A question for parents

[BCD]

How far will you allow something to go that can fall under "boys will be boys"? Similarly, do you have any such concept for daughters?

[RebootedCorpse]

I'd need more specifics. But I generally don't buy that argument.

[Jim T.]

I'd need more specifics. But I generally don't buy that argument.

Nor I.

[AndrewG]

I'd need more specifics. But I generally don't buy that argument.

Same here.

[Generic Poster]

Yeah - that phrase is generally used to excuse unacceptable behavior, in my experience. Need more details, though.

[BCD]

Yeah - that phrase is generally used to excuse unacceptable behavior, in my experience. Need more details, though.

Well, that's what I meant basically. Just how far will you allow a mischievous scamp to run amok before you reign him in?

[PimpSlapStick!]

How far will you allow something to go that can fall under "boys will be boys"? Similarly, do you have any such concept for daughters?


Up til a point I follow that and I feel when my son gets older (11-12yrs) he ain't getting away with murder

Don't have a daughter yet

[Treacle]

How far will you allow something to go that can fall under "boys will be boys"? Similarly, do you have any such concept for daughters?

I don't have kids, but that whole "boys will be boys" stuff is some bullshit.

Sure, kids will be kids. But why would you have different standards of behavior for your children based on something like their gender?

[dEnny!]

I don't have kids, but that whole "boys will be boys" stuff is some bullshit.

Sure, kids will be kids. But why would you have different standards of behavior for your children based on something like their gender?

Because there is a difference between the two genders?

I don't usually see girls play aggressively (I'm sure they do, but boys appear to do it more frequently) i.e. wrestling, playing with sticks, roughhousing, but boys do so when I see my son and the two boys in the neighborhood playing a little rough I keep an eye on them to make sure they don't cross the line, but if I see them tackling each other and having fun don't think anything of it.

I guess if I had a daughter and she did it too I wouldn't think much of it, but normally girls don't participate.

For me, "boys will be boys" is are they playing louder or more aggressively, but still nicely, but I don't see it as treating children differently, but accepting the differences that seem to be natural for boys and girls.

Obviously there is no one way, so you have to understand not to generalize, but let's be honest boys and girls are different though they may participate in similar activities.

[PimpSlapStick!]

I don't have kids, but that whole "boys will be boys" stuff is some bullshit.

Sure, kids will be kids. But why would you have different standards of behavior for your children based on something like their gender?


Simple, girls can get pregnant, sure it's some ol'Bullshit, but I'm a guy and a dad so the daughter (If I had one) is on lockdown.

Plus boys can take more trauma, that don't mean let them run unabated. I just thin little girls need to be protected if just a bit more than boys.

So sue me

[Masculine Todd]

Because there is a difference between the two genders?

I don't usually see girls play aggressively i.e. wrestling, playing with sticks, roughhousing, but boys do so when I see my son and the two boys in the neighborhood playing a little rough I keep an eye on them to make sure they don't cross the line, but if I see them tackling each other and having fun don't think anything of it.

I guess if I had a daughter and she did it too I wouldn't think much of it, but normally girls don't participate.

For me, "boys will be boys" is are they playing louder or more aggressively, but still nicely, but I don't see it as treating children differently, but accepting the differences that seem to be natural for boys and girls.

Obviously there is no one way so you have to understand not to generalize, but let's be honest boys and girls are different.

That isn't "natural" though, is it? It's not inherent. Gender is a social construct, right? Treacle, go get 'em.

[PimpSlapStick!]

Because there is a difference between the two genders?

I don't usually see girls play aggressively (I'm sure they do, but boys appear to do it more frequently) i.e. wrestling, playing with sticks, roughhousing, but boys do so when I see my son and the two boys in the neighborhood playing a little rough I keep an eye on them to make sure they don't cross the line, but if I see them tackling each other and having fun don't think anything of it.

I guess if I had a daughter and she did it too I wouldn't think much of it, but normally girls don't participate.

For me, "boys will be boys" is are they playing louder or more aggressively, but still nicely, but I don't see it as treating children differently, but accepting the differences that seem to be natural for boys and girls.

Obviously there is no one way, so you have to understand not to generalize, but let's be honest boys and girls are different though they may participate in similar activities.


What he said

[PimpSlapStick!]

That isn't "natural" though, is it? It's not inherent. Gender is a social construct, right? Treacle, go get 'em.


