• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Princess Boy

#81
Ray Salamon said:
...you're kidding, right? Cases have gone to the Supreme Court about hermaphrodite's being put into one box for sex, and then they later identify themselves as the other later, and hence needing to get everything up to an including a new Certificate of Live Birth in order to have their lives set straight, with what they identify to. So the child is deemed a "male" at birth, parents put all the social norms for males into effect for the child, but the child itself identifies itself as female...
Again, just an extension of the discussion that was happening, and probably too far OT to really continue, anyway.
Click to expand...

I'm not kidding. The urge to wear certain clothes doesn't rise from our gonads. Legal questions are different from a question of how to dress a child.

There have been cases of hemaphrodites who did realize their status. I also know of people like the South African runner who raised female but who apparently is "male." I have a different viewpoint, I'm not ignorant.
 
#82
Ray Salamon said:
At a high level:
The way I differentiate them is for the basic good of the individual (i.e. your cookie example would obviously be detrimental to their health, and spoiling the child does nothing good for them) versus individual psychology (i.e. the child may identify as female, though they have male "parts", therefore they want to dress as female etc. This would be something that you're not going to change, just make them feel bad or good, about).
Click to expand...

Okay, I see where you're coming from. Thanks!

I would like to suggest a third option, though. From what I'm reading I gather that there are basically two camps here - camp 1 saying that the child should be encouraged in his self-idenfication, and camp 2 postulating it would be better for everybody if said child were repressed until the age of majority.

My position is, why is it necessary to encourage or to repress? Why can't we simply say, "Very nice Jimmy/Janey, that's a nice dress. Unfortunately, the way we do it here is, you wear X until you're old enough."

Similarly to how we do it with things like drinking, smoking, and how we used to do it with things like listening to heavy metal, dating, and getting pierced. You want to do it, fine - but you do it later, because right now, I'm responsible for how you behave.

Why do we have to pass judgement? Why can't we simply say don't do that right now? It's what I would do with my children, were I in this position.
 
#84
R. Laevinus said:
Okay, I see where you're coming from. Thanks!

I would like to suggest a third option, though. From what I'm reading I gather that there are basically two camps here - camp 1 saying that the child should be encouraged in his self-idenfication, and camp 2 postulating it would be better for everybody if said child were repressed until the age of majority.

My position is, why is it necessary to encourage or to repress? Why can't we simply say, "Very nice Jimmy/Janey, that's a nice dress. Unfortunately, the way we do it here is, you wear X until you're old enough."

Similarly to how we do it with things like drinking, smoking, and how we used to do it with things like listening to heavy metal, dating, and getting pierced. You want to do it, fine - but you do it later, because right now, I'm responsible for how you behave.

Why do we have to pass judgement? Why can't we simply say don't do that right now? It's what I would do with my children, were I in this position.
Click to expand...
a) It's still an act of suppression
b) the inevitable question of "why" will come out, and how do you explain that? "You have to do this because society says so"?

I know people are just trying to "look out" for the child, and do what they think is best. I'm not arguing against that one bit - that's what every parent does (or at least, should...). The only thing I was trying to do was bring in very common ideas of what might actually be the case here - being the possibility that this child actually identifies as female. Also, I was trying to question validity social norms in the same bite.

At the end of the day, it's a 5 year old. Let them wear what they want. When it comes time to public interaction, if you feel the need to dress them up as a male, even to their dissatisfaction, then go ahead and do so. Just realize that there might be more going on in that little head than you know, or even knew was possible ;).

*exits thread as from here on out, I only see me repeating myself*
 
#91
Llfs02.jpg

Figure 1.--Mothers in the late 19th century dressed their boys in Little Lord Fauntleroy suits, fancy velvet suits with lace collars. Often the boys had curls or long hair and to balance such fancy outfits they would have their picture taken with decidedly boyish artifacts such as a toy cannon, or in this case an early tricycle.
Click to expand...

