Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I say this about my older son because he is such a stereotypical a little boy. Love trucks, construction sites, and dirt.

I don't think it is sexist as all. (Coming from an educated, former "tomboy" mom.)

It's bigoted. If your son didn't like trucks, would that make him less of a boy?

It is so sexist, it drives me crazy. BAnd it is annoying. But there are people who will never get it.

It's the same with "tomboy." It implies that a girl is not typically athletic or high energy, sew have to give a girl like this a nickname. I was a very active, athletic girl and don't consider myself a tomboy. I was an athlete who wore skirts. My older girl is also a high energy athletic girl who is just as happy throwing balls as she is playing dolls. Awareness of outdated terms is important.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This. In junior high I was forced to play football and basketball with the boys in our co-ed gym class. I was miserable. I threw like a girl and was proud of it. I had no desire to play like a boy. Nothing wrong with saying you kid is all boy or all girl. If I had a girl and she lived the pretty princess stuff and someone called her all girl I'd say yes, seems to be very true. We gave general gender differentiation a for a reason; otherwise, we'd die out as a species.

We'd die out as a species if girls didn't like pink frilly things and boys didn't like trucks? For most of human history, there haven't been pink frilly things or trucks.

I think people who are not on the "girlie girl" end or the "all boy" end of the spectrum may have a hard time accepting that others actually are. You may feel neutral but that doesn't mean everyone else does.

People who are not "girly girls" or "all boy" are actually pretty familiar with the idea that there are people who are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I say this about my older son because he is such a stereotypical a little boy. Love trucks, construction sites, and dirt.

I don't think it is sexist as all. (Coming from an educated, former "tomboy" mom.)

It's bigoted. If your son didn't like trucks, would that make him less of a boy?

It is so sexist, it drives me crazy. BAnd it is annoying. But there are people who will never get it.

To the woman who said she is proud to throw like a girl: there was a recent paper (I forget where, you'll have to google) where they ferreted out whether "throwing like a girl" was in-born (anatomical) due to socialization. They found it was pure socialization: little girls throw balls thousands and thousands of times less than little boys over the course of a childhood, get less feedback on correct throwing stance, etc. and so...throw like a girl.

I believe there are indeed biological differences between boys and girls, men and women. But to assume those differences manifest themselves in hyperactive/mean/violent behavior in boys, and frilly/quiet/emotive ways in girls is not correct and not helpful. It is hurtful to boys and girls who don't conform to your norm.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This. In junior high I was forced to play football and basketball with the boys in our co-ed gym class. I was miserable. I threw like a girl and was proud of it. I had no desire to play like a boy. Nothing wrong with saying you kid is all boy or all girl. If I had a girl and she lived the pretty princess stuff and someone called her all girl I'd say yes, seems to be very true. We gave general gender differentiation a for a reason; otherwise, we'd die out as a species.

We'd die out as a species if girls didn't like pink frilly things and boys didn't like trucks? For most of human history, there haven't been pink frilly things or trucks.

I think people who are not on the "girlie girl" end or the "all boy" end of the spectrum may have a hard time accepting that others actually are. You may feel neutral but that doesn't mean everyone else does.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The fact that you find those "boy traits" unflattering is why school is so hard on boys. Boys really need to do things like run around a lot more than girls do. They naturally swing sticks around too. There is nothing wrong with it. If you look at any playground you can see this. Sure there are girls who will also be running around, but for the most part, boys need WAY more exercise than girls do. They NEED it. If they are forced to sit still, then their inability to do that may be seen as "wild hellion" behavior but that is grossly unfair to them and just shows how little you understand boys. If you forced your DD to run around the same amount to make things even, instead of forcing boys to tone it down, it would be cruel.

PP, do you think it's all nature (or God's design)? None of it has to do with society's expectations and the way we raise children? Because that's not what the science says.

Males and females genetically different. That's a fact. We have different hormones/hormone levels. That's also a fact. How in the world could this NOT have any effect on how we behave? Of course it does.

Anonymous wrote:This. In junior high I was forced to play football and basketball with the boys in our co-ed gym class. I was miserable. I threw like a girl and was proud of it. I had no desire to play like a boy. Nothing wrong with saying you kid is all boy or all girl. If I had a girl and she lived the pretty princess stuff and someone called her all girl I'd say yes, seems to be very true. We gave general gender differentiation a for a reason; otherwise, we'd die out as a species.

