This Dad's Superhero Cape Is A Skirt

say_who_now?

MadsL wrote: »

You seem to relish the opportunity. Why does this guy upset you so much?

Im not upset in the slightest, I have more bees in my bonnet to upset me than the misguided notions of a narcisstic buffoon. In a few minutes I won't be giving this guy a second thought as I have my own life to be getting on with.

MadsL wrote: »

You are 100% he approached the media. Have you a source for that.

If you really must be this picky, I think it's a fairly safe assumption to make, I certainly wouldn't assume it was the five year old who made the decision to approach a feminist magazine. As advanced as the child is purported to be, I don't think he would be capable of dialling anyone other than Bob the Builder on a phone, let alone the media.

MadsL wrote: »

Doing an interview is standing in the spotlight getting attention now is it.

Ah no sure, of course not, it's totally wanting to be left alone, isn't it? OF COURSE it's seeking attention! What else would YOU call it when someone approaches a highly distributable media and gives them an interview and insight into their lives?

MadsL wrote: »

Who?

Exactly. He was a child whose parents garnered the attention of the media to spread the word about their son who liked to dress in effeminate clothing. Not a word in the media about him now.

MadsL wrote: »

Parents live out their dreams through children shocker. Wow. Good few lads down at the park on a Saturday watching kids GAA seeking validation for their own failures in that case. Care to draw where the line is?

Well those lads you refer to are in the minority. Most parents want to see their children excel in sport for their children's sake, that also requires that the child be part of the team. There's no "I" in team as they say, and the child cannot run on to the hurling pitch with a tennis racket because he HAS to conform to the rules of the game, he should not expect that the rules of the game be changed to accomodate his wish to play hurling with a tennis racket.

buried

MadsL wrote: »

His mental health is suspect and now he's a psycopath , because he laughed when someone did a walking-in-the street fail? Dear oh dear.

If ever a rolleyes icon was needed.

Is it not an example of a complete lack of empathy?

I never said he was a psychopath himself, I'm saying that particular trait is not very helping to a more forward thinking civilised society, as it is a trait found among actual psychopaths and people with detrimental mental health issues.

Daftendirekt

buried wrote: »

Is it not an example of a complete lack of empathy?

I never said he was a psychopath himself, I'm saying that particular trait is not very helping to a more forward thinking civilised society, as it is a trait found among actual psychopaths and people with detrimental mental health issues.

But how do you know that the woman didn't share a laugh over her clumsiness? There's nothing in the article to suggest she suffered any kind of injury or distress, and generally ploughing into a lamp post is more shocking than painful.

say_who_now?

buried wrote: »

Is it not an example of a complete lack of empathy?

I never said he was a psychopath himself, I'm saying that particular trait is not very helping to a more forward thinking civilised society, as it is a trait found among actual psychopaths and people with detrimental mental health issues.

buried you may as well accept that MadsL is going to take your words and stretch them beyond the point it was ever possible to stretch a paisley underpants back in the day!

(rather a useful property of said underpants when you had three lads trying to give you a wedgy in the school yard and there was no give whatsoever in them! :pac:)

oh wait, that was bullying, that's not funny, right?

MadsL

say_who_now? wrote: »

Im not upset in the slightest, I have more bees in my bonnet to upset me than the misguided notions of a narcisstic buffoon. In a few minutes I won't be giving this guy a second thought as I have my own life to be getting on with.

And yet here you are ranting about feminist conspiracies.

If you really must be this picky, I think it's a fairly safe assumption to make, I certainly wouldn't assume it was the five year old who made the decision to approach a feminist magazine.

So you assuming the family approciated the media, rather than the other way around as these things normally work.

As advanced as the child is purported to be, I don't think he would be capable of dialling anyone other than Bob the Builder on a phone, let alone the media.

Where did I even hint that the child approached the media? Yet here's your mocking tone again.

Ah no sure, of course not, it's totally wanting to be left alone, isn't it? OF COURSE it's seeking attention! What else would YOU call it when someone approaches a highly distributable media and gives them an interview and insight into their lives?

So a paragraph back you say it is an assumption, now here it is as a fact.

Exactly. He was a child whose parents garnered the attention of the media to spread the word about their son who liked to dress in effeminate clothing. Not a word in the media about him now.

Are you complaining about that? Would you like more media attention?
So after a couple of articles and debates like this one, no-one will pay much attention and the world will continue? But its a feminist conspiracy. Getting very confused about what you are getting at.

Well those lads you refer to are in the minority.

Parents who put their cross-dressing kids on TV are in the minority. This father is in the minority too. How far into the majority do you need to be?

