DCUM Forum

Anonymous

04/14/2014 15:51 Subject: He is all boy

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if not "all boy" or "girly girl", what do you say as a gesture? She's just a little lady or he's a big boy?

"S/he's just an active [quiet, loud, busy, creative, etc.] kid!"

It is not mandatory to reference sex. Really. We'll still understand you're talking about the small child in front of you.

Seriously, you find it problematic to refer to children as "boy" or "girl"????

Exactly, good grief.

Yes, that's what people are up in arms about. Referring to a child as a boy or a girl.

Not about attributing certain behaviors to boys, and suggesting that boys that don't behave in a certain way aren't really boys.

Nope, not at all!

Anonymous

04/14/2014 15:24 Subject: He is all boy

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if not "all boy" or "girly girl", what do you say as a gesture? She's just a little lady or he's a big boy?

"S/he's just an active [quiet, loud, busy, creative, etc.] kid!"

It is not mandatory to reference sex. Really. We'll still understand you're talking about the small child in front of you.

Seriously, you find it problematic to refer to children as "boy" or "girl"????

Exactly, good grief.

Anonymous

04/14/2014 15:07 Subject: He is all boy

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was a rhetorical question. Obviously I know what I means. Just saying it's a really stupid phrase.

Come on, OP. You know very well what it means. This is such a tired, tedious subject. It's not 1972 is it?

WTF! As someone who was born in 1972, I'm so upset to see this as the "old" date that is used.

1972 is now the "It is not 1950"

Assholes.

I assume that PP said 1972 because 1972 is the year that everybody (yes, even you!) learned everything there is to learn about sexism.

Well, except for the part where everybody evidently didn't.

Anonymous

04/14/2014 15:05 Subject: He is all boy

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was a rhetorical question. Obviously I know what I means. Just saying it's a really stupid phrase.

Come on, OP. You know very well what it means. This is such a tired, tedious subject. It's not 1972 is it?

WTF! As someone who was born in 1972, I'm so upset to see this as the "old" date that is used.

1972 is now the "It is not 1950"

Assholes.

Crazy! It was a reference to the topic of the day in 1972 (gender roles and feminism), not a stand-in for "old."

Anonymous

04/14/2014 15:03 Subject: He is all boy

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if not "all boy" or "girly girl", what do you say as a gesture? She's just a little lady or he's a big boy?

"S/he's just an active [quiet, loud, busy, creative, etc.] kid!"

It is not mandatory to reference sex. Really. We'll still understand you're talking about the small child in front of you.

Seriously, you find it problematic to refer to children as "boy" or "girl"????

Anonymous

04/14/2014 15:00 Subject: He is all boy

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was a rhetorical question. Obviously I know what I means. Just saying it's a really stupid phrase.

Come on, OP. You know very well what it means. This is such a tired, tedious subject. It's not 1972 is it?

WTF! As someone who was born in 1972, I'm so upset to see this as the "old" date that is used.

1972 is now the "It is not 1950"

Assholes.

Um, I don't think that's why PP referenced 1972. Do you seriously have no clue about what current events were going on the year you were born? Google it, and then come back and let us know who's the asshole here.

Anonymous

04/14/2014 14:57 Subject: Re:He is all boy

Anonymous wrote:

I don't have sons (I don't have kids), so this actually isn't about me at all.

But I do know men who were made to feel "less than" because they weren't athletic. I also know gay men who had experiences where sayings like that were definitely used in a homophobic context.

I hope you realize that most of us are rolling our eyes at parenting advice (on a parenting forum no less) from a non-parent.

Equivalent to me going to the pets forum and having no dogs or cats or any pets for that matter and have never having had any, but I've seen enough of them and they're owners outside to give advice on the topic and tell the pet owners (and they're not brand new owners) what they're doing right and wrong.

I'm not offering parenting advice. This is about society, stereotypes, et cetera. Not about parenting.

Similarly, even a person has no pets is free to have opinions about dogs, especially when they live in the same world and have to deal with them. I've never had a pit bull, but I firmly and solidly will argue that I have every right to have an opinion and make it known about pit bulls who live in my neighborhood.

This particular thread isn't about parenting advice, but guess what, even if it were, I'd still have a right to an opinion. Roll your eyes all you want, but it isn't like your children don't affect me, like I don't have to interact with them in the world. You get a tax break for having a kid. My taxes go to public services, like schools, for children. Roll your eyes all you want, but I get to have an opinion about things that affect me, my life, my property, my taxes.

You don't have to agree, and barring abuse, you get to parent however you want. But I still get to express myself -- in public even! or on the internet.

Roll your eyes all you want.

And how does the term "all boy" affect you, your life, your property or your taxes? Are you the same poster who was up in arms about the girl outside in her Dora pajamas?