More the norm, most boys rough house, break bones, shit talk etc..sure ya could bring in the gay argument, but generally speakin' males need to get some of that aggression out.

[Ray G.]

Boys are naturally more exuberant than girls.

Thus, if I had boys and if they're not causing any damage, I'd likely acknowledge that my boys are just doing what comes naturally. And if I had a girl who acted like that, I'd assume it's just in her nature too.

[dEnny!]

That isn't "natural" though, is it? It's not inherent. Gender is a social construct, right? Treacle, go get 'em.

I feel it is inherent, not to say it's an absolute, but I think this idea of gender as a social construct is used to explain the exceptions. I think men naturally act one way, they are usually more aggressive due to the testosterone, women have estrogen so are more empathetic and maternal, etc.

There are differences between gender, but that's not to say the genders can't have the opposites qualities. That's silly to think that. In my opinion, my wife takes more after her father in a lot of ways, but she's very feminine and has a lot of those qualities.

[Treacle]

Simple, girls can get pregnant, sure it's some ol'Bullshit, but I'm a guy and a dad so the daughter (If I had one) is on lockdown.

Plus boys can take more trauma, that don't mean let them run unabated. I just thin little girls need to be protected if just a bit more than boys.

So sue me

Girls can't get pregnant until they're able to menstruate (i.e. when they reach puberty).

Even if I accepted your explanation that girls need "protection" because they may get knocked up, how does that apply to pre-pubescent children?

[dEnny!]

Boys are naturally more exuberant than girls.

Thus, if I had boys and if they're not causing any damage, I'd likely acknowledge that my boys are just doing what comes naturally. And if I had a girl who acted like that, I'd assume it's just in her nature too.

I would agree with that.

[Treacle]

I feel it is inherent, not to say it's an absolute, but I think this idea of gender as a social construct is used to explain the exceptions. I think men naturally act one way, they are usually more aggressive due to the testosterone, women have estrogen so are more empathetic and maternal, etc.

There are differences between gender, but that's not to say the genders can't have the opposites qualities. That's silly to think that. In my opinion, my wife takes more after her father in a lot of ways, but she's very feminine and has a lot of those qualities.

dEnny!...

Children do not have testosterone or estrogen.

That is actually a huge part of what makes them children.

So even I accepted your argument that hormones do something magical with gender, it would not apply to pre-pubescent boys and girls.

[PimpSlapStick!]

I'm dealing with this issue as we speak and my son he's a fuckin Tasmanian Devil high on sugar and honestly I'm kinda relieved he ain't some pussy (he's only 3 1/2 time will tell) but I'm amazed he can trip up and fall flat on his face, not cry and get back to causing havoc.

Maybe it's a father's pride, but I want my kid sorta rough hewn.

[dEnny!]

Girls can't get pregnant until they're able to menstruate (i.e. when they reach puberty).

Even if I accepted your explanation that girls need "protection" because they may get knocked up, how does that apply to pre-pubescent children?

I think the two sentences were two different ideas, one was about getting knocked up, the other about taking a "knocking" as in playing rough.

[dEnny!]

dEnny!...

Children do not have testosterone or estrogen.

That is actually a huge part of what makes them children.

So even I accepted your argument that hormones do something magical with gender, it would not apply to pre-pubescent boys and girls.

Point, then we'll simplify. That whole XX versus XY makes the two different and "generally" boys act one way and girls act another.

[Treacle]

Because there is a difference between the two genders?

I don't usually see girls play aggressively (I'm sure they do, but boys appear to do it more frequently) i.e. wrestling, playing with sticks, roughhousing, but boys do so when I see my son and the two boys in the neighborhood playing a little rough I keep an eye on them to make sure they don't cross the line, but if I see them tackling each other and having fun don't think anything of it.

I guess if I had a daughter and she did it too I wouldn't think much of it, but normally girls don't participate.

For me, "boys will be boys" is are they playing louder or more aggressively, but still nicely, but I don't see it as treating children differently, but accepting the differences that seem to be natural for boys and girls.

Obviously there is no one way, so you have to understand not to generalize, but let's be honest boys and girls are different though they may participate in similar activities.

How about because the difference is socially constructed?

Studies show that parents begin treating their children differentially based on gender from birth. Female infants are held tighter, held for longer periods, and spoken to in softer tones while male children are roughed up, slung around, and spoken to in louder tones.