We'd die out as a species if girls didn't like pink frilly things and boys didn't like trucks? For most of human history, there haven't been pink frilly things or trucks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The fact that you find those "boy traits" unflattering is why school is so hard on boys. Boys really need to do things like run around a lot more than girls do. They naturally swing sticks around too. There is nothing wrong with it. If you look at any playground you can see this. Sure there are girls who will also be running around, but for the most part, boys need WAY more exercise than girls do. They NEED it. If they are forced to sit still, then their inability to do that may be seen as "wild hellion" behavior but that is grossly unfair to them and just shows how little you understand boys. If you forced your DD to run around the same amount to make things even, instead of forcing boys to tone it down, it would be cruel.

PP, do you think it's all nature (or God's design)? None of it has to do with society's expectations and the way we raise children? Because that's not what the science says.

I don't buy that it's not what the science says. I am basing my opinion on real life experience. I learned through having boys that society's expectations play no part in this in the early years. None whatsoever. I also thought gender-based behavior was something that society forced on people but now I don't believe that. I was a tomboy so I wasn't affected by society's expectations growing up, and that should have been my first clue. But it was having boys that drove this home. They are very, very different from girls, in my experience.

I had a younger brother. I was much more active than he was. He was quiet and calm, even as a toddler. So is he less boy? Am I less girl?

Some kids are more active and hyper than others. It has nothing to do with sex. That's why the phrase is ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:I don't buy that it's not what the science says. I am basing my opinion on real life experience. I learned through having boys that society's expectations play no part in this in the early years. None whatsoever. I also thought gender-based behavior was something that society forced on people but now I don't believe that. I was a tomboy so I wasn't affected by society's expectations growing up, and that should have been my first clue. But it was having boys that drove this home. They are very, very different from girls, in my experience.

That, exactly, is the difference between anecdote and data.

I strongly recommend Cordelia Fine's book Delusions of Gender and Lise Eliot's book Pink Brain, Blue Brain.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why, though, are the "all boy" characteristics so negative? Your kid gets called "all boy" when he is behaving like a wild hellion. I know, because sometimes my boy behaved like a wild hellion and was called "all boy." But when he was kind and considerate and brave no one called him all boy. Its crap. For the PP who wondered what to say when a boy is on a rampage and you want to sympathize with the mom...what would you say if it was a girl on a rampage? They do it, too? I'd probably smile and shake my head and say "Kids! They do grow up, though. Would you like some chocolate?"

This. Not only is it based on sexist stereotypes of children, it's really unflattering to boys.

The fact that you find those "boy traits" unflattering is why school is so hard on boys. Boys really need to do things like run around a lot more than girls do. They naturally swing sticks around too. There is nothing wrong with it. If you look at any playground you can see this. Sure there are girls who will also be running around, but for the most part, boys need WAY more exercise than girls do. They NEED it. If they are forced to sit still, then their inability to do that may be seen as "wild hellion" behavior but that is grossly unfair to them and just shows how little you understand boys. If you forced your DD to run around the same amount to make things even, instead of forcing boys to tone it down, it would be cruel.

This. In junior high I was forced to play football and basketball with the boys in our co-ed gym class. I was miserable. I threw like a girl and was proud of it. I had no desire to play like a boy. Nothing wrong with saying you kid is all boy or all girl. If I had a girl and she lived the pretty princess stuff and someone called her all girl I'd say yes, seems to be very true. We gave general gender differentiation a for a reason; otherwise, we'd die out as a species.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The fact that you find those "boy traits" unflattering is why school is so hard on boys. Boys really need to do things like run around a lot more than girls do. They naturally swing sticks around too. There is nothing wrong with it. If you look at any playground you can see this. Sure there are girls who will also be running around, but for the most part, boys need WAY more exercise than girls do. They NEED it. If they are forced to sit still, then their inability to do that may be seen as "wild hellion" behavior but that is grossly unfair to them and just shows how little you understand boys. If you forced your DD to run around the same amount to make things even, instead of forcing boys to tone it down, it would be cruel.

PP, do you think it's all nature (or God's design)? None of it has to do with society's expectations and the way we raise children? Because that's not what the science says.

