt to identify with nothing - is an identification that will bring similar ire.

Stress. Resentment. Problems. They come with most dress choices that are indicative of a group choice in life.

The last thing a kid who chooses his "gang colors" in this fashion needs is grief off his parents. Rather the parent in question is probably better off accepting the dress choices of his child - but doing his or her best to guide the child through dealing with the throw back of that choice.

Not least because you have a whole lot less control over your childs dress choices than you think you have. You only get to control what they leave the house wearing. What they change into at their mates house - or using a package shoved in a hedge down the road - or some other well thought out switching tactic - you will never control - and any attempt to control it is self congratulatory futility. Don't pick battles you can't win.

In fact one of my funnier memories I have from teenhood is of a girl we knew who went out with her mum and bought a whole load of "short skirt" type stuff that her father went ape over when he got home.

He threw the whole lot in the bin outside and said "never while under my house" and all that kid of rhetoric.

Well we - her friends - went over and pulled all the clothes out of the bin and distributed them amongst ourselves and every time she left the house wearing "modest" clothing - she simply came over to us and changed.

So "daddy" for all his righteousness failed - double - because not only did he not manage to control what his daughter wore - the whole thing became a rebellious "F U" back at him and his irrelevance and lack of any real authority.

Again - do not pick battles you can not win.

12Phase wrote: »

Eddie Izzard and various others are very femininely dressed without any issue.

If I was the kind of person that did heros Izzard would be at the top of my list. And nothing to do with how he dresses. I just love how he treats life. And I even more love how he treats his own limits and limitations - as goals to strive towards and exceed. He is the most perfect representation of everything I have tried to "preach" on this forum since I joined.

That he does it all while wearing a dress - that is just a bonus. But this might be a lesson to OEJ above who is trying to wrap his kids in cotton wool to protect them from any throw back from their life choices. As I said OEJs heart is in the right place on this one - but he is just getting it wrong.

What Izzard says is that everything he is and everything he has achieved came _after_ that first choice to walk out of the house in "womens clothes". He has said many times that everything after that seemed easy. That a choice like that - and following through on it - breaks a barrier where everything after that just seems easy.

OEJ wants to protect his child from stress and thats understandable. But our stresses and our hardships and our struggles define us. We are better off building our childrens capabilities up to _deal_ with stress and hardship that trying to keep them from it.

And often that means letting them getting into such stress and then guiding them through it. Trying to protect them from it in the first place might be well intentioned - but is the social equivalent of keeping them forever out of the dirt and then wondering why they have no immunity to disease when the grow up.

Above all else most children just want to express who they are. Rather than protecting them _from_ doing that we should protect them _while_ doing that - or even better - - - teach them how to protect themselves while doing it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes but when it's my child, then it behooves me to advocate for him on his behalf, and to ensure that he doesn't put himself in a position where he is likely to have the piss ripped out of him.

You have no control over this - we _all_ get the piss ripped out of us at some point. It does not matter who you are - it happens - and not only can your parents not protect you from this - sometimes their attempts to do so only make things worse.

What it really "behooves you" to do is let your child be who they need to be - but teach them - or lead them to - the skills required to survive their choices.

Rather than think "how can I stop my child getting the piss ripped out" ask yourself "how can I raise my child to deal with getting the piss ripped out when - not if but when - it happens"

Zillah

What "stress, resentment, and problems" are you saving him from?

Zillah

Zillah wrote: »

What "stress, resentment, and problems" are you saving him from?

To play devils advocate - I guess the stress of standing out from the crowd - to be the one that is "different" - because instinctively we think that is the kid who suffers the most.

So I can not fault his intentions really.

And - who knows - maybe many of them do suffer the most. But the Eddie Izzards of the world are also _defined_ by that standing out too. And which one of us would want to go back in time and "protect" Izzard from standing out? Given all he has achieved?

We can not protect our kids from standing out from the crowd. Because at _some point_ most of us do eventually. And what defines us is not how we avoided that moment - but how we deal with it when it happens.