Most parents want to see their children excel in sport for their children's sake, that also requires that the child be part of the team. There's no "I" in team as they say, and the child cannot run on to the hurling pitch with a tennis racket because he HAS to conform to the rules of the game, he should not expect that the rules of the game be changed to accomodate his wish to play hurling with a tennis racket.

Life is a team sport? Where are the rules written down?

say_who_now?

Daftendirekt wrote: »

But how do you know that the woman didn't share a laugh over her clumsiness? There's nothing in the article to suggest she suffered any kind of injury or distress, and generally ploughing into a lamp post is more shocking than painful.

ahh here! come on now, the simple answer is that it's more likely she didn't find running into a lamp post funny! There's nothing in the article to suggest she laughed about it either, and I can tell you from EXPERIENCE, having ploughed into enough of them myself, that while it's a shock you never get used to, you're over the shock a lot quicker than you are over the pain!

What IS actually there, in black and white is that the father and his son laughed at another person's misfortune, while the point of the article was to explain why special exceptions should be made for his son so that he would not be made fun of for wearing a dress. A better editor would have spotted the inclusion in the story and made sure it was edited out so that the father would have ne'er a chink in his chain mail.

buried

Daftendirekt wrote: »

But how do you know that the woman didn't share a laugh over her clumsiness? There's nothing in the article to suggest she suffered any kind of injury or distress, and generally ploughing into a lamp post is more shocking than painful.

Well, even if it was not painful, which I imagine it was, I am pretty sure it would have at least been embarrassing for the lady; embarrassment which was surely compounded by the shrill laughter of a child. A child whose father, thankful to be witnessing the incident, stood idly by.

If you saw a person walk into a lamp post would you not ask if they were all right? Would you be thankful to see it? Or, if it was your child, would you want them to laugh at another's misfortune?

MadsL

say_who_now? wrote: »

ahh here! come on now, the simple answer is that it's more likely she didn't find running into a lamp post funny! There's nothing in the article to suggest she laughed about it either, and I can tell you from EXPERIENCE, having ploughed into enough of them myself, that while it's a shock you never get used to, you're over the shock a lot quicker than you are over the pain!

I tell you what, as you in the minority that doesn't find this funny, let me post this video and ask you to really keep a really straight face as you empathise with this guy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RraJ0f0O50A

What IS actually there, in black and white is that the father and his son laughed at another person's misfortune, while the point of the article was to explain why special exceptions should be made for his son so that he would not be made fun of for wearing a dress. A better editor would have spotted the inclusion in the story and made sure it was edited out so that the father would have ne'er a chink in his chain mail.

Human being displaying human emotions shocker!

buried

say_who_now? wrote: »

buried you may as well accept that MadsL is going to take your words and stretch them beyond the point it was ever possible to stretch a paisley underpants back in the day!

(rather a useful property of said underpants when you had three lads trying to give you a wedgy in the school yard and there was no give whatsoever in them! :pac:)

oh wait, that was bullying, that's not funny, right?

I think your correct my friend! Impossible to discuss this matter really, the underpants is being twisted and stretched to ridiculous levels !:pac:

MadsL

buried wrote: »

Well, even if it was not painful, which I imagine it was, I am pretty sure it would have at least been embarrassing for the lady; embarrassment which was surely compounded by the shrill laughter of a child. A child whose father, thankful to be witnessing the incident, stood idly by.

If you saw a person walk into a lamp post would you not ask if they were all right? Would you be thankful to see it? Or, if it was your child, would you want them to laugh at another's misfortune?

As much as I'd love to debate hypothetical reactions to an incident you or I didn't witness I don't think it is really getting us anywhere, do you?

That chap on the ice was gas though wasn't it.

edit:

buried wrote: »

I think your correct my friend! Impossible to discuss this matter really, the underpants is being twisted and stretched to ridiculous levels !:pac:

Hey, I didn't reach for psychopath in my "ridiculous" levels...

buried

MadsL wrote: »

As much as I'd love to debate hypothetical reactions to an incident you or I didn't witness I don't think it is really getting us anywhere, do you?

That chap on the ice was gas though wasn't it.

There is a difference between seeing something on television and witnessing an event in real life. There is a safe distance maintained from the event when it is watched onscreen. There is, of course, no possible way of asking this man is he all right after his fall for obvious reasons. However, if you were walking behind this man when he fell, would you not offer assistance?

You're right though, I don't think this is really getting us anywhere either.

say_who_now?

MadsL wrote: »

And yet here you are ranting about feminist conspiracies.

To use your own words further down this post-

Yet here's your mocking tone again.

