This Dad's Superhero Cape Is A Skirt

say_who_now?

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Bullying is part of our survival instict??

Whatever you choose to call it, exerting our influence over others is part of our survival instinct. Most people manage to suppress this instinct until something threatens their survival.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

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.

I agree, but yet again, there are those that don't.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

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

It only took them sixty years, and even then are you suggesting ALL people in German society (Be they from Berlin or a small motherland town) think the exact same? That's a stretch.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

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.

What I am describing is a parent being a role model for their child. Unlike the father in the article, I did not "become" a role model for my child, I already was one. Unlike the father in the article, I did not flit in and out of the role when it suited me. I do not have a problem with being told I am forcing my will (nor my gender role) on my male child, that is exactly what I am doing. I call this guiding him. We will have to disagree on the definition of guidance. My child can decide what he wants to do all he wants, but as I've said time and time again in this thread- until he has the means and the maturity to enable him to understand and put his decisions into action, I will, as his parent, make his decisions for him.

To demonstrate an example of this, yesterday he wanted sweets, he wanted to go to supermacs, he wanted a toy in tesco, he wanted to get a taxi home instead of walking. Now if I had said yes to all these things, I would be spoiling him and I would be his "buddy" as long as I agreed with him and catered to his every whim. Because I did not agree with him, and because he did not have the means to effect his decisions by himself, he was not happy. He also lacks the maturity to understand that sweets will rot his teeth, and have no signifigant nutritional value. Do I really need to explain why I would not buy him fast foood? The toy in tesco was a train set for a three year old. I don't care that he said he likes train sets, he already has one at home more age appropriate to his stage of child development. And finally, a taxi to go 500 yards down the road would not only be expensive, but unhealthy, when it would be far healthier for him to walk and not be taught to be lazy nor a spendthrift.

The father in this article has taken to focus on one particular issue, yet we hear nothing of the rest about the child's development because that is neither relevant to the father, nor to the feminist magazine that published the article.

To quote from another article on the subject linked to by another poster:

MadsL wrote: »

Translation from the original article

This is:

A story about two misfits in the Province of southern Germany.

say_who_now?

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

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.

Do you have any empirical evidence to support that claim? I know effeminate men too, so I know that this does not make them gay, women, nor feminists, and just to be crystal clear, I do not have a problem with those who label themselves feminists, and I do not have a problem with feminist ideals. I have a problem with the methods that some people use to further those ideals, the same way I would have a problem with people using their children to further their ideals on ANY issue.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

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?

It's a father coercively encouraging his child's abnormal behaviour because it suits his own ideals. He is clearly hesitant about the idea of putting himself forward for ridicule and derision, but he "becomes" a role model for his child because the child doesn't have someone to look up to that will approve of his behaviour. (I wonder why that is, couldn't be that it's not all that common surely?). Therefore the father is supporting artificially preconceived ideas in his child's mind.

Lots of fathers take their football mad children to football matches, there are not a lot of fathers who encourage their child's abmormal behaviour, then thrust them into the media spotlight to be held up as the messiah for the modern world, seeking validation for their ideals and actually being proud of the fact that they have used their child to further their own agenda, forcing the child to confront something which he is completely unprepared for.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

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?

No it is not, I am of the widely held view that a child acting differently to the norms of the majority should not by default be acceptable, but should be investigated to find out the reasons for their abnormal behaviour. In this case, the reason for the child's abnormal behaviour is because the father had abdicated his duties as a parent, seeking to become the child's "buddy" instead, in order to keep the child happy, and then the father seeks further validation for "how "great" he is", by forcing his son into the media spotlight.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

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

At least this shows you have the common sense to restrain yourself from posting on boards when you should be working. So you realise that your job is threatened if you defy the norm of working while you're in work. The father in this story feels threatened by what his son will think of him if he dares to defy him. To me, I think he has his priorities completely wrong.

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.

Right, had more time, but am going to condense things because the multiquoting will just massively **** thigns up.

