Boys Will Be Boys?

Hmmm...not sure what my stance is on this. Honestly, I'm kind of weirded out, right now. Maybe I read the description of this blog wrong, but I think it says "Our team of EDITORS share their stories..." Is Patty, the author of this blog, on Staff? Because I am feeling really...uh...gurgly reading a parenting article written from a homosexual stance. Uh, a little help? Over here? Differences aside (at least, for now), I think boys should be treated like boys and girls should be treated like girls, regardless of the parent's beliefs. What people see as "treating" like a "Boy or Girl" is very controversial. Ultimately though, being a boy doesn’t mean that you can't cry and have to have big muscles, and girls can still play with dirt and worms. As long as they keep their gender focus in life (boys stay boys and girls stay girls), I think we'll all keep our lunch, and they'll turn out ok. Imposing ridiculous stigmas (being a guy means being out-of-touch with emotions) are always wrong, no matter what the gender, and are marks of a concept-flawed society; not the proper classification of gender in life.

Well I think Pop's parents idea is an interesting one. The problem is that they are doing this experiment on a real actual child, and that's a big chance to take with a person's life. Maybe this will be great for young Pop...or maybe it will screw him/her up for life. Worth the risk? Not to me. It's sad that you feel the need to dress your boys super boyish...and yet in your shoes, I know I would do the same. Right or wrong, when it comes to my kids I want them to be accepted and treated well, and I wouldn't them to be judged or shunned because of anything *I* did. It's easier to put yourself out there for criticism than it is your children. But still sad. :( Interesting to read this today. I've been doing a lot of home improvement projects lately, and my husband is not at all handy, afraid of heights so he won't go on a ladder, and generally squeamish. So I'm the one who hangs the Christmas lights, wires new light fixtures, and scoops up dead mice or birds from the yard. Meanwhile he's inside cleaning and doing laundry. About our only stereotypical roles are his lawn mowing and my cooking. Yet to an outsider I'd say we look pretty darn traditional, and he'd be a manly man and I'd be the little wifey. Anyway, earlier today I was replacing a light fixture in our bathroom and feeling very thankful to have a dad that taught me to do these things. I'm hardly a feminist, but it's a good feeling to not need a man to handle everything for me. I think a lot of gender traits are inborn, but there are great things from the 'other side' to be taught as well. I learned how to do 'guy' stuff, and if I had a boy (3 daughters, not happening now!) I'd be teaching him how to cook and do his own laundry. Would I be buying him Barbie dolls? Definitely no. But if he found out he really liked one, I wouldn't take it away either. Most of this parenting gig has to be learned on the fly, and we do the best we can at the time. I try not to second guess myself - or anyone else - for their decisions. It's not easy to know the right thing to do.

This article is incredibly well written with a great point of view and it should cause the reader to really relate with either the parents who choose to stereotype their children, the parents who choose to avoid stereotypes at all costs and all those who fall in between and force us to take a look at the opposing arguments and make us well rounded and better parents for it. Instead, however, many of you got to the last paragraph where the writer revealed that she was a homosexual mother and with that simple fact you dismissed everything you read in the article and instead questioned the "right" the writer had in even voicing any opinion in parenting. I would call that discrimination with a capital D and would further say that these parents judging the woman who wrote this article have no business being parents at all!! The last thing we need in this world are narrow minded, hateful, ignorant people breeding ignorant, hateful children. The point of this article was to express how this specific pair of parents in sweden decided to raise their child free of stereotypes that box them in and decide what is appropriate, allowed and expected of them. To just let a person be who they are, and do what they can in this world to make it a better place for themselves and their children without all the pressures of society to be "normal" and "average". Some of you people are just so uneducated and so damn unaccepting...it's disgusting really.

i don't know if pop's parnets are right or not. It's only something time will tell and I hope with no damage to the child. My son is all boy and I freely admit if he had been a girl I would be raising a tomboy becuse my greastest fear was having a grilly girl. My Mom and Dad did there best not to treat me any different then my brother, so when he got a BB gun I got one and so forth. It was the Grandparents and well meaning aunts and uncles who got me all the girl crap because they were afraid I wouldn't know I was supposed to be a girl. I can remeber wanting to be a boy as a kid because my little brother got all the cool stuff for Christmas and all I got were crapy dolls. If you told me I couldn't do something because I was a girl, well lets just say I'd do my best to prove you wrong. In fact I'm still that way. It was only as an adult that I even began remotely to like dressing girly and there is a limit to what I will wear. Do I think some gender identiy is determined by nuture, yes, do I think nature has the finall say oh yeah. Because I'm still not much of "girl" but I do know I'm a woman and am proud to be one.