So while OEJ very _clearly_ has his heart in the right place on this one - he needs to stick his heart where his head is and think it out - and realise the disparity that lies between just how much he _thinks_ he has control of - and how much he actually does. And hopefully he actions the latter.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So is dressing like a goth. Or a punk. Or in Marvel Hero gear. Your heart is in the right place as usual. Where it brings you however is useless. As usual.

...

Again - do not pick battles you can not win.

I appreciate the length you went to tax, genuinely (could've done without the snark, but how and ever), the point anyway really is that we appear to have completely different parenting styles, and quite likely never the twain shall meet. I base my parenting on my experience, and to that end, my child has turned out just fine, in spite of the judgement of other people.

I don't pick battles when it comes to parenting my child because there is simply no battle, I have an advantage over him in every single way, and that's why I guide him.

Some people choose to see that as control, and that's fair enough, we simply see things differently is all.

eviltwin

I was a goth in my teens. I got slagged off for it and for a while tried to conform but it's even worse pretending to be something you aren't. I soon sent back to my makeup and black clothes. My eldest looks like an anime character at the moment, weird clothes, blue hair and theatrical makeup. I don't like it personally but she's being who she is and I'm glad I've a kid who is strong enough to go out like that despite the naysayers. Let your kids be who they are.

One eyed Jack

Zillah wrote: »

What "stress, resentment, and problems" are you saving him from?

It's not so much about "saving" my child from anything, but rather guiding him in the right direction so that he develops the skills to cope with stress, resentment and problems, so that he can apply those skills in any situation, and not just whether he chooses to wear a dress today or a trousers or whatever else.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

(could've done without the snark, but how and ever)

As usual taking pedantic offense to very little. I spent quite a time trying to shed your posts in a good light tonight. But of course you had to manufacture something to take offense to.

Also amazing is it not how you only ever manage to reply to one sentence out of my posts and ignore the rest Quite the MO there.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

the point anyway really is that we appear to have completely different parenting styles, and quite likely never the twain shall meet.

And as usual when you write crap like this what it really means is "I can not rebut a thing you said so I will post some nonsense cop out from replying to it".

Zillah

Deleted User wrote: »

To play devils advocate - I guess the stress of standing out from the crowd - to be the one that is "different" - because instinctively we think that is the kid who suffers the most.

So I can not fault his intentions really.

And - who knows - maybe many of them do suffer the most. But the Eddie Izzards of the world are also _defined_ by that standing out too. And which one of us would want to go back in time and "protect" Izzard from standing out? Given all he has achieved?

We can not protect our kids from standing out from the crowd. Because at _some point_ most of us do eventually. And what defines us is not how we avoided that moment - but how we deal with it when it happens.

So while OEJ very _clearly_ has his heart in the right place on this one - he needs to stick his heart where his head is and think it out - and realise the disparity that lies between just how much he _thinks_ he has control of - and how much he actually does. And hopefully he actions the latter.

A kid doesn't dress in a different fashion for no reason, they do so because they feel different. It would be much better for them to know their parents have their back even if the world judges them, rather than them feeling their parents are just another two people who disapprove of them. You can face all the bullies in the world if your family supports you, and if they don't support you then there's nothing that can replace it.

Jack very much strikes me as a classic conservative parent, insisting that they can dictate the kind of people their children will be, rather than having to accept whoever they turn out to be. It's why conservative parents have such a meltdown when their child turns out gay or transgender: they just can't accept that their children aren't conforming to their expectations.

Thankfully he appears to have the nice normal son he was expecting.

Zillah

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not so much about "saving" my child from anything, but rather guiding him in the right direction so that he develops the skills to cope with stress, resentment and problems, so that he can apply those skills in any situation, and not just whether he chooses to wear a dress today or a trousers or whatever else.

Such a nonsensical cop-out. You said allowing your son to dress in a feminine fashion would cause stress, resentment, and problems. Of what kind?

