National Let Your Boy Be a Girl Day

This kind of reminds me when my oldest son learned to ride a bike. In my family the "training-wheel" bike that they learn on is a hand-me-down from when I was a kid (uni-sex dark purple color) it is pretty beat up and the reward for learning to ride without training wheels is a trip to the store for the first "new bike" .

When we got there all my son wanted were the girl bikes. They were bright colored, sparkly and had all kinds of neat girly stuff. For the life of me, I could not steer him over towards the boy bikes, and I could not bring myself to purchase a girl bike for him. His five-year-old mind was set on the bright pink bike with the sparkly pom-poms attached to the handle bars. I knew he may like the girly bike at first, but as soon as he rellaized that most/all boys don't ride bikes like that or if he got teased, he would regret the purchase. We left the store without a bike and he was extremely disappointed.

Was I so wrong to not purchase the girl bike? and if so, then what do you think of parents that are raising their children "uni-sexual"? (not promoting or allowing any type of gender group identification). I think back on this sometimes, and I'm not sure if I acted correctly and would appreciate any thoughts.

PS- I do recognize the double standard, especially now that I have a daughter after having two boys. I'm fine with getting rid of the double standard, but I also would not put my kids in a position where they are ahead of society's acceptance level, as I think that can have negative consequences.

Kris,

I probably would have also left the store without a bike, and tried to get him to see what other children were riding, then perhaps a week later if it's really what he wanted, get it for him. Kids get teased, if it's not over his bike it'll be over his hair or his sneakers or clothes or any of a million things.

I also wouldn't get the nicest bike they have and keep the receipt (although a kids bike is likely to get banged up awful quick, likely invalidating the return policy)

Why not have a "Let Your Boy Be Day", in which boys are allowed to do the things boys used to be able to do, such as playfighting, playing cops and robbers, playing with toy guns, and yes if it takes their fancy do "girly" things too.

The problem isn't that boys aren't allowed to be like girls, it's that they aren't allowed to be just about anything. Not without them being prescribed Ritalin or told to sit on their hands.

How about we have a new holiday -- National Let Your Girl Be a Girl Day?

I have five kids, two girls, three boys, and I can certainly see the point to this, at a high level.

My daughters are free to express themselves in pretty much any way they want (within the bounds of law and culture, of course). One of them went through a tomboy phase for years, and that was fine. She played sports, never wore a dress, did everything the boys did. She still does, to a large degree, although she now has a boyfriend and enjoys the 'girly girl' stuff too.

In our house we've let the boys do what they want, but they are strongly curtailed by society. One of my sons went through a phase of liking dressing up for parties in fancy dress, and it just happened that his fancy dress of choice was just that - a fancy dress. It was funny for him, but also I think a little exploratory. We never judged or dissuaded him, although I did once warn him to expect a bit of ribbing when it was a school event (the ribbing actually never occurred, thankfully).

I guess I'm conflicted because at heart I agree - boys are NOT as free as girls. Girls have cornered the market here, they are socially acceptable no matter what they do or wear. Boys are only socially acceptable within a relatively narrow framework. That's not fair.

But at the same time, I don't think this is down to women only. Sure, women certainly put pressure on boys/men to conform to their views and to that narrow standard, but so do other boys/men.

If I imagine a Let Boys Be Girls day, that one son may well take the offer up and explore a little, but the other two would be horrified at the very idea - not just because it doesn't appeal to them, but also because the idea of being seen by their peers behaving in that way would be a form of mortal torture.

I think the concept is a good one, but as Kris said, this is probably ahead of the societal curve.

I have two major problems with this idea.

The first being, it is WRONG to put the weight of social change onto children. If these people want to make it socially acceptable for boys to act like girls, then THEY should be the ones to do it, not their children. Children are not an ideological tool or Guinea pig.

The second is the fact that, it is already happening. As GaryB mentioned, his kid didn't get teased for dressing up. And many men have become highly emotional, as women claimed they wanted. Those men are being called Sop's. http://news.mensactivism.org/node/17341

Alternatively, Men are shying away from traditional roles and male stereotypes, and going their own way. But feminists and traditionalists don't like the way they are going, because it isn't in "their" best interests. And so we get calls of irresponsibility and peter pan men (and if you need me to link to those, you don't spend enough time on this website.).

So to clarify, my second issue is that, despite claims of wanting to give men more freedom, they want that freedom to be carefully controlled the way "they" want it.

Seems nothing boys can do today that don't get them ruthlessly criticized by some group or groups.