The things you're calling "natural" are actually trained into children from the earliest possible age.

I'm a female (once a girl, now a woman) and I grew up roughhousing with guys. I wrestled and played sports and fought and I'm no less of a "natural" woman because of it.

[PimpSlapStick!]

Girls can't get pregnant until they're able to menstruate (i.e. when they reach puberty).

Even if I accepted your explanation that girls need "protection" because they may get knocked up, how does that apply to pre-pubescent children?


Less the toddlers, but regardless it's only natural ya' wanna shelter a girl more. I ain't trying to justify my feelings with concret "Scientificky" arguments. I'm a dad and whether ya call it natural instinct, inherent genetic traits, whatever I inherently feel my son needs to tussle around get strong grow a thick skin etc..and I inherently feel theres more severe dangers for a girl.

Take it or leave it

[Treacle]

I'm dealing with this issue as we speak and my son he's a fuckin Tasmanian Devil high on sugar and honestly I'm kinda relieved he ain't some pussy (he's only 3 1/2 time will tell) but I'm amazed he can trip up and fall flat on his face, not cry and get back to causing havoc.

Maybe it's a father's pride, but I want my kid sorta rough hewn.

Getting up after you fall is not a gendered trait, PimpSlapStick.

Girl children and boy children both get up after they fall.

[dEnny!]

Getting up after you fall is not a gendered trait, PimpSlapStick.

Girl children and boy children both get up after they fall.

I saw a little girl riding her bike down the street and the wheel turned on her resulting in her flying over the handle bar and HEAD BUTTING THE ASPHALT! I was driving by and freaked out thinking she'd busted her head open or got a concussion. I kid you not, she got up, looked around...and kept on riding when she noticed no one saw. :shock:

[Treacle]

Point, then we'll simplify. That whole XX versus XY makes the two different and "generally" boys act one way and girls act another.

And my point is you're insisting there are inherent differences before there is any biological basis for said differences.

Aside from genitals which are determined in utero, gender is not genetically expressed until the onset of puberty. Stated another way, until children reach adolescence, they are functionally the same. What you perceive as "natural" gender differences are really an expression of differences in socially acceptable behavior for people who are typed female and male.

If XX and XY chromosomes were doing all the work, you wouldn't end up with disorders like Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome where genotype males are phenotypic females because their bodies are incapable of responding to the genotypically appropriate hormones.

[Treacle]

Less the toddlers, but regardless it's only natural ya' wanna shelter a girl more. I ain't trying to justify my feelings with concret "Scientificky" arguments. I'm a dad and whether ya call it natural instinct, inherent genetic traits, whatever I inherently feel my son needs to tussle around get strong grow a thick skin etc..and I inherently feel theres more severe dangers for a girl.

Take it or leave it

I'm a woman, and I leave it.

I sincerely hope that if you ever have a daughter, you don't raise her to be a stereotype.

[Jason California]

How about because the difference is socially constructed?

Studies show that parents begin treating their children differentially based on gender from birth. Female infants are held tighter, held for longer periods, and spoken to in softer tones while male children are roughed up, slung around, and spoken to in louder tones.

The things you're calling "natural" are actually trained into children from the earliest possible age.

I'm a female (once a girl, now a woman) and I grew up roughhousing with guys. I wrestled and played sports and fought and I'm no less of a "natural" woman because of it.


Boys and girls are wired different.

[Treacle]

Boys and girls are wired different.

You wanna give me some studies to back that up?

[Treacle]

A couple of briefs from the APA:

Men and Women: No Big Difference
Studies show that one's sex has little or no bearing on personality, cognition and leadership (http://www.psychologymatters.org/nodifference.html)

Think Again: Men and Women Share Cognitive Skills
Research debunks myths about cognitive difference (http://www.psychologymatters.org/thinkagain.html)

[PimpSlapStick!]

Getting up after you fall is not a gendered trait, PimpSlapStick.

Girl children and boy children both get up after they fall.


Treacle your cold logic and seeming inability to feel emotion is making you miss the point. Maybe ya' need to be a parent, Pimpslap that's me, is deeply amused and interested in his son's behavior Pimpslap likes for his son to be a boy, Pimpslap with cavemen logic, me want son to be strongest one there is, me want him to smash stuff, and wrestle and backhand weaker boys because me want real boy not timid pussified son.