There are all different kinds of families, Stoich. The fact that the author is gay has nothing to do with the point of the article (she even says that she tries to overcompensate by dressing her boys in boy-ish clothes). It doesn't matter if she or her partner are biological parents to their children; it's no one's business, and they are parents regardless of what anyone thinks. As the mother of an 18-month-old who loves tea parties, baby dolls, and sleeps in a tutu, I found this article interesting and insightful. I hope there's a follow-up to Pop's story as he/she grows!

Being a homosexual (the word Gay means ‘happiness’ and has nothing to do with the lifestyle to which it has been ascribed) “married couple” is, by legislation, only legal in 4 states. In the 4th most populous state in the nation, good ol’ Florida, you can’t even adopt kids as a homosexual. That’s not a typo flaw on the gov.’s part, imo. If this is outdated, I would like to know by whose standards and by what reliably thorough research it has become such. Although a 2004 statement by the American Anthropological claims that there is no evidence that society needs to maintain “marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution”, I think there is: If they were all left to themselves on an island, we’d come back years latter to find no one. Also, AIDS (once called, for some ‘odd’ reason, Gay Related Immune Deficiency), although present in both hetro and homosexual couples, has a starkly high transmission rate (25%) through delivery to the baby. Ultimately, this was not the way things were made to be; try to get two homosexuals to debate that from a sexually reproductive standpoint, and I think I’ve proved my case. Thanks for hearing me out.

From the C.D.C: "Tremendous medical and public health achievements have been made in the prevention of mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) of HIV-1. The risk for infant infection has been reduced from approximately 25% to less than 2% by the use of currently recommended prenatal ARV and obstetric interventions for a woman who is aware of her HIV infection early in pregnancy." http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/testing/resources/guidelines/rt-labor&delivery_part1.htm

Yup. :-) 2%...for cesarean delivery, which is still considered one of the leading causes of maternal mortality during childbirth. So, if we're going with the recommended "Normal" delivery, the chance is 25%; if you're willing to risk yours (and your baby's) life by 10-20% extra for no reason other than the fact that you've got HIV AIDS, go ahead and take the chance...I think I'll stick to cesarean for emergencies, only.

Hi everyone. I am normally not a person who blogs a lot and don't voice my opinion much but I thought I mind as well do it once in my life. I am a Christian person who goes to church on a normal basis, mother of a little girl and wife. I love people and all of God's creations. I don't know why we are all different?? We all do evil things, yes sex can be evil --"straight" or not. I don't think every "gay" person out there is a pervert wanting to get knocked down everyday. God knows what He is doing, we do not. It is not intended for us to know or He would make it clear to us. We- meaning people- need to try to understand each other and stop judging each other, believers and non-believers! Just because people are Christians don't mean they are ignorant or not accepting of others. A Christian's purpose in life is to bring people closer to God and have a relationship with Him. God is our judge-so everyone stop judging! Let's set the example. Patty, I am sorry to for being another person who has turned attention away from your work and put focus on sexuality preference/ faith. It is a very good article and I was intrigued to hear about Pop's parents. It reminds me of when I was in high school, I always wanted to be a "business woman." I never took music or drama just typing and shorthand. Now I wish I would have been more well rounded -like boy and girl play- and figured out some other interest. When it comes down to it, all I really want for my daughter is to be happy and independent--real independent so I don't have to support her! ha/ha! I am sure I will be thinking about this at playtime and my reactions with her for the rest of the day, so thanks! I hope yours goes well and only happy remarks follow. :0)

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New International Version) 9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. So, you are a Chrisitian? The Bible is a good place to begin, for morals.

I don't think that tolerance for gay people increases the likelihood of the human race dying off. The last time I checked there were *lots* of people reproducing naturally, some of whom had no business doing so (not that I'm naming names). People are who they are--which is the point of the whole experiment with Pop, as I understand it. It's your choice whether or not you're going to judge them or treat them with kindness. Loving and accepting others for who they are, in my opinion, is better for the soul.

Just because you love someone, JHW, doesn’t mean that you are required obligated to agree with them, although that is the common misconception of todays society. If we want to see anything change (eg. nixing homosexual-promoting blog posts, getting your kid to take a bath even though they insist otherwise), there is a price to pay, and that price is well worth it, even if that means disagreeing with the norm. The Nazi's, although very powerful and popular in their day among certain sects, were not right in any way; let us not be led blindly by the pulling tides of common public opinion-the ability to have more than one opinion presented is a valuable and vanishing trait, and true freedom lies therein.

