"This is what you wear, Jeffrey. You don't wear dresses

[AMM]

I ran across this:
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/ ... -dont.html
I couldn't think exactly what to say, but maybe someone here can do a better job.

[Departed Member]

There are some jolly hilarious comments! And cutting put-downs for the bigotted woman too! There's hope for all of us yet!

[Skirt Chaser]

What interested me is that the panel of "The View" offered a range of comments once the conversation turned to boys in dresses. It was great Barbara Walters put in a plug for transgender children but just as important that Whoopi Goldberg added not to assume intent, play can be just play. Wish I'd been on the panel to add some men wear dresses and skirts as men too.

The adamant "no son of mine could wear a dress in my house" panelist, didn't bother to learn her name, got me thinking. She said she would ask a teacher to prevent her child from playing with dresses at school if she found out something like that had happened. I never had that dilemma when I taught but then I think I only had one dress and the other stuff was more interesting like capes and pretend food.

If someone had "made the no dresses for my boy while at school" request I'd have been torn. On the one hand that just isn't fair to the kid if it is something he really wants to do but at the same time a parent should have say over their child just as I would expect my requests to be heard. I'd adhere to their rule but at the same time support the boy in other ways by letting him know he will get to choose for himself when he is an adult. Mentioning the normal guys I know that wear dresses wouldn't hurt either.

There's hope for all of us yet!

Yeah those comments were funny and heavily pro-kilt. Hope seems kinda distant though if even buying play cooking equipment for boys seems worthy of mention in the original clip that started the discussion. Who doesn't think men need to know how to cook these days?

[Peter v]

I have vieuwed the clip, and was not shocked, but was ""shocked"" at the suggestions that one lady had about not letting her son wear dresses in her house, and more so as to keep him from doing so at school. The way she said that was the same as a father would say it, only he would probably say "only over my dead body". She rules out any chance for him to be who he is right from the start. She didn't show any open mindedness, as she could have said "It would take me by surprise, if I heard that he was wearing dresses at school, and I would have to readjust my way of thinking. As I would not expect a boy to do that, especially not my son."

The woman ruled out any understanding for the boy's true self, his "born" character. She is not prepaired to accept any other son than the son she has in mind. She aparently has a prefixed idea of how a boy should be and dress. How she wants HER son to be to the public, AND her self the ideal ""Boy"" she has an image of in her mind, irregardless of who he really is. But O what a trouble he will have, if he doesn't come up to expectations.

Until he can free himself of that restrictive environment, he will be her prisoner in that respect.

If you as a parent don't see any tendancys from the child to wear anything other than standard men's clothes, then buying only men's clothes for him is not wrong.

Everything she may want him to be, he will have to become, even if he wants to be something totally different WITHOUT looking at him at all, ( this gets difficult, as parents mostly plan a route to follow for their children, which is very normal. As children can show their character if given the chance, but don't have a good vieuw of the world when very young to have any sensible say in their education. )

In fact he doesn't have to be there at all, a substitute that reciprocates her wishes would do fine, as that is what she wants. We may as parents have a plan for our children, but always we should be continually looking at the person in that body. As we are nearly never trained in how to recognise different aspects of someone's character, etc, it is not strange that so many children are "forced" to be someone they are not.

As parents, we set out a route to be followed, which is fine, but all the way, the character of the child should have free play, and should always be based on the child itself, as much as our understanding of them allows.

That is one of the biggest problems there are. It can be very understandable, if you as a parent aren't able yourself to understand gender, character, and understand that there are no boys and girls as such, that people are not products from the production line, with standard specifications, but people, who are generally called boy or girl, basically from their outward appearance, but not being character BOUND by those terms.

It is then very normal to avoid such issues, by "forcing" the child to have a behavior such as you define and understand, not going out of the boundaries that limit your insight. This limitation of the parents automatically limits the child.

I was very happy to see what she said was challenged and to a certain extent put right.

Never say that parents have an easy job.

Peter v.

[Bob]

Here's one of the blog posts referenced in the original video.

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/ ... inker.html

I liked especially the last paragraph:

The solution, as always, is feminism -- it should be no more national news that a boy plays with a doll than that my daughter likes dinosaurs. It should be expected that we're going to raise our boys to imagine themselves someday cleaning, and our girls to imagine themselves someday welding. We need to make sure that we do not limit our children's imaginations, or it will be their futures themselves that we limit.

[Departed Member]

Hope seems kinda distant though if even buying play cooking equipment for boys seems worthy of mention in the original clip that started the discussion. Who doesn't think men need to know how to cook these days?

Wierd or what! Both our lads had the opportunity to learn how to cook when they were little - both are totally self-sufficient in this respect, nowadays! Mind you, in the UK, being a Chef is about as 'macho' as you can get!

[iain]

What an interesting clip. I never thought much of Whoopi Goldberg until I saw this!

It's strange how people encourage boys to associate with war, and stamp on his natural self-expression if it veers towards femininity, and then wonder why they grow up repressed and unhappy.

Any suppression of a natural urge is going to have a backlash somewhere. People just don't get it!

[Bob]

It's also weird that people steer boys toward war, stamp out domestic activities, and then complain that men are violent and absent from their childrens' lives.

[Stu]

I liked this comment:

"A dress is a piece of cloth - that's all - CLOTH!!! Putting one on does not alter the person inside it nor anyone else. People need to get some perspective about this and stop trying to control what styles of cloth other people choose to drape around their own bodies!"

Stu

[Since1982]

but......in contrast to the "Kilts are NOT skirts" comment...sowwy, O yes they ARE... I think the exact description is "kilted skirt". No matter how many people that say things like "Ye kenna nae thet" argue, a kilt is still a skirt.