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

As usual taking pedantic offense to very little. I spent quite a time trying to shed your posts in a good light tonight. But of course you had to manufacture something to take offense to.

Also amazing is it not how you only ever manage to reply to one sentence out of my posts and ignore the rest Quite the MO there.

And as usual when you write crap like this what it really means is "I can not rebut a thing you said so I will post some nonsense cop out from replying to it".

Well you read that completely wrong? I wasn't offended at all, just pointing out that in an otherwise good post, there was no need for the snarky remark. And because I thought it was a good post, I appreciated it and I saw nothing to rebut.

There isn't anything I can rebut because we have completely different parenting styles and that's all there is to it. I respect your opinion and I can't disagree with it, because when it comes to parenting, I don't pretend to know it all about someone else's child as I don't and have never shared their experiences that have influenced their parenting style.

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well you read that completely wrong? I wasn't offended at all, just pointing out that in an otherwise good post, there was no need for the snarky remark. And because I thought it was a good post, I appreciated it and I saw nothing to rebut.

There isn't anything I can rebut because we have completely different parenting styles and that's all there is to it. I respect your opinion and I can't disagree with it, because when it comes to parenting, I don't pretend to know it all about someone else's child as I don't and have never shared their experiences that have influenced their parenting style.

Do you think your maybe judging the attitudes of teenagers today by the standards of your youth? I genuinely think the majority of young people today are far more open minded and laid back than we give them credit for.

drunkmonkey

Ahh no I wouldn't encourage it the same way I don't encourage them to be left handed...this isn't Sweden.

Zillah

Zillah wrote: »

A kid doesn't dress in a different fashion for no reason, they do so because they feel different.

Yes! And many kids _do_ feel different. And many kids _are_ different.

And sometimes many kids just want to feel like an individual. We grow up in this world where "everything has been done before" and we just want to carve out our own niche into it.

I remember watching suppernanny for a long time. A woman I have respect for but I am not as totally invested in her rhetoric as many are - but the one line she came out with while dealing with toddlers that stuck with me was "Whether you think your child is being angry or bold - just remember that they are lost in a world bigger than they are - and they are just looking for some sense that they have some semblance of control over it"

And I think it useful to parse the actions and choices of our kids through that filter - that whatever our kids do - they are ultimately striving to stamp some control over the chaos that is their world.

Zillah wrote: »

their parents are just another two people who disapprove of them.

Exactly. But not _just_ another two. Some of the most important two we ever grow up with.

You have it right on the pulse here!

Zillah wrote: »

Jack very much strikes me as a classic conservative parent

He strikes me - as ever - as being all heart and no thought. A lot of what he posts on this forum is abhorrent to me - and _how_ he presents it even more so - but every time I find a core to it that is base but well meant. There is good in him. I just feel all to often he does not know what to do with it.

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

I was a goth in my teens. I got slagged off for it and for a while tried to conform but it's even worse pretending to be something you aren't. I soon sent back to my makeup and black clothes. My eldest looks like an anime character at the moment, weird clothes, blue hair and theatrical makeup. I don't like it personally but she's being who she is and I'm glad I've a kid who is strong enough to go out like that despite the naysayers. Let your kids be who they are.

Even that philosophy has it's limitations. Otherwise my child would be overweight, unhygienic, no motivation to attend school and so on. That's if I left him to his own devices to be who he is. I don't and would never do something like that, because that's not who I am.

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Even that philosophy has it's limitations. Otherwise my child would be overweight, unhygienic, no motivation to attend school and so on. That's if I left him to his own devices to be who he is. I don't and would never do something like that, because that's not who I am.

Obviously I'm not talking about anything that is going to be harmful but you can't compare diet to clothing.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well you read that completely wrong? I wasn't offended at all, just pointing out that in an otherwise good post, there was no need for the snarky remark.

Then I read your response right. You just do not know it yet.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There isn't anything I can rebut because we have completely different parenting styles and that's all there is to it.