MadsL wrote: »

So you assuming the family approciated the media, rather than the other way around as these things normally work.

Except that is not the way these things normally work. Normally the way it works is magazines offer money for articles and people contact them hoping their story is interesting enough to be published in the magazine. I suppose the money will come in handy to pay for the child's dresses.

MadsL wrote: »

Where did I even hint that the child approached the media? Yet here's your mocking tone again.

I never said you hinted at it, I was just putting forward what I think is a more likely scenario.

MadsL wrote: »

So a paragraph back you say it is an assumption, now here it is as a fact.

And if you read the post again you will notice the punctuation at the end that proferred it as a question, and not a statement of fact.

MadsL wrote: »

Are you complaining about that? Would you like more media attention?
So after a couple of articles and debates like this one, no-one will pay much attention and the world will continue? But its a feminist conspiracy. Getting very confused about what you are getting at.

I was merely pointing out that the media only cares about making money by publishing articles like this. Their priority is not the welfare of the family nor what the consequences of the media spotlight will do to them when as you suggest "they just want to be left alone". I am getting at the fact that those in the majority are not going to care about this cause until the minority gain enough support to be considered a serious threat to the majority.

MadsL wrote: »

Parents who put their cross-dressing kids on TV are in the minority. This father is in the minority too. How far into the majority do you need to be?

Once you gain a signifigant number enough to be able to influence the majority.

MadsL wrote: »

Life is a team sport? Where are the rules written down?

No, life is not a team sport, the lads down at the GAA pitch are watching a team sport, and the rules are clearly written down and explained. Nice try at moving the goal posts though to suit yourself. Lets just leave them as they are shall we and try to stay within the context of the discussion.

say_who_now?

MadsL wrote: »

I tell you what, as you in the minority that doesn't find this funny, let me post this video and ask you to really keep a really straight face as you empathise with this guy.

You're really not reading my posts, are you?

say_who_now? wrote: »

Because I actually have to get around on crutches full time, I slip, stumble, and fall, A LOT. I'm well used to people laughing at me by now, I've even laughed at m own misfortune for some comical stumbles. I've often found that others do not share my sense of humor (my wife in particular who worries that one day I won't get back up!), but I never expect special exceptions to be made on my behalf, unlike the father in this story who expected everyone else to make special exceptions to be made so his son could feel happy wearing a dress. If that's not self-righteous, I don't know what is!

MadsL wrote: »

Human being displaying human emotions shocker!

Referring to the father in the article-

Smug double standard self-righteous human being teaching his son to be a smug double standard self-righteous human being.

Shocking indeed.

MadsL

say_who_now? wrote: »

Smug double standard self-righteous human being teaching his son to be a smug double standard self-righteous human being.

Shocking indeed.

Hmmm. What shall we do about it.

Want to have him excommunicated? Oh, wait he's not a Christian.
Revoke his man card? Hmm, not issued in Germany.
Publicly vilify him, yep that will have to do.

edit: So people falling over is funny, but this guy is smug. I'm confused, aren't we having a go at the 'chink in his chainmail' - except that you also find it funny. So you have a double standard too. Yay.

I say we just burn him as a witch and be done with it.

MadsL

can't let this slide...

Except that is not the way these things normally work. Normally the way it works is magazines offer money for articles and people contact them hoping their story is interesting enough to be published in the magazine. I suppose the money will come in handy to pay for the child's dresses.

So now you have decided they got paid for the article...again without a shred of evidence.

I am getting at the fact that those in the majority are not going to care about this cause until the minority gain enough support to be considered a serious threat to the majority.

Care to tell me what the "serious threat" is that is posed a minority of people supporting a five year old boy wearing a dress? Seriously, I would love to know.

Dubhlinner

Bet the dad was trying to impress some female who constantly talks at length about gender roles.

MadsL

Dubhlinner wrote: »

Bet the dad was trying to impress some female who constantly talks at length about gender roles.

Because there has to be ulterior motive of course.

say_who_now?

MadsL wrote: »

can't let this slide...

But don't let that stop you-

MadsL wrote: »

say_who_now?, I'm done with you, I really think you need to take that nonsense to Conspiracy Theories. I'm not going to indulge your obvious paranoias any more; this thread is not about

but you seem to have quite the bee in your bonnet about the whole topic judging by this and another thead.

I'm amazed we haven't heard the word femi-Nazi from you to finally Godwin this thread.

MadsL wrote: »

So now you have decided they got paid for the article...again without a shred of evidence.

I was merely explaining how these things normally work, he would have been offered financial reimbursement for the article.