[AMM]

Did anyone post a comment on the blog?

I did on Friday, and I see that SkirtedViking did on Thursday. (Disclaimer -- the dates are from my known-to-be-faulty memory.)

Not that our comments got any reaction; I think the regulars were too busy flogging their usual dead horses to pay attention to ideas that were so far from their usual mental ruts.

OFF-TOPIC GRUMBLE

I'd heard so much about how revolutionary blogs are supposed to be, but I can't see it -- most of the content on most of the blogs is not of any better quality than what you can get at any table at your local pub, or your average radio talk show. In fact, they remind me a lot of the Rush Limbaugh radio talk shows in tone (though usually not in their politics ): you get Rush / the blogger uttering an opinion with great authority, and you have the "dittoheads" agreeing, plus the occasional protester/troll helping to stir up the faithful by saying things calculated to rile people up. And a grand time is had by all. (All except for Diogenes, that is.)

As I see it, it's really just contributing to the fragmentation of the body politic: people who agree with one another congregate on various web sites or blogs or whatever, and don't have to actually engage with or recognize the humanity of anyone who disagrees with them.

To be honest, I think SkirtCafe is something of a case in point: it's not like we're encountering a lot of people here who don't like the idea of men wearing skirts and working out our disagreement with them -- instead, we discuss them in absentia (sort of like measuring the length of the emperor's nose.) And a lot of the conversations here tend towards assuming that you can't be a reasonable person and not approve of men wearing skirts, or that there must be something wrong with men who don't want to wear skirts. True, not everyone will go along with these assumptions, and I concede that SkirtCafe is more of a support group than a blog, but I think the danger of sliding into blog-style group-think is still there.

[Departed Member]

To be honest, I think SkirtCafe is something of a case in point: it's not like we're encountering a lot of people here who don't like the idea of men wearing skirts and working out our disagreement with them -- instead, we discuss them in absentia (sort of like measuring the length of the emperor's nose.) And a lot of the conversations here tend towards assuming that you can't be a reasonable person and not approve of men wearing skirts, or that there must be something wrong with men who don't want to wear skirts. True, not everyone will go along with these assumptions, and I concede that SkirtCafe is more of a support group than a blog, but I think the danger of sliding into blog-style group-think is still there.

Well......., there's nothing to stop anyone joining and raising 'objections', if they really want to. And no-one here is trying to prevent folk from wearing tr*users - it's their decision, after all. There are certainly some very convincing arguments for not (& this is regardless of gender) wearing said garments, it has to be said, mind!

As for 'group-think' (I like that phrase!), it would never catch on here - viewpoints are far too far at variance for that to happen. Which is ultimately one of the strengths of this particular forum, is it not? And whilst we have the odd person who resorts to personal abuse, they are either tolerated or ignored by the majority. Don't forget, most of the 'extremists' disappeared in the direction of "X Marks" (the 'skirt-intolerant') or "The Atrium" (Wanna wear 'femme'), a long time ago.

[AMM]

As for 'group-think' (I like that phrase!), it would never catch on here - viewpoints are far too far at variance for that to happen.

You're right there.

Don't forget, most of the 'extremists' disappeared in the direction of "X Marks" (the 'skirt-intolerant') or "The Atrium" (Wanna wear 'femme'), a long time ago.

Their departure has been a two-edged sword. Granted, the group is more peaceful. On the other hand, it's not as though they've changed their minds, we're just not exposed to their point of view (nor they to ours.) And both sides are deprived of whatever chance there might have been to learn how to get along with one another.

(IMHO, what the world really needs now is a lot more of the ability to get along with people you can't stand.)

[Pythos]

The name of the wonderful example of a style of parenting that really needs to go away is Sherri Shepherd.

I watched this clip and was so impressed by the three ladies on the left, Woopie was really an example of someone I would like in my life. The one in the center was pretty impressive as well. Barbara Walters represented older syled thinking, but also was lacking any hint of intollerance.

Sherry on the other hand? Oh my God what a hypocrite. "This is what boys wear, this is what girls wear." I'll bet the pile for the boys have drab looking pants, shorts, shirts, and shoes, while the girls has nice looking attractive clothing, shiny, bright, sparkly, along with, drab borring jeans and other item of men's clothing.

What is she so concerned about her son wearing a dress, or a skirt? Is it that he might be gay? But she said that if he turned out gay she would love and support him.

This is a woman that needs to be told...No more pants for you woman!, from now on you will wear only skirts. No T-shirts, no tennies, no any item of clothing that used to be for men only cause...this is what boys wear, and this is what girls wear. Oh and you wanna drive? That is not very Ladylike, neither is watching sports, or drinking beer or any of that. You will play with dolls and strollers only. You will also lose a few pounds because only men can be overweight.

Perhaps when put to her in these terms, she will understand what an intolerant so and so, she really is.

Woopie on the other hand is of the thinking we need much more of, as are the other three ladies. The really loud one (Joy) in between the middle woman and woopie, pleasantly surprised me, she was defending clothing freedom it seemed.

I also loved the hypocracy when it came to premarital sex. When asked point blank if she slept with her husband before marrage Shery said yes, but not at my parrent's house. Then Joy comes in with "I would rather they do it at home where it is safe, than in some sleazy motel" or something along those terms. Sherry is an example of a parent that will push their kid out the door when they are no where near ready for the world. Unfortunately there are sooooo many parents of this ilk, and they are raising kids who will most likely be the same.

Anyone seen the film Idiocracy. Rent it. It is a good example of what our country and world is quickly on it's way to if things do not change.

[Pythos]

How about we place the URL for our little site here on that blog?

That's one way of kicking open the door.