And yet, you're still here. |
You can't get the girl anything pink or sparkly, nothing to do with dolls or clothes or princesses or fairytales. You can't say she's cute or pretty or adorable. It's exhausting. Chill the fuck out OP because in all honesty no one cares. |
No, people like you are exhausting. OP never said that pink was verboten, just that sometimes she buys dinosaur pants in the boys' department. Your hangups about gender are your issue. And clearly people like you care. A lot. You are really invested in enforcing gender norms. |
I'm not talking about fashion. But you wouldn't know that. |
Then what the hell are you talking about? If you dress your baby girl in pants sometimes she'll be messed up as an adult? |
No, PP. She won't. Calm down. There is no point in responding if you don't care to read the message first. |
I don't care. Just don't get mad if I say "he" instead of "she" about your baby. That is how it is different. I can't go around calling all babies "it" though I would prefer that. That would offend many people too. You can't win on this stuff. Op is dressing child neutrally--fine. But gets mad when MIL says "now she looks like a girl!" When in a dress. It is very possible the baby did look like a boy and grandma is just enjoying the frills and her only granddaughter. |
You're talking to multiple people here - what do you mean by "dress well" then? |
Thank you. Like I said in the OP, she has dolls, dresses, all sorts of stereotypically girly things. Hell, she has a freaking fairy thing on her bookshelf. She also has a stuffed monkey in a spacesuit and some clothes from the boys section. I'm sorry your friend puts tons of restrictions on what you can get her kid. That's not what I'm doing. |
| The amount of internalized misogyny and acceptance of machoism on this thread is disappointing, yet predictable. Putting a baby in clothing of any type, color, or ruffle volume will not harm them, confuse them, or other otherwise effect them. The projection of gender stereotypes that are know to be harmful throughout life, on the other hand, will harm both your child and those around them. |
Exactly this. |
DP. I don't get it either. If PP's comment about dressing well doesn't mean fashion, but also doesn't mean dressing in pants, what does it mean? Anyway, whatever. Many girls in the 70s and 80s wore their brothers' jeans. Most of them survived and turned out to be fine women. If you think clothes are going to give a kid a complex, focus on the ridiculously tight leggings and short shorts that are sold even in the toddler girls' section. I have a 4 year old boy and a 6 month old girl and I saved the boy's shorts and pants for this reason. I can't get jeggings on my baby, even if I wanted her to look like a fat stuffed sausage, but my son's old pants fit her just fine. Plain jeans plus a pretty top and she looks cute enough. The times people have mistaken her for a boy, she was wearing pink, so go figure. Also, as long as we're talking personal anecdotes, my mom has zero sense of style and dressed us pretty horribly. A truly awful plaid vest comes to mind -- well past the era of plaid (1995 and I was 15). My sister and I both managed to turn into decently dressed, well-adjusted, successful, happy women, once we were allowed to choose our own clothes! |
It's "affect," smarty-pants, not "effect." I guess this is what your meaningless degree in Women's Gender Studies taught you. |
| If your MIL lives 2000 miles away, I'd ignore this. |
You're really pretty angry. What do you have against women's gender studies? |