Me like future daughter to be lady, soft and kind, cute and loving, to see daddy (Me) as protector and provider, me want her find good man one day, not pussified man, but good strong moral man to make me not worry about her in Caveman Pimpslap's old age. Me want son to have strong kids like Pimpslap and continue Pimpslap legacy of Pimpness.

[Criden]

A couple of briefs from the APA:

Men and Women: No Big Difference
Studies show that one's sex has little or no bearing on personality, cognition and leadership (http://www.psychologymatters.org/nodifference.html)

Think Again: Men and Women Share Cognitive Skills
Research debunks myths about cognitive difference (http://www.psychologymatters.org/thinkagain.html)

Also, from a more ethnographic standpoint:

Boys, Girls, and Junior Sexualities
http://www.amazon.com/Girls-Boys-Junior-Sexualities-Exploring/dp/0415314976

[PimpSlapStick!]

I'm a woman, and I leave it.

I sincerely hope that if you ever have a daughter, you don't raise her to be a stereotype.


Nah I'ma raise her to know when to shut her mouth when men are talking ;)

Seriously, if I had a daughter I'm sure I'll lose my mind, go bald and grey at an accelerated pace.

[Treacle]

Treacle your cold logic and seeming inability to feel emotion is making you miss the point. Maybe ya' need to be a parent, Pimpslap that's me, is deeply amused and interested in his son's behavior Pimpslap likes for his son to be a boy, Pimpslap with cavemen logic, me want son to be strongest one there is, me want him to smash stuff, and wrestle and backhand weaker boys because me want real boy not timid pussified son.

Me like future daughter to be lady, soft and kind, cute and loving, to see daddy (Me) as protector and provider, me want her find good man one day, not pussified man, but good strong moral man to make me not worry about her in Caveman Pimpslap's old age. Me want son to have strong kids like Pimpslap and continue Pimpslap legacy of Pimpness.

The thing is, Caveman Pimpslap, the mentality that women are inherently weaker and in need of protection and must have a good man around to handle their business is what contributes to the pervasive sexism in society (both American and other) today.

The people who argued back at the turn of the last century that women shouldn't have the right to vote...they used that same "natural differences" and "women need protection" argument.

The people who argue that women shouldn't have access to birth control or morning after pills or abortions use that same "natural differences" and "women need protection" argument.

The folks who shot down the bill for equal pay across genders...they used that same argument.

I'm not saying you believe any of those things. I think you're a decent person. What am I saying is that that particular brand of benevolent sexism has far reaching implications, most of them damaging, for women today.

It's not that I'm coldly logical or missing your point. It's that your perspective negatively impacts my life in ways which will never affect yours.

[Treacle]

Also, from a more ethnographic standpoint:

Boys, Girls, and Junior Sexualities
http://www.amazon.com/Girls-Boys-Junior-Sexualities-Exploring/dp/0415314976

Lord, I'm about to type out my entire comps reading list.

Back when I was in grad school, doing that whole Ph.D. thing, gender was of my main areas of concentration (the other two were race and class).

[dEnny!]

How about because the difference is socially constructed?

Studies show that parents begin treating their children differentially based on gender from birth. Female infants are held tighter, held for longer periods, and spoken to in softer tones while male children are roughed up, slung around, and spoken to in louder tones.

The things you're calling "natural" are actually trained into children from the earliest possible age.

I'm a female (once a girl, now a woman) and I grew up roughhousing with guys. I wrestled and played sports and fought and I'm no less of a "natural" woman because of it.

I never said that roughhousing means you aren't natural or womanly. Girls play too.

A part of me wants a 3rd child, especially if it could be a girl, just to see if I treat her any differently (I think I'd know). Of course being older I might not want to roughhouse. :p

I hold my boys, I coddle them, and kiss on them, but I also play rough with them....I think in a lot of areas I'd treat her the same, but ultimately she is a girl and my boys are boys and I treat them how they want to be treated. I listen to them. My son lets me know when I'm doing something he doesn't like, if I'm being too rough or what not, but I don't think that has as much to do with it as girls are girls and boys are boys and there is a difference.

[dEnny!]

The thing is, Caveman Pimpslap, the mentality that women are inherently weaker and in need of protection and must have a good man around to handle their business is what contributes to the pervasive sexism in society (both American and other) today.

