Gender neutral kids clothes/toys.

pickarooney

kylith wrote: »

I have heard it explained as ‘it is not seen as shameful to be a man’. Simply put: a woman in trousers is not seen as less of a woman, but a man in a skirt is seen as less of a man.

I have told my OH that if we have a son I will dress him in dresses or tunics for the first 2 years for the simple reason that it is easier to change nappies on a child in a dress.

Are you not sending other, conflicting messages here in insinuating that you'll be both the person changing the nappies and the person making the decisions (wearing the trousers, so to speak)?

kylith

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

Indoctrinated? Who could be bothered?!

The simple truth is that women value the pink razor more than men value the blue. Does the truth hurt some people?

But we have to look at WHY some women ‘value’ pink so much (and if you’re going to have a sneaky snigger at women and pink try getting the average man to wear anything pink. Why do they have such an aversion to it?). As we’ve already discussed 80 years ago the colours were reversed and young boys were regularly dressed in frilly frocks. So it obviously isn’t something biological; it can only be social conditioning.

conorhal

kylith wrote: »

But we have to look at WHY some women ‘value’ pink so much (and if you’re going to have a sneaky snigger at women and pink try getting the average man to wear anything pink. Why do they have such an aversion to it?). As we’ve already discussed 80 years ago the colours were reversed and young boys were regularly dressed in frilly frocks. So it obviously isn’t something biological; it can only be social conditioning.

And yet ye remain oddly silent when I start to choke when you tell me how much you were prepared to spend on that handbag! :pac:

HappyAsLarE

kylith wrote: »

But we have to look at WHY some women ‘value’ pink so much (and if you’re going to have a sneaky snigger at women and pink try getting the average man to wear anything pink. Why do they have such an aversion to it?). As we’ve already discussed 80 years ago the colours were reversed and young boys were regularly dressed in frilly frocks. So it obviously isn’t something biological; it can only be social conditioning.

Social conditioning is valid and naturally selected. It is not a malevolent force.

What do you mean sneaky snigger? Do you think I am sniggering?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

Social conditioning is valid and naturally selected. It is not a malevolent force.

What do you mean sneaky snigger? Do you think I am sniggering?

Social conditoning is a pain the ass and has no value, unless you want to live in a conformist communist society. That said, if you want to roles and stereotypes given you in early life, go for it, boring though it is.

Forcing children to conform and be boring though is not really valueing them though, is it?

andekwarhola

Lu Tze wrote: »

This doesn't seem to stop at childhood apparently. Ages ago heard a woman being interviewed giving out about Gillette women's razor being about 20% more expensive than the male equivalent. She kept reiterating that they were the exact same product but women were being charged more.

Amazingly the interviewer didn't ask her why she didn't just buy the ****ing male one then for the saving, seeing as it was the exact same product (just not pink)!

Sorry I have to call nonsense on this.

Women don't buy razors. They steal them from their menfolk.

HappyAsLarE

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Social conditoning is a pain the ass and has no value, unless you want to live in a conformist communist society. That said, if you want to roles and stereotypes given you in early life, go for it, boring though it is.

Forcing children to conform and be boring though is not really valueing them though, is it?

Humm. I can see the pain it would cause by those that don’t conform. No doubt. But it needs to be accepted as a natural way rather than a conspiracy against women. You won’t fix the problem if you have misidentified the cause.

Also, I think to accuse people of forcing children to be boring is harsh. If something else was for their benefit as a whole then we would naturally do it.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

Humm. I can see the pain it would cause by those that don’t conform. No doubt. But it needs to be accepted as a natural way rather than a conspiracy against women. You won’t fix the problem if you have misidentified the cause.

The cause is fear of something different.

There's nothing natural about Societal Conditioning. It is, by it's very definition unnatual. Nature does not define societies we livei in and it certainly doesn't set any conditions as to how they should be lived. That's entirely human.

Nor do I feel it's a conspiracy against women. Society is something that evolves and changes and right now it's evolving into a more accepting, tolerant entity; and as such all marginalised communities and groups will benefit.

HappyAsLarE

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The cause is fear of something different.

There's nothing natural about Societal Conditioning. It is, by it's very definition unnatual. Nature does not define societies we livei in and it certainly doesn't set any conditions as to how they should be lived. That's entirely human.

Nor do I feel it's a conspiracy against women. Society is something that evolves and changes and right now it's evolving into a more accepting, tolerant entity; and as such all marginalised communities and groups will benefit.

Nature in this context is not the natural world, but the conditions which make up the process by which we live.

You are 100% re society moving to be more tolerant.

Lu Tze

kylith wrote: »

But we have to look at WHY some women ‘value’ pink so much (and if you’re going to have a sneaky snigger at women and pink try getting the average man to wear anything pink. Why do they have such an aversion to it?). As we’ve already discussed 80 years ago the colours were reversed and young boys were regularly dressed in frilly frocks. So it obviously isn’t something biological; it can only be social conditioning.

I remember when it was fashionable to have pink/salmon shirts maybe 15 years ago! I still have a pink tie to go with my black shirt.