Too simplistic. You focus always on the differences. You are always combative that way - often without a weapon in hand - which is perchance why you receive more ire in replies than your due.

I choose to see the shared goals - and simply your path to those goals is not only ineffectual - but likely to go in the wrong direction - as you have described them.

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

Do you think your maybe judging the attitudes of teenagers today by the standards of your youth? I genuinely think the majority of young people today are far more open minded and laid back than we give them credit for.

I really don't eviltwin. I don't think teenagers really have changed all that much, if at all, since our youth. I've met enough of them to know that some teenagers are open minded, some teenagers are laid back, some teenagers like to give the impression that they are open minded, but underneath the facade they are incredibly judgemental, some teenagers are openly honest about their opinions (which aren't always pleasant, but they're easier to handle than someone who has the facade), and some teenagers just don't give two fcuks for or about anyone else but themselves.

I'll always give credit where it's due though, and I have no fear of reprimanding teenagers when it's due, and they appreciate it, because they understand that I care for them, I'm not reprimanding them because I want to control them. I'm all about teaching them to think for themselves and to be able to assert themselves and have confidence in themselves and their abilities.

I just have a different style of instilling that self-respect and value in themselves than other people here is all.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Then I read your response right. You just do not know it yet.

Too simplistic. You focus always on the differences. You are always combative that way - often without a weapon in hand - which is perchance why you receive more ire in replies than your due.

I choose to see the shared goals - and simply your path to those goals is not only ineffectual - but likely to go in the wrong direction - as you have described them.

I can't tell do you mean 'ineffectual' there (seeing as it's a path that works in my experience), or 'intellectual', in which case you'd be correct. I don't argue intellectualisms, I argue from experience. If you choose to see the shared goals then you would understand why it's not that I'm combative at all, it's that I don't feel a need to address parts of posts where I can appreciate or agree with where you're coming from, and I'll address the parts I disagree with that I feel I should address.

It's literally that simplistic, because I don't have any interest in intellectualisms.

I usually mean what I say I mean And in saying that I notice how little of what I wrote in that last few posts you have actually replied to. Perhaps you mean to later tomorrow.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I usually mean what I say I mean And in saying that I notice how little of what I wrote in that last few posts you have actually replied to. Perhaps you mean to later tomorrow.

I don't just usually say what I mean, I've always been explicit about exactly what I mean, and I've already explained why I saw no need to reply to the parts of your posts that I felt didn't need replying to.

Mr_Muffin

Are boys who grow up in a predominately female house holds more likely be gay?

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't just usually say what I mean, I've always been explicit about exactly what I mean, and I've already explained why I saw no need to reply to the parts of your posts that I felt didn't need replying to.

Nah you haven't. You simply skipped most of it. As usual.

Mr_Muffin wrote: »

Are boys who grow up in a predominately female house holds more likely be gay?

Statistically no. Actually numbers disagree on this but it _seems_ the most likely precursor for being gay is having older brothers. But at the moment this claim is more of a correlation thing. In that numbers _seem_ to suggest that homosexuality correlates with a hormone that increased with each successive male a woman gives birth to.

So in fact guys who grow up in female households probably are entirely untouched by this.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nah you haven't. You simply skipped most of it. As usual.

And you consider me to be combative? In spite of having explained my reasoning to you already, you still insist on applying your own reasoning to my thought processes.

Not for the first time either, as you attempted to explain my thought processes to Zillah. I'm not offended by that either, simply more perplexed as to how you think you're actually in any position to do so.

It's quite bizarre tbh.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And you consider me to be combative? In spite of having explained my reasoning to you already, you still insist on applying your own reasoning to my thought processes..

I did no such thing.

I was referring to your dodging the majority of the rebuttals I spent a LOT of time writing.

But do not let me get in the way of where your internal narrative is going.......

Pawwed Rig

Mod note
Stay on topic gents.