The people who argued back at the turn of the last century that women shouldn't have the right to vote...they used that same "natural differences" and "women need protection" argument.

The people who argue that women shouldn't have access to birth control or morning after pills or abortions use that same "natural differences" and "women need protection" argument.

The folks who shot down the bill for equal pay across genders...they used that same argument.

I'm not saying you believe any of those things. I think you're a decent person. What am I saying is that that particular brand of benevolent sexism has far reaching implications, most of them damaging, for women today.

It's not that I'm coldly logical or missing your point. It's that your perspective negatively impacts my life in ways which will never affect yours.

Don't you worry little missy, I'll take care of him for you. :p

I AM TOTALLY JOKING!

I am buying less into the whole equal pay thing, but I work for an organization that tries its best to make sure everyone is paid equally based on experience and education.

Now if you say women make less than men, that's possible, but that may have more to do with men holding higher positions, but a lot of the women I work with do not aspire for any level higher than what they already attained. The ones who do have just as many opportunities (if not more at my organization) to move up because it sure looks good on those federal employment stats.

[dEnny!]

A couple of briefs from the APA:

Men and Women: No Big Difference
Studies show that one's sex has little or no bearing on personality, cognition and leadership (http://www.psychologymatters.org/nodifference.html)

Think Again: Men and Women Share Cognitive Skills
Research debunks myths about cognitive difference (http://www.psychologymatters.org/thinkagain.html)

Way to jump out on the limb and state genders are the same in areas of COGNITIVE ABILITY and LEADERSHIP. NOOOOO...really. Duh.

But at the end of the day, the two genders have differences.

[PimpSlapStick!]

The thing is, Caveman Pimpslap, the mentality that women are inherently weaker and in need of protection and must have a good man around to handle their business is what contributes to the pervasive sexism in society (both American and other) today.

The people who argued back at the turn of the last century that women shouldn't have the right to vote...they used that same "natural differences" and "women need protection" argument.

The people who argue that women shouldn't have access to birth control or morning after pills or abortions use that same "natural differences" and "women need protection" argument.

The folks who shot down the bill for equal pay across genders...they used that same argument.

I'm not saying you believe any of those things. I think you're a decent person. What am I saying is that that particular brand of benevolent sexism has far reaching implications, most of them damaging, for women today.

It's not that I'm coldly logical or missing your point. It's that your perspective negatively impacts my life in ways which will never affect yours.


Alright I see your point Pimpslap has empathy

I'm a guy I can apologize for that, but no use in doing so. At the end of the day I love women/girls and I'ma all about being the man for the women in my life. It's hard to let go of those "roles" women are just as strong as men, I just think in different ways.

I know the strength of women first hand (my mother, grnadmother..) but I also know the value of good male figures (My Pops and grandfather, Uncles..) sadly I realize male figures in black families are problematic and I happen to be that rare kid who had his father so for me it shaped my perspective. Men provide/protect and women nurture/comfort, either can do both, but really the problems I see stem from a lack of fathers.

So your fundamentally right, but for our people real talk niggas don't be there for their kids so it leads to weak men, I ain't about that can't have that.

[PimpSlapStick!]

Don't you worry little missy, I'll take care of him for you. :p

I AM TOTALLY JOKING!

I am buying less into the whole equal pay thing, but I work for an organization that tries its best to make sure everyone is paid equally based on experience and education.

Now if you say women make less than men, that's possible, but that may have more to do with men holding higher positions, but a lot of the women I work with do not aspire for any level higher than what they already attained. The ones who do have just as many opportunities (if not more at my organization) to move up because it sure looks good on those federal employment stats.

:mistrust:

To backhand or not to backhand that is the question

[PimpSlapStick!]

Alright gotta roll

Holla

[Treacle]

I am buying less into the whole equal pay thing, but I work for an organization that tries its best to make sure everyone is paid equally based on experience and education.

Now if you say women make less than men, that's possible, but that may have more to do with men holding higher positions, but a lot of the women I work with do not aspire for any level higher than what they already attained. The ones who do have just as many opportunities (if not more at my organization) to move up because it sure looks good on those federal employment stats.

dEnny!, I don't know what organization you work for, and honestly if we're talking about national statistics it doesn't matter.

The most recent U.S. Census data as well as the the current Population Survey show that women make 76.5% of the income that men do.