Nice Nazi comparison (didn't they hate homosexuals?) I'm not saying anyone has to agree with anyone else; I'm saying mind your own business and let others do the same. If you don't like gay people, don't associate with them. Your opinion of them has no bearing on whether or not they can be good parents.

Whoa! I was reading through the comments and realized that the debate was straying a long way from the point that the author is trying to make. What does the author's sexual orientation have to do with the article she is trying to write? The debate should be about what roles should we assign to each gender if any, not homosexuality. Please stay on topic! I scrolled down to look at discussions on gender roles with girls and boys rather than whether or not gay people should raise children. Believe it or not, that's a totally different topic right there and deserves a separate blog with debates like these. I can't remember the name of the logical fallacy... maybe it's straw man, but it drives me nuts!

I agree that the subject was the "experiment " with the child POP and not the lifestyle choice of the author. I also have children of both sexes ages 2 to 18 years and they seemed to have their own built in idea of what they preferred from a very early age. My daughters both love riding 4-wheelers and being outdoors while still loving to wear mom's jewelry and get into the make-up and "mommy" their baby dolls. My sons likewise would sit at the tea table, wear a dress(per the older sister's encouragement) and ride the Barbie around on his tractor with GI Joe. They could make the sounds of a car or tractor perfectly very early on and these things were not something I taught or influenced. My children each had a sibling close to their age boy/girl and although they would play together they took turns playing guy stuff and girl stuff. It just came naturally. I don't see how these parents of POP can keep gender neutrality without absolutely cutting the child off from the real world. No TV, or any other type of social interaction because ultimately the child knows inside what he/she is and will follow those instincts. I wonder if in the pursuit of neutrality they will perhaps overencourage the child away from one gender or the other because they know what sex their child is. I also agree that it is a little scary to experiment with a child's life, but hey we can all find something wrong our parnets did when we were growning up. Life is an experiment anyway. There is no "real" child rearing manual. I believe as a christian that the BIble does present some good guidelines for rearing children and life in general. It is not a bunch of rules and regulations but simply a guideline for making choices that can make life much simpler if followed. I also am not of a mind to support homosexuality, and that is my right to choose my personal belief, but I agree with the thoughts on loving everyone into truth. God's jugement is just that, God's, not mine. Love and kindness win many more souls that hate and arguing. Homosexual and heterosexual parents alike have the ability to screw their children up beyong repair if they so choose to. I will be interested in the outcome of the "POP" experiment!

I like this debate, too, (and don't really appreciate EJH's admonition to "stay on topic," as this is very much one of the topics addressed in the article). My point wasn't to change your mind about homosexuality, Stoich; I was just suggesting that you live your life the way you want to, believing whatever you choose, and not worrying about what other people are doing. I'm interested in your definition of "the truth."

Thanks for the shout out. :-) I’m not sure whether I’m trying to change others’ minds here; rather, I like to think of it like a doctor taking an analytical work-up on society…and we’re in a more dangerous condition than I thought. When I simply asked for agreement to the oddity of this article, I was met with hurling insults, name-calling, and even the question as to whether I’d be a good parent, myself, which is, according to the court system, “reverse discrimination”, which is a whole can of worms that I don’t care to open up, because I (as you can tell :-)) already have my hands full with enough of those wriggling creatures. Anyway, as to your question about the truth, I’d rather not answer directly. All I can say is that Pontius Pilot, a lofty and powerful Roman Ruler, was historically documented to ask this very question you pose (“What is the truth?”) to the face of the Truth, Himself. I don’t think the truth is actually too hard to see. Don't worry; if you’re looking for the truth, I guarantee you that you will find it.

I could barely make it through some of these prior posts without wanting to puke. Do I care what Patty's "title" is? NO! Do I care that she is gay? NO! I am on a parenting site and want to hear from other parents. And she is one. So what the heck does anything else have to do with anything? Get a grip folks. You'r a little bit pathetic. Thanks for the post Patty. It was very thought provoking. (On many levels!!) =)

Geeze louise! :-) Don't vomit! lol :-) Thanks for pulling up a chair and joining the heated discussion. Patty and/or her partner are not legal and/or biological parents in majority of the USA, so that’s why I responded the way I did. Whether you go with the majority or minority is your choice, not mine, and vice versa. I honestly don’t care if she’s homosexual or not, either…as long as she doesn’t decide to write a lengthy plaintive paragraph proclaiming so, which she did here. I hope, as you mentioned, that this blog is thought-provoking, on many levels, to those who realize that this is America: a free country where the privilege of MORE THAN ONE opinion still renders us truly free.