Pawwed Rig

Sleepovers I would have no problem with upto a certain pre puberty age and probably not after that were there to be a group sleep over. There is too much risk for teenage boys to allow male female sleepovers in the teen years.
I would be very meh about the clothes. I have very clear thoughts on what way I want my kids to turn out but more than anything I want them to be happy. Hopefully our relationship will be such that we will have good communication so if this issue arises we can discuss it in the context of why it arises.

silverharp

my son is 11, my basic conclusion is that kids have their own nature and in general its best to roll with it than fight against it. In the past he has had long hair, my wife taught him to knit but at he end of the day his friends and classmates will be the ones doing the most nudging. Occasionally I will pick him up on some of his mannerisms but small beer overall, most nudging now is about guiding him to be a successful adult in the future, work ethic, investing in one's self for a future payoff.
The only thing I wouldnt want him to be is a feminist but he is a bit of a gamer so he is already familiar with Anita Sarkesian and not from me , so I dont think I have too many worries there.

Annasopra

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because he's my child. Of course I'm going to care about not just how he dresses, but every aspect of his personal and social development. It's not about feeling any need to control him, as I'm glad he's a very independent child, and that's down to how he has been guided, not controlled.

The way you describe yourself I am reading the complete opposite; someone who controls their child.

Annasopra

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There are times when it's appropriate to allow a child the space to learn for themselves and to be mindful for their safety, and then there are rimes when they need to be guided, so that they can learn without putting themselves in danger. It's authoritarian because I'm his parent, not his best friend.

But the way in which you have described your parenting isn't providing guidance at all. You don't from what I can see ever let your son make his own decisions in any way.

Tasden

In my experience, women seem to be less concerned about this than men. But as somebody posted earlier, nobody really cares all that much when a girl wears boys clothing or plays with typically "boy" toys. It's fascinating really.

When my daughter was a baby I would always buy clothes in the boy department as the clothes were just such better quality, no zippers in odd places, weird sequins to scratch the skin, thicker softer material, better quality jumpers... it's crazy the difference between the two. Her father hated me dressing her in "boys" clothes. Would insist on putting at least a pink cardigan over the outfit or using a pink blanket to "let people know". As far as I was concerned, as long as she was comfortable in the clothes it didn't matter what anybody thought (bless her she was bald til about 3 so she regularly was mistaken for a boy even if in pink dresses!). But he had some issues with it, not enough to actually go and buy the clothing he'd prefer mind you.

Now she will still wear "boyish" clothes a lot of the time, her own choosing, as they are more comfortable. She is the girliest of girls, loves to wear sparkly dresses, carries a handbag at family outings, but day to day if she didn't have waist length hair you'd probably mistake her for a boy most days. I don't give a crap how she dresses once she is clean and comfortable. Same if she was a boy.

If it was my son i would have words with him as he got older and explain that other people may have issues and may slag him but that I am proud of him for being himself and not giving a **** what other insecure people think. If hes aware of the negative comments etc and is still wanting to remain the same and just be himself then fair f*cks to him and why on earth would I need to stop him when he's well aware of what he's doing and doesn't give a ****. I'd be very proud.

One eyed Jack

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The way you describe yourself I am reading the complete opposite; someone who controls their child.

I'm not sure what to tell you Joey other than we have a completely different understanding of words like control and guidance. I have to set boundaries for my child's behaviour, and one of those boundaries is that he wears clothing appropriate for his gender.

That's nothing to do with sexuality and whether anyone might be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual or any of the rest of it. It's simply the case that I have no interest in allowing my son to dress like he just stepped out of a time warp from the Victorian era.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

But the way in which you have described your parenting isn't providing guidance at all. You don't from what I can see ever let your son make his own decisions in any way.

But given that it's a very specific topic that the OP has started - "would you allow your sons to be feminine?", you're only going to get a glimpse of how anyone chooses to raise their children, and you're only going to get one very specific glimpse.

Extrapolating and passing the judgements you have, on the basis of the very little information you have, leaves you in a very poor position to lecture anyone about passing judgement on other people, especially people they don't know.