But, if I was buying razor, and the pink one was 20% less than the others, I would definitely buy that! I think most men would, as reflected by the fact there aren't Ferrari red and Lamborghini yellow razors on sale at a premium price also.

meeeeh

I don't know about toys but I think gender neutral clothing is not a bad thing. When I was a child clothing for girls seemed to be a lot less pink and there was no awful obsession with superhero stuff for boys. As it happens our daughter loves pink I will buy pink stuff despite disliking it (in a bit less sugary shade). But she also hates dresses so we are buying trousers and runners. I steer clear of most extreme gender type clothing, not because of ant ideology but because it's bloody awful. So I also avoid superhero stuff for my son.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

Nature in this context is not the natural world, but the conditions which make up the process by which we live.

You are 100% re society moving to be more tolerant.

I think that the word you're looking for is probably "traditional" rather than natural, and while traditions have their uses, they should always be questioned and evaluated as to their necessity, and scrapped as soon as they serve their purpose or become limiting or damaging to society. Case in point - religion was once traditional and had it's uses. But once we started questioning it we found a lot of difficult truths about it and a lot of people saw it as, in some cases dangerous, and in others no longer important to their lives - and have scrapped it.

The idea of blue/boy and pink/girl is most certainly limiting and can be damaging in some cases.

SuperRabbit

freshpopcorn wrote: »

paraphrased I loved pink princesses so why should anyone else be different?

I was bullied for being a tomboy. I wanted to be a scout and I wasn't allowed (I did not want to be a brownie, they wore dresses and did sewing!). I played with "boys" toys and the fact that they were labelled as "boys" toys and not just "toys" sent me a strong message that being a girl was **** and I hated being a girl until I got older. Not that I didn't feel like a girl mind, I felt like a girl, I didn't want to be a boy, I just felt that being a girl was **** because it meant you weren't supposed to do anything fun and you'd get teased if you broke the rules.

If you think this is relevant: I grew up to be cis and straight.

This is not a new thing, your experience does not reflect the experience of every child.

HappyAsLarE

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I think that the word you're looking for is probably "traditional" rather than natural, and while traditions have their uses, they should always be questioned and evaluated as to their necessity, and scrapped as soon as they serve their purpose or become limiting or damaging to society. Case in point - religion was once traditional and had it's uses. but a lot of people see it as no longer important in their lives and have scrapped it.

The idea of blue/boy and pink/girl is most certainly limiting and can be damaging in some cases.

I agree with that. My original reason for posting was to refute a view that someone is making women buy pink things. You clearly have an elevated understanding beyond that.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

I agree with that. My original reason for posting was to refute a view that someone is making women buy pink things. You clearly have an elevated understanding beyond that.

I'm just a non-conformist that grew up in a conformist society

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bH9AyDYbrEc

na1

JohnMc1 wrote: »

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

Why are we trying to remove the differences between genders?

Its the Left's latest Social experiment that you can choose your gender like you can choose what pair of socks to wear today.

Since the "sex" is no longer related to the pair of sex chromosomes, and  any person can demand to be called boy or girl, regardless of the genes, why don't extend this to animals?
If the person declares himself(herself) to be a pony not a human being we should respect its decision!

The Bishop Basher

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Case in point - religion was once traditional and had it's uses. But once we started questioning it we found a lot of difficult truths about it and a lot of people saw it as, in some cases dangerous, and in others no longer important to their lives - and have scrapped it.

We are a mere nano blip on the arse of human civilisation.

We are utterly irrelevant.

People have been questioning belief in a God / Gods since the dawn of time and will continue to do so long after were gone.

You're not special and you haven't "scrapped" religion.

I'm not religious btw.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Swanner wrote: »

We are a mere nano blip on the arse of human civilisation.

We are utterly irrelevant.

People have been questioning belief in a God / Gods since the dawn of time and will continue to do so long after were gone.

You're not special and you haven't "scrapped" religion.

I'm not religious btw.

Nor am I. I haven't gone to a religious service in the best part of three decades (unless you count funerals) or prayed or let a relgiious movement shaped my life, so yes - yes I was.

freshpopcorn

SuperRabbit wrote: »

I was bullied for being a tomboy. I wanted to be a scout and I wasn't allowed (I did not want to be a brownie, they wore dresses and did sewing!). I played with "boys" toys and the fact that they were labelled as "boys" toys and not just "toys" sent me a strong message that being a girl was **** and I hated being a girl until I got older. Not that I didn't feel like a girl mind, I felt like a girl, I didn't want to be a boy, I just felt that being a girl was **** because it meant you weren't supposed to do anything fun and you'd get teased if you broke the rules.

If you think this is relevant: I grew up to be cis and straight.

This is not a new thing, your experience does not reflect the experience of every child.

I never said it did!

Capt'n Midnight

The best toys ever are gender neutral

The 5 Best Toys of All Time

Stick, Cardboard Box, String, Cardboard Tube, Dirt/Mud.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The best toys ever are gender neutral

The 5 Best Toys of All Time

Stick, Cardboard Box, String, Cardboard Tube, Dirt/Mud.

That's because they're for cats!

JohnMc1

na1 wrote: »

Since the "sex" is no longer related to the pair of sex chromosomes, and  any person can demand to be called boy or girl, regardless of the genes, why don't extend this to animals?
If the person declares himself(herself) to be a pony not a human being we should respect its decision!

Don't give them any ideas. That might be next on their itinerary.