Lots of good thought provoking comments here...

@ItsDan, I did end up doing similar to what you suggested. I waited a week and then went back to the bike store alone (I can barely stand shopping myself, let alone with kids - so I did not want to bring him with me again) and I purchased a nice BMX type boy bike for him. I brought it home as a surprise and he was happy. I think part of the problem with the original shopping experience was my son being overwhelmed with too many choices and those darn girly bikes have so much bling to catch the attention of kids.

@sirprince, I completely agree! We need a national "boy's day"! BTW by homeschooling my kids have "boy's day" everyday as they are always allowed to do all the stuff you mentioned.

@Kratch > "it is WRONG to put the weight of social change onto children."

This is what I was trying to get at in my last sentence, but your post said it so much better and right to the point.

This topic was posted at another site about the double standard of people being accepting when girls dress, behave or embrace typical male behavior or role models but boys are ridiculed and forbidden to dress, act or embrace typical female behavior or role models.

MRAs pointed out that it was female privilege, and just one more area where boys get the shaft.

But females shot back that the reason for the double standard is because typical female behavior is less valued compared to male behavior. That's why the worst thing you can call a man is to refer to him as a girl or call him a pussy. No man wants to stoop so low as being identified with girls. I know an athlete that once made a public comment about his teammates acting like a bunch of girls when referring to off-court issues (nothing to do with physical ability), everyone knew it was an insult.

Another example is that cooking, cleaning and raising your own kids (usually identified as female tasks) are considered less respectable compared to 'working in the real world'. A person that owns his or her own restaurant is respected. A person who prepares and cleans up three meals a day for his or her family, gets no respect. Today's modern female does not want to learn skills of cooking or cleaning because she knows it is not valued or respected.

I think there is some truth to both theories. I am fine with getting rid of the double standard, but I would like both roles and gender-traits to be respected.

Keep in mind that it was feminists themselves that stated being a homemaker was demeaning. It was feminists that stated being a homemaker was an example of female subjugation. Women since have learned that that is very far from the truth. So the second point is a self created problem for feminists. Being a homemaker was very much a respectable position pre-feminism, it just wasn't the position some women wanted, and so they trashed it (and still do) in order to justify getting out, just as they trash men in order to boost themselves.

As to feminine traits being less valued, that is true, for specific tasks. One needs the right attributes for the right tasks. Being called a girl in sports is an insult, not because the feminine is less valued, but instead because the feminine is less physical. We're told this every time we're told why men should not hit women. It is a stereotype, no different than claims women are more nurturing, which is often used against men (in a manner that is often used to lessen the value of masculinity. IE women make better world leaders because...).

That said, I don't see this issue as one of female privilege ether. Perhaps privilege made it easier to transition, allowing a greater focus on granting women their desire to break down the barriers. But instead, I see it as a feminist attack on femininity. Women were told, by feminists, that the feminine traits were demeaning and subjugating and that they should act more like men did. I also see it as a matter of identity, femininity is enforced by biology. Only the feminine may gestate a baby. Men are more defined by their identity and their ability to provide/survive, something both men and women can achieve, as such, a girl identifying with the masculine still maintains her femininity in that she is still capable if gestation. A man identifying with the feminine is nether female (can't gestate), leaving them lost and without purpose.

Thanks for the input Kratch. It makes alot of sense.

.....and the female ability to have a baby, it is female's one and only "equalizer". Every other task needed to maintain society men can do as good or better than women. Unfortunately feminist are telling women not to value this trait and instead that they can be everything men can be and better (not true!)

I think your last statement sums it up: having babies is the one thing women can do that men cannot. Women can also do other things very well, though not necessarily better than men. Obviously, there are a lot of individual variations in that. Some women can do certain things better than some men.

As to valuing girls less, that's feminist hooey. Feminists denigrated everything traditionally female and exalted everything traditionally male. (When you think about it, it's a strange philosophy for women.) We value girls more in some ways and we value boys more in some ways. Nothing wrong with that. Each sex tends to have its strengths and weaknesses. But when the ship goes down, women get the lifeboats before the men--so who is more valued?

I also think men more than women have to prove their value. I think women are more valued in themselves, perhaps because they are the creators of new life. Men, on the other hand, have to establish their value, usually through accomplishments. This need to establish one's value leads men to do things--and take risks--women rarely do. (Women can do these things--and sometimes do--but have less motivation to do so.) As a result, men have done some very great things--and also some very destructive things. But no man can create new life.