MadsL wrote: »

Care to tell me what the "serious threat" is that is posed a minority of people supporting a five year old boy wearing a dress? Seriously, I would love to know.

I assumed you were speaking in general terms when you mentioned you were confused and you posed it as a question. At least if you are going to qoute me out of context, have the courtesy to actually read my posts first-

I am getting at the fact that those in the majority are not going to care about this cause until the minority gain enough support to be considered a serious threat to the majority.

This is the principle behind minority vs. majority. When the minority itself gathers signifigant enough numbers to challenge the status quo of the majority, then they are a serious threat to the majority.

How it relates in this case, is that if enough people start to voice their approval of boys wearing dresses, then that minority becomes a serious threat to the majority who have maintained the status quo of boys wearing trousers.

I really don't see how I can make that any clearer.

yawha

Why would it be a threat to anyone? Guys wearing dresses doesn't impact any guy who only wants to wear trousers...

say_who_now?

yawha wrote: »

Why would it be a threat to anyone? Guys wearing dresses doesn't impact any guy who only wants to wear trousers...

The minority is always a threat to the majority, on ANY subject. How serious a threat the minority is to the majority is determined by how much influence they can achieve to gain support in signifigant numbers for their cause.

If you want to put it like that, then one guy wearing a dress will not influence the majority of men who wear trousers. However if enough men decide that they want to wear dresses, then suddenly they become a threat to the majority of men who choose to wear trousers.

If men who wear dresses outnumber men who wear trousers, then men in dresses become the majority, and men in trousers become the minority.

The minority of men who wear trousers then become a threat to the majority of men who wear dresses.

yawha

Why a threat? What's so threatening about diversity? Homosexuals are not a threat to me because I am in the heterosexual majority, black people are not a threat to me because I am in the white majority etc.

say_who_now?

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Well, thank **** I live in a free society and not a western one.

You live in a society influenced by western culture, even moreso since the fall of the Berlin wall.

Nils Pickert and his son chose to move from this free society where according to them, his son's penchant didin't go down too well with the locals in what you call your "free" society-

From the article:

My five year old son likes to wear dresses. In Berlin Kreuzberg that alone would be enough to get into conversation with other parents. Is it wise or ridiculous? "Neither one nor the other!“ I still want to shout back at them. But sadly they can’t hear me any more. Because by now I live in a small town in South Germany.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

As regards the kid, he's weraing the skirts not because he wants to rebel or gets attention, but because he likes wearing skirts. Simple as.

So you are unwilling to even consider the possibility that he could be enjoying the attention he gets when he wears a dress? And I'M the narrow minded one?

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Still has nothing to do with feminism. He's a boy, not a girl. You should have siad this to the other poster and left it at that.

An article about a boy who wears a dress appears in a feminist magazine and it has nothing to do with feminism? You are unwilling to consider this possibility? Go on, guess what I'm going to say next... Yep, narrow minded.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

my point is that this is nothign to do with activisim - you're just attaching lables because you're uncomfortable and narrow-minded and it's not easy to admit something, so hey - let's bring in an "ism" and hide behind that.

An article about a boy who wears a dress appears in a feminist magazine and it has nothing to do with feminist activism? I'm not attaching any labels at all, it was you who labelled me narrow minded, but you're absolutely right, it's not easy to admit something. It's not me who is hiding behind anything, it is the father in this story who is hiding reality from his son and hiding him under the veil of feminism.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

No it isn't. We both know that. Or should, at any rate. If it was the parent forceing the child, I'd be right with you.

I wouldn't say forcing, I'd have said coercing the child.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

None of this actually makes sense. Unless you know somethign about the kid that is not reported in the articale. In which case, pelase tell and back up with evidence.

From the article:

My five year old son likes to wear dresses. In Berlin Kreuzberg that alone would be enough to get into conversation with other parents. Is it wise or ridiculous? "Neither one nor the other!“ I still want to shout back at them. But sadly they can’t hear me any more. Because by now I live in a small town in South Germany.

So the father has uprooted from Berlin where the child wearing a dress didn't go down too well with the locals.

I had only one option left: dress in a skirt myself.

Being all stressed out, because of the moving I forgot to notify the nursery-school teachers to have an eye on my boy not being laughed at because of his fondness of dresses and skirts.

I’m thankful for that women, that stared at us on the street until she ran face first into a street light. My son was roaring with laugher.

And looking at me with big eyes he asked: “Daddy, when are you going to wear a skirt again?”...

He’s painting his fingernails. He thinks it looks pretty on my nails, too.