I don't buy that it's not what the science says. I am basing my opinion on real life experience. I learned through having boys that society's expectations play no part in this in the early years. None whatsoever. I also thought gender-based behavior was something that society forced on people but now I don't believe that. I was a tomboy so I wasn't affected by society's expectations growing up, and that should have been my first clue. But it was having boys that drove this home. They are very, very different from girls, in my experience.

Do you have any daughters? Because I know plenty of people with daughters who will tell you differently.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why, though, are the "all boy" characteristics so negative? Your kid gets called "all boy" when he is behaving like a wild hellion. I know, because sometimes my boy behaved like a wild hellion and was called "all boy." But when he was kind and considerate and brave no one called him all boy. Its crap. For the PP who wondered what to say when a boy is on a rampage and you want to sympathize with the mom...what would you say if it was a girl on a rampage? They do it, too? I'd probably smile and shake my head and say "Kids! They do grow up, though. Would you like some chocolate?"

This. Not only is it based on sexist stereotypes of children, it's really unflattering to boys.

The fact that you find those "boy traits" unflattering is why school is so hard on boys. Boys really need to do things like run around a lot more than girls do. They naturally swing sticks around too. There is nothing wrong with it. If you look at any playground you can see this. Sure there are girls who will also be running around, but for the most part, boys need WAY more exercise than girls do. They NEED it. If they are forced to sit still, then their inability to do that may be seen as "wild hellion" behavior but that is grossly unfair to them and just shows how little you understand boys. If you forced your DD to run around the same amount to make things even, instead of forcing boys to tone it down, it would be cruel.

Actually, I think girls need JUST AS MUCH exercise as boys. But girls are pressured to control their energy in ways boys are not, and it leads to all sorts of other kinds of issues. All kids need to run around and have time outdoors. To suggest that boys need more than girls is ridiculous. Perhaps girls do not run around as much because early on, they are encouraged not to because girly girls don't do that. It's ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The fact that you find those "boy traits" unflattering is why school is so hard on boys. Boys really need to do things like run around a lot more than girls do. They naturally swing sticks around too. There is nothing wrong with it. If you look at any playground you can see this. Sure there are girls who will also be running around, but for the most part, boys need WAY more exercise than girls do. They NEED it. If they are forced to sit still, then their inability to do that may be seen as "wild hellion" behavior but that is grossly unfair to them and just shows how little you understand boys. If you forced your DD to run around the same amount to make things even, instead of forcing boys to tone it down, it would be cruel.

PP, do you think it's all nature (or God's design)? None of it has to do with society's expectations and the way we raise children? Because that's not what the science says.

I don't buy that it's not what the science says. I am basing my opinion on real life experience. I learned through having boys that society's expectations play no part in this in the early years. None whatsoever. I also thought gender-based behavior was something that society forced on people but now I don't believe that. I was a tomboy so I wasn't affected by society's expectations growing up, and that should have been my first clue. But it was having boys that drove this home. They are very, very different from girls, in my experience.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Your DD will never be "all boy" but she could be on the "all boy" end of the scale.

I was a die-hard tomboy growing up. I loved bugs, dirt, boy toys and most of all, BOYS. But I didn't realize until I had boys of my own just how much more "all boy" they were than my tomboy self was. Boys are not girls. Girls who wear pants are not "all boy." Accept it.

If the PP's DD can be on the "all boy" end of the scale because she loves bugs, dirt, and "boy" toys, then labeling the ends of the scale "all boy" and "all girl" doesn't make sense.

Actually the scale doesn't make sense anyway. Pink is not the opposite of blue. Trucks are not the opposite of tutus.

You clearly don't understand what a scale is. It is a range. People fall somewhere along it.

I do understand what a scale is. Perhaps you don't, though? One end is one thing, the other end is the opposite. Now tell me how that makes sense with trucks and tutus.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Your DD will never be "all boy" but she could be on the "all boy" end of the scale.

I was a die-hard tomboy growing up. I loved bugs, dirt, boy toys and most of all, BOYS. But I didn't realize until I had boys of my own just how much more "all boy" they were than my tomboy self was. Boys are not girls. Girls who wear pants are not "all boy." Accept it.

If the PP's DD can be on the "all boy" end of the scale because she loves bugs, dirt, and "boy" toys, then labeling the ends of the scale "all boy" and "all girl" doesn't make sense.

Actually the scale doesn't make sense anyway. Pink is not the opposite of blue. Trucks are not the opposite of tutus.

You clearly don't understand what a scale is. It is a range. People fall somewhere along it.