Stoich91: Just because Patty may or may not be a biological/legal parent in the majority of the USA doesn't mean she isn't a parent! Why are those your criteria for parenthood? What about step-parents, or common-law parents who haven't officially adopted the children of the house? I think this is a very important argument to have here: the reason people don't think gay marriage is "real" marriage is because there are people who have different perspectives on what a family is or should be. Why do you have such a rigid view of what a family is? And using 15th century definitions is not a valid argument, as societies and humanity are constantly changing (evolving, if you will). A parent is an individual who cares for and raises someone from childhood to adulthood. How that child came into being is irrelevant.

Yes, you’re right, in one way. Just because one country says something is right (and I can’t really even justify that the USA opposes homosexuality, completely), doesn’t mean that it is. I am a strong believer in not going with an idea or concept simply because the rest of the world seems to think it is correct (my involvement in this blog could vouch for that :-) LOL). China may uphold communistic standards, etc., but that doesn’t mean that it’s right, so I agree with you on that point. However, I was using the fact that the most powerful, intelligent, and blessed countries ever to exist on the face of the planet doesn’t endorse this behavior to support my argument, not necessarily to state why I personally believe that way. Honestly, the reason I personally believe homosexuality is wrong is, imo, a much stronger and unarguable defense for this position, but I chose not to use it in this blog because of Stigma. So those are not my ‘criteria’ for a parent, just as the USA’s beliefs in abortion (in certain situations) are NOT shared by myself. It was simply a supporting piece of evidence that homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder only years ago, and still to this day rids society with many problems (although heterosexuals may rid society with the same, natch :-)). I wish I could tell you WHY I have such rigid standards; you might find it more interesting than this jargon, which I am obliged to present due to Stigma, here. But, as I told a former commenter, don’t worry: those who seek the truth are always apt to find it. Thanks for the opportunity to explain.

So your answer is to avoid answering the question for fear of stigma. Basically, it's your religion. Fine. There's no point continuing the argument, as you can't reason somebody out of something they didn't reason themselves into.

Stoich, you are wrong in all aspects of your argument. The MAJORITY of America is not made up of Christians. Christians often force their ideals upon others and believe that they are the only ones who are right. I'm sick of your smiling faces after messages that stab a portion of the population in the back. Also, I am heterosexual, if you care. Firstly, Anthropology is the definitive study of human beings, everywhere throughout time. And the most recently published anthropological definition of marriage is "a socio-economical union between one or more people". Don't even TRY to argue with that. It goes on to state distribution of property and children, but that is not important. The point is that your so-called "traditional" marriage is not really traditional at all. Greeks were having marriages (yes, homosexual ones) long before the tendrils of Christianity established the bullshit you practice today. And don't ever say a marriage can only take place in a church, because then plenty of homosexual AND heterosexual marriages (in Vegas, for example) would be considered null and void. Why do you tell us your opinion when we don't care and disagree wholeheartedly? The answer is because you were brought up in an outdated Christian household where you were MADE to think that your ideals are the only right ones. And you have to "save: others from a terrible, non-existing fate. (There's no scientific-standard-evidence) I admit it's not your fault you turned out this way, but just shut up. Homosexuality is not a "lifestyle" choice, it's genetic. And don't worry, there are plenty of heterosexuals to keep the population booming and guzzling resources. You don't know about parenting until your a parent, (don't even give me your terrible excuse for a definition of a parent) regardless of your sexual orientation. That's the bottom line. Furthermore, Gay can mean both homosexual and happy. I also think many homosexuals are quite happy having never heard of you. :) And these days, some naive generation decided to make gay be slang for stupid. Huge mistake. In conclusion, I and the essence of Justice are right, and you-pathetic lowlife-Stoich are wrong. If you do not like what some people are doing, simply stay away from them, do not whine incessantly and say that you are better than them. (Although in this case, I'm better than you because I am more fair) Do not whine back to me, because I will simply ignore your very wrong comments. I hope maybe you learned something, (gotta end caustically) you myopic, equality-ripping bitch.

Wow... from Wikipedia: "Reverse discrimination (a.k.a. reverse racism or benign discrimination) is discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group in order to promote members of a minority or consistently disadvantaged group. It is the result of social policies established to correct long-standing discrimination against minority and/or disadvantaged groups ." As for the religious population being destroying, backstabbing, and harsh, I couldn't agree more; Christianity (although not the topic) is an abused term. I personally apologize for those who have given you, Justice, such a skewed view of what this term really means, and although I wish I could convince you otherwise, I realize it's going to take time, experience, and a little bit of something else, for you to be able to talk on more courteous and open-minded terms.