NOW, after all that, evidence from the article as you asked for, I have provided numerous examples of where the father has gone beyond all reason so that his son can wear dresses and paint his fingernails. He has moved towns from the "free" Berlin, he by his own admission, was left with "no choice" but to wear a dress himself, and at some point must have stopped doing so because his son asks when is he going to wear a dress AGAIN.

He expects special exceptions to be made in the nursery school so that the children do not laugh at his son in a dress, yet he and his son laugh at a woman who accidentally hits her face off a street light, and now, he is having his five year old paint both their fingernails, and still no mention of the mother.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

You seem to WANT to believe that this is the father's casue and not the kid's, probably because it makes you more comfortabel with your own inability to accept the decisions that other people make that make you uncomfortable.

Well if this IS the kids cause, as you seem to think, then I would suggest that the child is too young and immature to be involved in any cause, and should be allowed to be a child, not thrust into the media spotlight as some new messiah for a modern society. This is the only decision I am uncomfortable with, as anyone with any ounce of common sense would be. If somebody wants to be left alone, I leave them alone. If somebody wants to thrust themselves into the spotlight, then they will be subjected to closer scrutiny and opinion, they give up their right to "be left alone" as you put it.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Anhoring them is one thing, doesn't make them inaccurate. A narrow minded person is someone who has set standards and is unable to deal with people who do not adhere to them. You are narrow minded because you have formed the narrow opinion, highlighted above, that acting differently is in some way detremental. You want everyhing to be a certain way and are unable to process when people act ouside of your preconcieved roles. Unable to widen your horizons to accept that people are differetn, you use any other means or argument to avoid this. As highligted above.

I accept that people are different, I accept when people do not adhere to my standards. The narrowly held opinion would be that acting differently should be acceptable in a society where the majority dictates the norm. The widely held opinion is that acting differently to the norm usually carries detrimental effects, as evidenced by the article where the father had to uproot his family from Berlin so his son could wear dresses. The child's preconceived role is that his father should conform to HIS ideals, and when his father does not wear a skirt, the child asks when is his father going to wear a dress again. The child is already unable to process the idea of the father acting outside HIS preconceived role.

It is the father who uses any means to avoid his son being told that wearing dresses is not normal. It is the father who refuses to accept that society does not conform to his and his son's preconceived ideas.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I am quiet happy to allow people to live a normal, conservative life. If I wasn't, you'd have a very good point, but where have I said I wasn't? I do object when they think that other people should be forced to live their lives by the same standards, but I think most people would object to having smoeone else's standards forced upon them.

And this man has been given a platform to try and force his views on the rest of the world. The only thing I object to is the involvement of his son in furtherance of his views. This man was perfectly capable of wearing a skirt before his son had ever been born, but strangely enough, he chose to fit in with the majority while it suited him, and was forced to join the minority by his son, who in his own words, left him with "no choice".

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Very true. But it's a free city now. And a much better city for it.

Nils Pickert would disagree with you-

Because by now I live in a small town in South Germany.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I dont' understnad the rest of your argument: is the majority automatically the best decision?

That depends on which side of the argument you're on.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Would you say the same thing should be upheld in Scotland?

Should kilts be banned simply because the majority of "men" wear trousers?

We've been over the kilts/skirts argument if you'd care to read back over the thread. Kilts are a ceremonial garb and not worn in everyday circumstances.

say_who_now?

yawha wrote: »

Why a threat? What's so threatening about diversity? Homosexuals are not a threat to me because I am in the heterosexual majority, black people are not a threat to me because I am in the white majority etc.

Exactly. None of these minorities are a threat to you because the privilege of being in the majority allows you to tolerate the minority.

Think of it this way-

Prehistoric humans were in the minority compared to animals. That was until we evolved to a point where a combination of our numbers and our superior intellect allowed us to become the majority.

The other day, I got stung by a wasp. I was able to tolerate one wasp sting and carry on about my business. I would have felt signifigantly more threatened by ten wasps, and even moreso by a hundred wasps. Even given my superior intellect, these wasps could prove a signifigant threat.

For one wasp, I was the majority, because I was in a better position to influence the outcome of the encounter. For ten wasps, I am in the minority, because they are in a better position to influence the outcome of the encounter.

MadsL

say_who_now? wrote: »

The minority is always a threat to the majority, on ANY subject.

Wow, do you really want to assert that? You know that leads to me asking if you feel that Chinese people (for example) are a threat to Irish people.

How serious a threat the minority is to the majority is determined by how much influence they can achieve to gain support in signifigant numbers for their cause.

Hmm, this is fun. You mean I can pick any minority and they will have a 'cause'. Describe for me the 'cause' of green-eyed people? Banning the phrase 'green with envy' or the 'green-eyed monster'?