The transition from elegant velvet Little Lord Fauntleroy suits, kilts, sailor suits, and dressy short pants to casual sweat shirts and blue jeans or baggy trousers for boys is an interesting study in social history. A boy of today who wears trendy, comfortable fashions that he usually helps select could hardly recognise his counterpart of 100 years past. In an earlier era, he might have found himself outfitted in a delicate lace collar and fancy velvet knee pants, sailor suits or kilts. Even older boys would usually wear an Eton collar, large bows and long stockings. Parents at the time dressed formally and insisted that their children also dress smartly to reflect well on the family, and to demonstrate their often hard-won social status. Gradually styles changed in the mid 20th Century to more practical soft collars, short trousers and knickers, before the modern incarnation of sneakers, baggy jeans, label t-shirts and sweats . Our HBC website should charm anyone susceptible to the enchantment and beauty of childhood. It is also designed to be a storehouse of ideas and inspiration for those concerned with fashion and design and those interested children historical experiences from ancient times to our modern age.
Click to expand...

The Fauntleroy suit, so well-described by Burnett and realized in Reginald Birch's detailed pen-and-ink drawings, created a major fad for formal dress for American middle-class children:

"What the Earl saw was a graceful, childish figure in a black velvet suit, with a lace collar, and with lovelocks waving about the handsome, manly little face, whose eyes met his with a look of innocent good-fellowship." (Little Lord Fauntleroy)

The Fauntleroy suit appeared in Europe as well, but nowhere was it as popular as America. The classic Fauntleroy suit was a velvet cut-away jacket and matching knee pants worn with a fancy blouse with a large lace or ruffled collar. These suits appear right after the publication of Mrs. Burnett's story (1885) and were a major fashion until after the turn of the 20th century. Many boys who did not wear an actual Fauntleroy suit, wore suits with Fauntleroy elements such as a fancy blouse or floppy bow. Only a minority of boys wore ringlet curls with these suits, but the photographic record confirms that many boys did. It was most popular for boys about 3–8 years of age, but some older boys wore them as well. It has been speculated that the popularity of the style encouraged many mothers to breech their boys earlier than before and was a factor in the decline of the fashion of dressing small boys in dresses and other skirted garments...
Click to expand...

As to why mothers would've attired their young sons in "dresses and other skirted garments" in the first place? My guess is that in an age of hand-stitched everything keeping a large family of rapidly growing kids of both sexes in pantaloons as well as gown-type garments would've been more trouble than it was worth.
 
#93
onosson said:
Questions of gender-identity and rights all aside for a moment...

can someone please explain to me what exactly is wrong with any 5-year old child wearing a dress?

Do large numbers of people in 21st century N. America really have a problem with this? (honest question)
Click to expand...

I personally don't think it's a big deal, but at the same time the concept does unsettle me a little. I mean, in one sense, what he's doing isn't hurting anybody, but at precisely the same time, I still find the idea kind of disturbing, same thing with MIJ-VI's post. When I was their age I was getting covered in sawdust and grease when my father was fixing stuff at home, I was getting covered in mud playing with army men, and other things that one would consider masculine. admittedly in high school I played a girl in drama class, and I'm also aware that other people dress like that for a number of reasons - they lost a bet, they needed to for a play or musical production because it's hilarious, or even because they feel like a woman. Whatever their choice is I'm not losing any sleep, and even though the concept of a child doing that EVERY DAY, or the facts in the previous post kinda disturb me I'm still not losing any sleep and the kid(s) aren't hurting anybody.
 
#95
A parent’s role is not to allow children to express themselves in any way that doesn’t kill them. It is to prepare them for the road that lies ahead.

Part of the job is to instruct and model appropriate masculinity and femininity. Many problems we have today are the result of men abdicating and/or misunderstanding their responsibilities.

These parents can raise their children as they please. The fact that they have their 5 year old son on TV in a dress and are using him to sell books is revealing.

That others would encourage this behavior to promote their own view of how the world should be does not seem unlikely.
 
#96
The boy said it best himself in that video: he likes bright colours.
Due to his affinity for vibrant hues my call is that he's a budding artist.

If he were stimulated by sound more than sight he'd likely be wearing something different than he does.
 
#98
That others would discourage this behavior to promote their own view of how the world should be does not seem unlikely, either.

I still don't understand what anyone thinks is wrong with a 5-year old kid wearing dresses or bright colours ... can anyone explain this?

I will add that my son likes to wear bright colours, and occasionally wears hand-me-downs from his sister (I mentioned this earlier). When his hair is long it forms an afro (his mom is from the Caribbean), and often when I'm out with my two kids (both wearing jeans and t-shirts usually) they are mistaken for sisters. NOT a big deal - and he doesn't care, it actually bothers his sister more.

There's no way I'm going to discourage my son from wearing anything "feminine" that he wants to - unless it's high heels, those are terrible for your feet.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back