Ave Sodalis

I find it quite sad that that question even has to be asked, nevermind that some people's answers are that they would actively stop their child. I've always encouraged anyone I've met to be who they are. As a society, I had thought we were moving more towards acceptance than victim blaming.

If I had a child, I would not give the first care what they wore, as long as it's clean and practical (eg not wearing heels to a farm). If a male child wanted to wear a dress, I would let them know that some people would not be as accepting... but then teach them how to deal with the "haters" rather than hiding who they are. Having a child able to express who they are, and able to cope with various people in various situations, and that there are consequences to be dealt with in every decision, is a triple bonus in my eyes, and not something that should be discouraged.

I hate the whole shunning of what isn't normal (as if normal has a definition). It stinks of insecurity and control, and has done nothing for humanity through the years. I cannot think of a single valid argument for allowing it to continue to the extent that gender clothing is still an issue.

Elemonator

My future children can do whatever they like if it makes them happy, but I'd rather they do it at an age they can understand it. I'm not sure if I'm imagining it or if its somewhat subliminally there, but I think that there is an agenda existing now that such things have become socially acceptable so to speak. It's in a lot of films (apparently Luke Skywalker is gay character) and books (Dumbledore). It's almost like its promoting LGBT as a fashion tool, which its not.

Tasden

Elemonator wrote: »

My future children can do whatever they like if it makes them happy, but I'd rather they do it at an age they can understand it. I'm not sure if I'm imagining it or if its somewhat subliminally there, but I think that there is an agenda existing now that such things have become socially acceptable so to speak. It's in a lot of films (apparently Luke Skywalker is gay character) and books (Dumbledore). It's almost like its promoting LGBT as a fashion tool, which its not.

Or it is simply becoming something we see every day. Rather than "becoming socially acceptable", it is just normal and accepted by a lot of people. Which is a great thing.

esforum

Style and clothing is generally speaking a reflection of personality. Stopping a child wearing their choice is stiffling them in my opinion.

Guidance is helping them make good choices and avoid bad choices, I dont really see how that can apply to clothing unless its for an interview.

In regards sleepovers, my younger daughters are 2 and 4, they obviously have mixed friends so yeah, its fine. The 16 year old? Yeah right, cause I was born yesterday!

Asaiah

Dial Hard wrote: »

Go back 350 and tell us what you think.

Prior to the Regency period men dressed just as flamboyantly as women. That was the case pretty much throughout the early modern* period.

Long before that, in the Classical period, men and women were robed and pretty much the only difference was how they were hung and the fact that women's were girdled (cinched by a braided rope in certain places to accentuate curves).

Ideas of "masculine" dress are recent constructs, dating from the late 18th/early 19th century.


*Generally accepted to be from the 12th century onwards

Sorry but this is not true. The idea of what constitues masculine dress may have changed but women and men always had differences in dress and behaviour, because we are different.

drunkmonkey

Did this discussion start a few hundred years ago, what happened the cod piece, was this Victorian women's decision that it wasn't gender balanced enough so decided to ban it? Men's clothes aren't really designed for men these days, they don't really embrace our manhood and give it free movement in all situations.

Xaracatz

This all seems very "New Agey to me. But - I will fully hold my hands up as a girl who doesn't have children yet (although a lot of my friends and family do, so I have some familiarity).

Fair enough to let your child express themselves, but, if I had a son who wanted to show himself differently and chose to do that by wearing feminine clothes, the first thing I'd want to do is find out why. Maybe it is totally legit, or, maybe, as was mentioned before, he's a bit lost and trying to find his way. And what if wearing feminine clothes is the wrong way!?

I would completely consider it my job as a parent to try and figure this out and help him - rather than say - well - let him at it. Sure, if he gets a hard time out of it, I'll talk to him then.

I don't really get the question. If a child is feminine then that's the way he is and you don't get to either allow or disallow it.

Wearing feminine clothes could be problematic if bullying is likely, but suppressing who you are and your entire nature is probably more harmful. The kid should be the author of his own life, the parent there to support and fall back on, not rule.