Recent studies published by the American Sociological Review show that this income disparity has less to do with women's lack of ambition (which is what you seem to be implying) and more to do with workplace bias and the way social networks are structured. For example, employers are less likely to hire women with children. Furthermore, when mothers are hired, they are usually paid less than men of the same age and commensurate work experience.

[Treacle]

Way to jump out on the limb and state genders are the same in areas of COGNITIVE ABILITY and LEADERSHIP. NOOOOO...really. Duh.

But at the end of the day, the two genders have differences.

What are these differences then?

I like how you ignored that the APA article also discussed personalities (and how they're more alike than different), which directly conflicts with the nucleus of your entire argument.

[costello]

This exact argument is what's keeping my sister from visiting me this summer. Her 4 year old son has been suspended from nursery school because of the mantras "boys will be boys" and "he'll grow out of it."

My mantra isn't "boys will be boys" but "my boy will be my boy." He doesn't have free will, he abides by my will. He will do what I say and will act accordingly or there will be consequences. There are rules social norms everywhere you go. He will learn to respect them and to carry himself as a young boy should.

It isn't just sit still and be quiet stuff, but always say "sir" or "ma'am" when addressing an adult, always look an adult in the eyes, say "please" and "thank you" and sit with the adults until you are told you can play.

My sister thinks I'm Hitler, but her children are insane.

[costello]

What are these differences then?

I like how you ignored that the APA article also discussed personalities (and how they're more alike than different), which directly conflicts with the nucleus of your entire argument.

One has a penis and one has a vagina.

Before I jump in on this argument of yours (if I jump in), my son spent the first 4 weeks in a pink crib at daycare because it's all they had left. I could give two shits what color crib he was in as long as he was treated with care by the staff.

I guess other parents went ape shit and refused to send their child to the facility because of the "pink crib."

[AndrewG]

I think someone else mentioned it but I subscribe more to the 'kids will be kids' theory. When I was a kid the girls and boys in the neighborhood played the same types of games. Up until the age of 10 or 11 everyone played with guns and wrestled and had friendly games of wiffle ball and also did more subdued stuff like arts and crafts. Same goes for the kids in the neighborhood now. The younger girls aren't as interested in playing shooter X-Box games but they do it. And there are plenty of times the boys are over at the girls house playing with makeup.

They're gonna be playing a lot. They're going to be louder than I want but as long as no one is getting too rough (drop kicking someone off the trampoline) or too roudy (cursing, being rude) I let them be.

Actually around here, the girls tend to be the more aggressive with physical play (refering back to drop kicks on the trampoline lol) and getting loud. The kids are all pretty much still at the age where they just want to play with their friends and haven't lumped things into gender specific areas like (only the boys can play guns and only the girls will do crafts) and I like it that way.

[costello]

People need to start shouting "parents will be parents."

[Akira]

Less the toddlers, but regardless it's only natural ya' wanna shelter a girl more. I ain't trying to justify my feelings with concret "Scientificky" arguments. I'm a dad and whether ya call it natural instinct, inherent genetic traits, whatever I inherently feel my son needs to tussle around get strong grow a thick skin etc..and I inherently feel theres more severe dangers for a girl.

Take it or leave it

but wouldn't you worry that by sheltering your daughter you'll be making her more vulnerable and less equipped to face the dangers of the world? thus creating a self-fulfilling prophecy?

[Rantz]

When friends of mine, who only have sons say to me "You're so lucky to only have girls... Boys are such terrors!" I LAUGH MY ASS OFF until I pass out. My daughters are more physical, rough house oriented than ANY of the boys that are their age... it's insane. They have manners, and behave (mostly) when the chips are down, but with four of them, one of them is ALWAYS doing something that makes me go "WTF... where is your sense of self-preservation?!?" If my wife and I are not around.

They like dresses and 'pretty things', but at the same time, they'd rather watch Star Wars, play videogames, or draw comic books, or (insert image of me going WTF) figuring out how fast they can run down the hall, hit a towel on the travertine floor, and see who can slide the farthest without smashing into the wall.

"kids will be kids" is an excuse for letting them experiment with behavior dangerous to their well being (physical, social or psych)... ALL kids, boys AND girls learn by pushing the limits. It's your job as a parent to let them learn by doing without endangering themselves.

I'm MUCH less worried about them rough housing or doing stuff like that, than I am dreading the 'dating years'... I have my rocking chair, bowie knife, and short barrel shotgun ready on the porch. I know what evil manipulative shits boys are... because I WAS one.