I think Stoich91 must be a pot-stirring drama lover, so I'm not going to feed into it. I'm a Christian and the Bible I read does not lead me to openly mock or criticize others, even when I believe they are wrong. The plank in my own eye and all...

Yes, Anonymous! I love pot-stirring activities (especially the ones that involve soups, but this is not such activity *sigh*). It gets people who do not normally think to exercise their mental abilities in areas and ways that were previously unexplored or ignored by the said parties, all together. I don’t think pot-stirring is a bad thing, or rather, it’s not a bad thing if you’re on the right side. Sure, there are times to keep our mouths shut (like when you don’t want to offend anyone) but, hey, once in a while, and armed with the truth, why not? A little more honest discussion, with a bit of tact stirred in, never hurt anyone.

My husband and I are both very progressive regarding gender identity... after we sent the baby shower announcements, he called his mom to remind her he wanted only gender-neutral clothes, toys, etc. That didn't happen. But frankly I don't think the clothes really matter (it's not like our one-year-old son cares what he's wearing - he'd probably rather be naked anyhow), and he mostly plays with our remote controls and a cardboard box, and he's bored with everything else pretty equally and scared to death of the monster truck someone got him. When he sits down for TV, it's to watch whatever we're watching, which could be King of the Hill, So You Think You Can Dance, Iron Chef, Formula One races, a Liza Minnelli concert, Pardon the Interruption on ESPN, or a Disney movie. I don't worry that the dancing, cooking, or cabaret singing will be harmful to his self-perception growing up any more than I think a moralistic cartoon or a sports event will turn him into a "real man."

Pop's parents are doing the same thing my husband and I are doing - the same thing that all parents are doing: they are raising their child[ren] the best way they know how, making their best decisions, and hoping it will result in a better life for him/her/them. In other words, they're guessing. Every one of us will "screw up" our kids about something - obviously, with all the hang-ups we have as a society about gender and sexuality we haven't figured it out quite yet. I don't think Pop's gender is an "experiment." It's something that Pop will figure out while s/he comes into adulthood, just like everything else, and just like we all do: what jobs do we want; what are our interests; what are our talents; who attracts us; where do we want to live? Pop's parents have just made the decision that (so long as it can be kept secret, because let's admit that kids are known for being candid and have access to all kinds of information) Pop won't be judged on preconceived notions or stereotypes about what a girl/boy can or wants to do. S/he can answer those questions without bias when they come up.

PS - at first (while I was pregnant, and for the first couple of months thereafter) I worried that people expected me to "turn my son gay" because I have many gay friends and am very active in and vocal about my support of the GLBTetc community as a straight ally. I didn't go to the Prop 8 protests and rallies here in California because I didn't want people to harrass me about bringing him there. I really regret that. When he has the opportunity to make his choices in life, it won't be about me.

I love the subject of gender roles & children. I just think that it's so facinating and i love hearing about other parent's experiences. It's too bad that this author feels like she has to dress her son exta boyish. But we all have our own insecurities when it comes to our childen (I'm forever worrying that someone might think mine are spoiled. Or maybe I'm too strict.. Or maybe I don't give them good food choices, etc). I did everything possible to avoid the term "girl" toys vs "boy" toys with my older son. Or label an activity or item as for "gils" vs "boys" only. I thought it was super sweet when my oldest developed an interest in baby dolls. Have you ever seen a little boy hush-hushing a baby doll? Or singing to it? It's like a minnie-daddy. It just melts me! But I did cringe when he asked me to paint his nails one day. Still I did it. And when i painted them a super, pale, pale, pink he got mad. Apparantly that was a "girl" color. So here's my take on this whole gender issue - it's as complex and personal as Logan's (my son) position on nail polish. "Boys wear BLUE nail polish mommy! You have to buy me BLUE nailpolish". Yes... because when it's BLUE it's not "girlie". As for the homosexual parenting debate - regardless if you consider a person a parent or not - the fact remains that if that person is raising a child, he or she wants to do his/her best. And as it does take a village, I would hope we would all open up our hearts & minds to that person. Its interesting the religious rederict posted here. I'm not Christian and it does irk the cr*p out of me when people use the bible as their basis for their arguement. You may CLAIM god said it and god meant it to be interpreted this way or that... but until God speaks to me herself :> I dont believe in a bible (an instrument written by a man - literally - and translated a thousand times over).