If you want to put it like that, then one guy wearing a dress will not influence the majority of men who wear trousers. However if enough men decide that they want to wear dresses, then suddenly they become a threat to the majority of men who choose to wear trousers.

The politics of fashion? Seriously? Is there a thesis in that?

If men who wear dresses outnumber men who wear trousers, then men in dresses become the majority, and men in trousers become the minority.

The minority of men who wear trousers then become a threat to the majority of men who wear dresses.

Isn't that exactly what has happened the other way around in Western society over the last 500 years, we have only stopped wearing doublet, tights and codpieces in the last 350 or so years. Parts of the legal profession are still partial to silk stockings.

say_who_now? wrote: »

An article about a boy who wears a dress appears in a feminist magazine and it has nothing to do with feminism?

An article about a boy who wears a dress appears in a feminist magazine and it has nothing to do with feminist activism? I'm not attaching any labels at all, it was you who labelled me narrow minded, but you're absolutely right, it's not easy to admit something. It's not me who is hiding behind anything, it is the father in this story who is hiding reality from his son and hiding him under the veil of feminism.

I'm curious, you have mentioned feminism quite a bit. What do you think this story has to do with feminism. What exactly is the "veil of feminism" Try to spare me the global feminist conspiracy, and focus on why you think this story is feminist activism?

So the father has uprooted from Berlin where the child wearing a dress didn't go down too well with the locals.

Err. No. That's not what he said "There was either no reaction of the people in Berlin or it was positive. They’re used to spacy people."
Translation from the original article

I accept that people are different, I accept when people do not adhere to my standards.

You know, I really wasn't going to bring this up, but now you have. At least on boards, you actually don't accept when people do not adhere to your standards.

You very clearly in another thread told me my behaviour was "socially inappropriate" and patronising in the way I greeted a very close friend of mine, I'm not sure why but I guess because my standards did not match yours. Very clearly my friend is not of the same opinion.

I posted this
You posted this:

say_who_now? wrote: »

See there's displaying affection to other men, and then there's kissing other men full on the lips as a form of greeting them! I would consider such behaviour socially inappropriate and if I was a gay man I would consider a heterosexual man trying to kiss me full on the lips as using me in his over-zealous attempt to show how "comfortable" he is with "the gheys", which is why I would consider such actions patronising.

You then clarified that your displeasure and disapproval was aimed squarely at me and not wider society:

say_who_now? wrote: »

I never suggested either that it was inappropriate for two men to kiss in public. I said YOUR'S, and your friend's greeting each other the way you do, was SOCIALLY inappropriate.

You are a long, long way from "accepting when people do not adhere to my standards".

Think of it this way-

Prehistoric humans were in the minority compared to animals. That was until we evolved to a point where a combination of our numbers and our superior intellect allowed us to become the majority.

Very clearly humans are not the majority, there are far more animals than humans. They are the apex predator though and therefore the most powerful, perhaps that is what you meant to say, meaning that the majority has the power to suppress unpopular activities through violence if necessary.

I'm still lost as to why you keep framing minorities in terms of threat though.

Pawwed Rig

Wow I go away for 24 hours and come back to this mess!!!! I'm out:D

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

say_who_now? wrote: »

I just wanted to pick you up on this one Ikky- I for one anyway do not think bullying is acceptable, nor do I think retribution is acceptable, but I DO accept that it DOES happen and that it is a facet of human nature that is part of our survival instinct. I may not like it, but we have not evolved enough as a society yet to come up with ways to deal with it. Ignoring the problem and creating an artficial safety environment is not going to deal with it either, and when the child steps out of this safety zone, the reality that the world is not a nice place will render him unprepared and therefore unable to cope with it.

Bullying is part of our survival instict??

If we have evolved so far then why the hell are we even having this discussion. This highlights how far this species has to go, how how far it has to come.

As I said, the society in which this is about has already done this.

Being a stong father is providing guidance for your child, and being able to say NO, and NOT give in to the child's every whim and encourage them in behavior which may subject them to ridicule and derision. It is your duty as a parent to make decisions FOR your child, because they do not have the mental capacity nor all the information to make these decisions for themselves. I am not expecting my child to support me, I am telling him that he will do what he's told, until he has both the means and the mental capacity to make these decisions for himself.

Agreed on the first sentence.

As regards the second, you've strayed a little. What you are describing her is a parent forcing their will (and a gender role) onto a child. Not a parent who is guiding.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

say_who_now? wrote: »

You live in a society influenced by western culture, even moreso since the fall of the Berlin wall.