[Dreaded Anomaly]

Psychological gender identity (as far as it exists) and physical sex do not always go together.

I have to say, the idea that people (children or adults) should be treated based on their gender (psychological or physical) is a bit hard for me to understand. People are individuals and have individual differences. Generalizations based on gender are only useful as gross approximations when no other information is available. In a familiar relationship, that certainly shouldn't be the case.

Treacle, are you familiar with Gilligan's ideas? I'm taking a course on moral development right now, and we've been focusing on Kohlberg but are now starting to get into Gilligan, and her stuff depends a lot on gender identities.

[Treacle]

Psychological gender identity (as far as it exists) and physical sex do not always go together.

I have to say, the idea that people (children or adults) should be treated based on their gender (psychological or physical) is a bit hard for me to understand. People are individuals and have individual differences. Generalizations based on gender are only useful as gross approximations when no other information is available. In a familiar relationship, that certainly shouldn't be the case.

Treacle, are you familiar with Gilligan's ideas? I'm taking a course on moral development right now, and we've been focusing on Kohlberg but are now starting to get into Gilligan, and her stuff depends a lot on gender identities.

Carol Gilligan, right? Renowned for her work on the gendered differences in moral reasoning? Ethic of care vs. ethic of justice?

I thought her work was interesting, but incredibly essentialist. She reifies the notion that there are not two only distinct genders but that they also have two completely different ways of seeing the world.

On the plus side, however, she offered a theoretical perspective which validated many women's decision making processes (before then, they'd been dismissed as emotional or illogical).

Like most feminists of her generation, I think her research was necessary, but that her results don't necessarily hold water today.

[Dreaded Anomaly]

Carol Gilligan, right? Renowned for her work on the gendered differences in moral reasoning? Ethic of care vs. ethic of justice?

I thought her work was interesting, but incredibly essentialist. She reifies the notion that there are not two only distinct genders but that they also have two completely different ways of seeing the world.

On the plus side, however, she offered a theoretical perspective which validated many women's decision making processes (before then, they'd been dismissed as emotional or illogical).

Like most feminists of her generation, I think her research was necessary, but that her results don't necessarily hold water today.

Yep, that's her.

From what I've learned about her work so far, I think it's much in the same vein as Kohlberg's (somewhat ironically, as she's one of his greatest critics). The phenomena she describes do appear often in society and being able to consider and recognize them is useful, but it doesn't get to the most fundamental level of human psychology.

[that bastard]

I'm sorry but I haven;t read the entire thread but my wife and I were just discussing this subject in regard to, mostly, teen sex issues...

I don't believe in the "Boys will be boys" nonsense. I think it's more like "little assholes will be little assholes if you ALLOW them to be little assholes".

There's proper and there's improper and the young men in our country are, more and more, having IMPROPER shoved down their throats via the media or their idiot friends or lackluster role models. I'm not saying one must live a life of piety and that premarital sex is a no-no or anything like that. That's ridiculous. I just think that a young man shouldn't dip his wick without knowing FULL WELL the possible outcomes. AND, conversely, a yong man shouldn't be the object of ridicule if he chooses to abstain or if he is gay. There is FAR too much of this "homosexuality is BAD" and "Gays are the ENEMY" bullshit out there. I think that is a reflection of how much of a hold the "moral" right-wing Christian fundamentalists have had on this country but that's an entire topic unto itself.

I live in Pittsburgh. EVERY WHERE YOU GO there are teenage girls with babies. EVERYWHERE. I would be foolish to place the blame entirely on the young men they have sex with because, frankly, teen girls need to be educated just as well. My daughter is only 18 months old, but I know that I'm going to teach her to respect herself and to talk openly and honestly with us and to know that saying "No" or, possible, "Not YET" is OKAY and to not give in to pressure and that having sex with a boy will NOT guarantee they love you or even stick around.

Boys need to learn respect. They need to learn that young women are not notches on bed-posts. Like I said, I'm all for sexual experimentation and sex as an expression of love or even lust (there is a PLACE for the "one-night-stand" but I think being voting age should be a requirement).

The "abstinence" angle doesn't work. It will NEVER work. So I propose we teach kids the concept of QUALITY over QUANTITY.

And, also, I propose we teach our sons and daughters NOT to be little assholes.