The question boils down to this: is this a case of 1) the father is wrong to this in a society that will reject it, or 2) society is wrong to reject a father that does this?

I'd agree with you on the first scenario. If a father is doing someghing like this to score a politcial point, then I'm with you. I said it ages ago - I wouldn't be comfortable with a father doing it in Dublin for example. And I certainly wouldn't be comfortable with him doing it to endorse feminism, but you have no proof that this is the case. If it isn't, then what? But it's a cimpletely seperate issue, and you should start a thread along the lines of "should parents use their kids to express their own politcial goals?" Because if you are right, then it goes much further beyond a cross-dressing child.

Let's take scenario 2 so. Supposing, society doesn't reject it. Supposing society has no porblem with it? Supposing the kid is happy, the father is happy, society doesn't care. Which appears to be the case here. And Berlin is a very liberal palce. Berlin and Germany may have been Nazi and Communist in the past, but for ****s sake, any discussion about that is massively irrelevant in 2012!
So they don't gave a ****. Live and let live. Are you then happy to have a father let his boy dress in a skirt? Are do you still have objections? If so, what are they?

MadsL

say_who_now? wrote: »

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.

And yet you continue to frame minorities as a 'threat' to the majority. You seem to want to construct some sort of sociological construct about 'threats' but the reality is that most people will just assume your are some kind of neo-fascist when you start talking about the 'threat' that minorities pose.

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

I assume you are joking, because otherwise you are truly loo-lah.

I don't know.

Are you really arguing that some people are using fashion to further a sexual politics agenda?

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

And until 70 or so years ago it was perfectly acceptable to dress ALL infants and young children in dresses. Trousers and shorts for boys only after the age of 5-6.

I've explained my reasoning numerous times already.

Well, I'm still baffled as to what a father and son do has much to do with feminism.

From the article you linked to, quoted in context:

And I think long skirts with elastic bands suit me quite well anyways. Dresses are a bit more difficult.

That's the context, the father is saying he finds it easy to wear a skirt, dresses not so much.

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.

I've restrained from mentioning it for pages of this thread. You didn't respond on the other thread because you realised your comments were indefensible.
You simply do not 'accept' when people do not adhere to your standards, and I've shown how judgmental and hypocritical you are about it. I have no issue with you disagreeing with my actions, but when you describe my actions between myself and a friend, neither of whom you know personally, as "socially inappropriate" and "patronising" you are most certainly not disagreeing. In fact most people would see your words as preachy and condescending.

Exactly.

So, let me ask you - Are you now supporting the majority getting its way through violence?

]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.

When you post things like this

It's a father coercively encouraging his child's abnormal behaviour because it suits his own ideals. He is clearly hesitant about the idea of putting himself forward for ridicule and derision, but he "becomes" a role model for his child because the child doesn't have someone to look up to that will approve of his behaviour. (I wonder why that is, couldn't be that it's not all that common surely?). Therefore the father is supporting artificially preconceived ideas in his child's mind.

Don't be surprised if I comment that now you are calling his behaviour abnormal and challenge you on it. If that is 'nitpicking' then you need to learn a little more about how discussion boards work. I'll probably be giving the example of a four year old playing Beethoven and asking if you consider that "abnormal", and if you think you are being quoted out of context - perhaps you should ensure that you can stand over your own words.

say_who_now?

Circular argument is circular lads.

MadsL

say_who_now? wrote: »

Circular argument is circular lads.

Unjustified disapproval is unjustified.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

say_who_now? wrote: »

Circular argument is circular lads.

Circulr argument was condensed two posts back.

If you have any information to suggest that there is more to meet the eye here, please let us in on it. But as I said, if you are right, then it becomes a seperate issue: kids being used as politcal tools.

Also, if you are right (and to stay on topic), there have been many other cases of kids who genuinely preferred wearing skirts. This case aside, how do you feel about the topic of boys who WANT to wear dresses in an acceptable society?