Nils Pickert and his son chose to move from this free society where according to them, his son's penchant didin't go down too well with the locals in what you call your "free" society-

From the article:





So you are unwilling to even consider the possibility that he could be enjoying the attention he gets when he wears a dress? And I'M the narrow minded one?




An article about a boy who wears a dress appears in a feminist magazine and it has nothing to do with feminism? You are unwilling to consider this possibility? Go on, guess what I'm going to say next... Yep, narrow minded.



An article about a boy who wears a dress appears in a feminist magazine and it has nothing to do with feminist activism? I'm not attaching any labels at all, it was you who labelled me narrow minded, but you're absolutely right, it's not easy to admit something. It's not me who is hiding behind anything, it is the father in this story who is hiding reality from his son and hiding him under the veil of feminism.



I wouldn't say forcing, I'd have said coercing the child.



From the article:



So the father has uprooted from Berlin where the child wearing a dress didn't go down too well with the locals.












NOW, after all that, evidence from the article as you asked for, I have provided numerous examples of where the father has gone beyond all reason so that his son can wear dresses and paint his fingernails. He has moved towns from the "free" Berlin, he by his own admission, was left with "no choice" but to wear a dress himself, and at some point must have stopped doing so because his son asks when is he going to wear a dress AGAIN.

He expects special exceptions to be made in the nursery school so that the children do not laugh at his son in a dress, yet he and his son laugh at a woman who accidentally hits her face off a street light, and now, he is having his five year old paint both their fingernails, and still no mention of the mother.




Well if this IS the kids cause, as you seem to think, then I would suggest that the child is too young and immature to be involved in any cause, and should be allowed to be a child, not thrust into the media spotlight as some new messiah for a modern society. This is the only decision I am uncomfortable with, as anyone with any ounce of common sense would be. If somebody wants to be left alone, I leave them alone. If somebody wants to thrust themselves into the spotlight, then they will be subjected to closer scrutiny and opinion, they give up their right to "be left alone" as you put it.



I accept that people are different, I accept when people do not adhere to my standards. The narrowly held opinion would be that acting differently should be acceptable in a society where the majority dictates the norm. The widely held opinion is that acting differently to the norm usually carries detrimental effects, as evidenced by the article where the father had to uproot his family from Berlin so his son could wear dresses. The child's preconceived role is that his father should conform to HIS ideals, and when his father does not wear a skirt, the child asks when is his father going to wear a dress again. The child is already unable to process the idea of the father acting outside HIS preconceived role.

It is the father who uses any means to avoid his son being told that wearing dresses is not normal. It is the father who refuses to accept that society does not conform to his and his son's preconceived ideas.




And this man has been given a platform to try and force his views on the rest of the world. The only thing I object to is the involvement of his son in furtherance of his views. This man was perfectly capable of wearing a skirt before his son had ever been born, but strangely enough, he chose to fit in with the majority while it suited him, and was forced to join the minority by his son, who in his own words, left him with "no choice".




Nils Pickert would disagree with you-






That depends on which side of the argument you're on.




We've been over the kilts/skirts argument if you'd care to read back over the thread. Kilts are a ceremonial garb and not worn in everyday circumstances.

You seem to have two issues here:

1 - the act and article is an attention-seeking stunt. Yes, I have considered this possible, but don;t see it happening because there is no empirical evidence. I've known effeminite boys before. They do exist. This does not make them gay, women, or feminists. You also seem to have this "fear" that it might actual be a kid who genuinely wants to wear a dress. And for that, you need someone to perpetrate this fear and you have latched on to feminism. That is the only connection I can see and I've tried.

2 - I'd agree with you on the finger-nail painting bit, but maybe it's just a father helping his kid expand on an interest? Like a fatyher taking his football-mad kid to Old trafford of Anfield. But then, he's be forcing football on his kid, wouldn't he?

3 = "The narrowly held opinion would be that acting differently should be acceptable in a society where the majority dictates the norm." - isn't this the viewpoint you hold?


The rest of it I don't have time o deal with now, will deal with it this evening after workl.

Apanachi

MadsL wrote: »

Did your mother never tell you it was rude to stare at people?

Ah, but you see staring at people seems to be a sporting discipline in Germany (no joke, Germans do really have a bad habit of staring, after 14/15 years in Germany, I still haven't got used to it)

As to whether or not it's the child's decision to wear a skirt, I find it very plausible, my nephew went through a phase of dressing up in his sister's clothes (OK this stopped at about 4 I think, I'm not sure if he just stopped wanting to, or if my sister and brother in law talked him out of it - either way it was probably better for him, seeing as he lives in rural Ireland )

I don't think tha Dad should "encourage" him to wear skirts by himself wearing skirts. If the child wants to wear them, OK, but by wearing skirts himself, the father is making the child believe this is "normal", now I don't want to get stuck into a conversation about what is normal and what's not, but in Western culture, boys don't wear skirts/dresses.