Asaiah

Candie wrote: »

I The kid should be the author of his own life, the parent there to support and fall back on, not rule.

Totally disagree, the parent is responsible for authoring the childs life. If a boy is feminine, that's fine many are. No need to throw a dress on him and screw his head up entirely.

When he's an adult he can do what he wants, but as a parent you need to DIRECT your child safely through the world and ensure that they have the best chance of success in life.

As the Lord said, "Whoever does not discipline his son hates him, but whoever loves him is diligent to correct him". Makes a lot of sense if you think about it.

It's easy to just be your sons 'pal' and let the chips fall where they may, but this is washing your hands of responsibility.

Asaiah

Asaiah wrote: »

Totally disagree, the parent is responsible for authoring the childs life.

You can't change who a person is inside. You can only make their lives easier or more difficult.

Guide but not control, though I see the two confused.

Jawgap

falseatheist wrote: »

And perhaps buy female clothes that are not so obvious ( coats, shirts, legging, denim shorts but not skirts)

The reason I ask is because my father was averse to me wearing womens perfume, carrying a shopping bag that was "girly looking" and even holding a purse for my mother. He never allowed me to grow long hair even though I kept it tidy etc.

My mother wasn't too much better either.

So would you be comfortable if your son went out in lets say denim shorts or would that be unacceptable and embarrass you? Would you also allow sleepovers of the opposite sex if they have friends who are girls?

Yeah, mine have been old enough for a while to make their own decisions as to how they express their identity through clothes - it's really up to them.

However, I reserve the right to take the p1$$ out of all such choices - clothes, music, styling etc - I consider it a perk and right of having fathered them

........but to them it just confirms how 'out of touch' I am!

Asaiah

Candie wrote: »

You can't change who a person is inside. You can only make their lives easier or more difficult.

Guide but not control, though I see the two confused.

Yet a good parent will shape who a child becomes.

Ave Sodalis

Asaiah wrote:

Yet a good parent will shape who a child becomes.

To a certain extent.

ShaShaBear

Asaiah wrote: »

Yet a good parent will shape who a child becomes.

Tbh I think my right to shape who my children become ended when I donated my portion of their DNA. After that, the only responsibility I feel I have is to help them down whatever path their primal self desires. The only time I would ever feel the need to step in and do any "shaping" is to correct my child's understanding of right and wrong. Not what I think is right or wrong, but the universal understanding of such.
Mind you, I have two girls and am a woman myself. If a future son decided to dress in a feminine sense then I'd let him at it. I'd only interfere if what he decided to wear was inappropriate regardless of what gender was wearing it. My partner said that if we ever had a son, his likes and dislikes are his own and he doesn't care how he would dress or act, as long as he plays for LFC when he's older :pac:

Asaiah

ShaShaBear wrote: »

Tbh I think my right to shape who my children become ended when I donated my portion of their DNA. After that, the only responsibility I feel I have is to help them down whatever path their primal self desires. The only time I would ever feel the need to step in and do any "shaping" is to correct my child's understanding of right and wrong. Not what I think is right or wrong, but the universal understanding of such.
Mind you, I have two girls and am a woman myself. If a future son decided to dress in a feminine sense then I'd let him at it. I'd only interfere if what he decided to wear was inappropriate regardless of what gender was wearing it. My partner said that if we ever had a son, his likes and dislikes are his own and he doesn't care how he would dress or act, as long as he plays for LFC when he's older :pac:

I am sorry but this is a really bad attitude. Washing your hands of how your child turns out is essentially letting the state raise your child and shape them. Either you do it, or the world and state does it for you.

ShaShaBear

Asaiah wrote: »

I am sorry but this is a really bad attitude. Washing your hands of how your child turns out is essentially letting the state raise your child and shape them. Either you do it, or the world and state does it for you.

Teaching them right from wrong and letting them be themselves. Yeah, I can see the bad attitude there.