If the little boy has "cross dressing tendencies" OK, but he should be made aware that people will stare and other children can be very mean.

If he is willing and strong enough to accept that, who are we to judge?

Maguined

Apanachi wrote: »

Ah, but you see staring at people seems to be a sporting discipline in Germany (no joke, Germans do really have a bad habit of staring, after 14/15 years in Germany, I still haven't got used to it)

As to whether or not it's the child's decision to wear a skirt, I find it very plausible, my nephew went through a phase of dressing up in his sister's clothes (OK this stopped at about 4 I think, I'm not sure if he just stopped wanting to, or if my sister and brother in law talked him out of it - either way it was probably better for him, seeing as he lives in rural Ireland )

I don't think tha Dad should "encourage" him to wear skirts by himself wearing skirts. If the child wants to wear them, OK, but by wearing skirts himself, the father is making the child believe this is "normal", now I don't want to get stuck into a conversation about what is normal and what's not, but in Western culture, boys don't wear skirts/dresses.

If the little boy has "cross dressing tendencies" OK, but he should be made aware that people will stare and other children can be very mean.

If he is willing and strong enough to accept that, who are we to judge?

Pretty much agree with everything said here. If that was my kid I would not wear a skirt myself, rather explain to the child that it is not "normal" for a boy to wear a skirt however not being normal is not the same as being right or wrong.

He may get ridiculed by others so I would warn him of that but if he wants to wear it then I would let him.

say_who_now?

MadsL wrote: »

Wow, do you really want to assert that? You know that leads to me asking if you feel that Chinese people (for example) are a threat to Irish people.

I personally don't, but I met at least one person that did, when she told me "Fúck off back to China you prick". I happen to be born and bred Irish.

MadsL wrote: »

Hmm, this is fun. You mean I can pick any minority and they will have a 'cause'. Describe for me the 'cause' of green-eyed people? Banning the phrase 'green with envy' or the 'green-eyed monster'?

Some people will have a problem with green eyed people. Try and pick a more common example, like gingers!

MadsL wrote: »

The politics of fashion? Seriously? Is there a thesis in that?

I don't know.

MadsL wrote: »

Isn't that exactly what has happened the other way around in Western society over the last 500 years, we have only stopped wearing doublet, tights and codpieces in the last 350 or so years. Parts of the legal profession are still partial to silk stockings.

These trends were not started by children. They were started by adults.

MadsL wrote: »

I'm curious, you have mentioned feminism quite a bit. What do you think this story has to do with feminism. What exactly is the "veil of feminism" Try to spare me the global feminist conspiracy, and focus on why you think this story is feminist activism?

I've explained my reasoning numerous times already.

MadsL wrote: »

Err. No. That's not what he said "There was either no reaction of the people in Berlin or it was positive. They’re used to spacy people."
Translation from the original article

From the article you linked to, quoted in context:

We already had skirt and dress days back then during mild Kreuzbergian weather. And I think long skirts with elastic bands suit me quite well anyways. Dresses are a bit more difficult. There was either no reaction of the people in Berlin or it was positive. They’re used to spacy people. In my small town in the south of Germany that’s a little bit different.

MadsL wrote: »

You know, I really wasn't going to bring this up, but now you have. At least on boards, you actually don't accept when people do not adhere to your standards.

You very clearly in another thread told me my behaviour was "socially inappropriate" and patronising in the way I greeted a very close friend of mine, I'm not sure why but I guess because my standards did not match yours. Very clearly my friend is not of the same opinion.

I posted this
You posted this:


You then clarified that your displeasure and disapproval was aimed squarely at me and not wider society:


You are a long, long way from "accepting when people do not adhere to my standards".

Tell the truth, you were chomping at the bit to carry on the discussion from another thread. I accept when people do not adhere to my standards, I do not have to agree with their opinion though. "Acceptance" and "agreememt" are not the same thing.

MadsL wrote: »

Very clearly humans are not the majority, there are far more animals than humans. They are the apex predator though and therefore the most powerful, perhaps that is what you meant to say, meaning that the majority has the power to suppress unpopular activities through violence if necessary.

Exactly.

MadsL wrote: »

I'm still lost as to why you keep framing minorities in terms of threat though.

Well if you spent more time reading the whole of what I wrote, rather than petty nit picking, quoting me out of context, introducing extreme examples that divert from the main discussion, you might not be lost.