I'm okay with my purple glitter boy, but cringe at my girly girl. Want help in changing. - Page 5

[Daffodil]

Originally Posted by hakeber 

Now c'mon.  Why is it frivolous for a a girl to choose a hello kitty laptop but not frivolous for a man to want the newest Ipod?

I think it IS frivolous for a man (or a woman) to want the newest iPod if he wants it just to look cool or because it makes him feel cool to have the latest thing, not because it has some improved feature that's important to him.

[hakeber]

Originally Posted by Daffodil 

I think it IS frivolous for a man (or a woman) to want the newest iPod if he wants it just to look cool or because it makes him feel cool to have the latest thing, not because it has some improved feature that's important to him.

ahhhh but if someone chooses the sleek new look, no one disparages them for it, or considers their ideas less important as a result because no one ASSUMES it is a frivolous purchase.  They never question it.  In fact, often quite the contrary, no matter how frivolous it may have been to get it, we assume if it looks spartan, it must be serious and ergo they must be serious too.  

The same cannot be said for those people (not just women) who choose sparkles.  Even if I were to pay half price, and have twice the applications, there is an immediate stigma attached to pink rhinestones, as opposed to the sleek stark black items.  We judge others immediately by the outer appearance, and the judgement for girly things, girly clothes and girly style is that the person who uses those things is superficial, mentally deficient, and probably star-struck and materialistic, simply for having or using those things, regardless of the truth.  It is an unfortunate situation, and while it might not be the most important thing, it is a facet of one's happiness and well being to have the freedom and autonomy to express visually and openly one's likes and dislikes and the fact that one set of likes and dislikes is acceptable as "adult" and the other is written off as unacceptably frivolous is unfair.

It reminds me very much of my friend Lina who came from Kenya to work for UNICEF in their New York Office and after her first week she was asked to "tone down" her ethnicity by not wearing SUCH bright clothes and SUCH big jewelry...if she could just blend a little that would make everyone ELSE much less uncomfortable around her...hmmmm.  It seems to me we give the same admonishment, albeit much more subtlely, to young women every day.  If you want to fit in, YOU adapt to the dominant culture.  Why should anyone have to edit who they are for any reason if they have a valuable skill set and the drive and devotion to work hard to get it done?  Isn't it just as superficial to judge someone by their appearance as it is to care about one's own appearance?

ETA: throughout history one of the most effective ways for a regime to stamp out the spirits of those they oppress has been to ban, either legally or through violent suppression the freedom of expression of those things that reflect their inner spirit, their heritage and their preferences.  It might not be of the utmost importance for people to be able to wear the colors of their choice, or the jewelry of their choice, to be allowed to wear the costumes of their choice...but it is much less about the item itself and much more about the autonomy of choice, which is a human need.

The question is, in our current state of affairs, how do we know when our daughters are making a genuine choice and expressing a genuine preference and when they are just reacting to the social pressures around them.  Even my not yet 2 year old can suss out that pink and glitter gets her WAY more oohing and ahhing and smiles and attention in public than her blue overalls and red sweatshirt (which she used to love but now screams in anger when you go near her with them).  That is the tricky part for me.  How do I know she is choosing it and not just being conditioned to choose it?

Edited by hakeber - 11/17/11 at 6:42pm

[Imakcerka]

So right, and it goes much deeper than that.  Falling in line to any side is an easy way to hurt who you are.  Damn it if sparkles make you happy and pink is your wardrobe than DO IT!  By the way DD2 asked for a jar of sparkles for Christmas.  Such an easy list. 
 

Originally Posted by hakeber 

ahhhh but if someone chooses the sleek new look, no one disparages them for it, or considers their ideas less important as a result because no one ASSUMES it is a frivolous purchase.  They never question it.  It fact, often quite the contrary, no matter how frivolous it may have been to get it, they assume if it looks spartan, it is serious.  

The same cannot be said for those people (not just women) who choose sparkles.  Even if I were to pay half price, and have twice the applications, there is an immediate stigma attached to pink rhinestones, as opposed to the sleek stark black items.  We judge others immediately by the outer appearance, and the judgement for girly things, girly clothes and girly style is that the person who uses those things is superficial, mentally deficient, and probably star-struck and materialistic, simply for having or using those things, regardless of the truth.  It is an unfortunate situation, and while it might not be the most important thing, it is a facet of one's happiness and well being to have the freedom and autonomy to express visually and openly one's likes and dislikes and the fact that one set of likes and dislikes is acceptable as "adult" and the other is written off as unacceptably frivolous is unfair.

It reminds me very much of my friend Lina who came from Kenya to work for UNICEF in their New York Office and after her first week she was asked to "tone down" her ethnicity by not wearing SUCH bright clothes and SUCH big jewelry...if she could just blend a little that would make everyone ELSE much less uncomfortable around her...hmmmm.  It seems to me we give the same admonishment, albeit much more subtlely, to young women every day.  If you want to fit in, YOU adapt to the dominant culture.  Why should anyone have to edit who they are for any reason if they have a valuable skill set and the drive and devotion to work hard to get it done?  Isn't it just as superficial to judge someone by their appearance as it is to care about one's own appearance?

ETA: throughout history one of the most effective ways for a regime to stamp out the spirits of those they oppress has been to ban, either legally or through violent suppression the freedom of expression of those things that reflect their inner spirit, their heritage and their preferences.  It might not be of the utmost importance for people to be able to wear the colors of their choice, or the jewelry of their choice, to be allowed to wear the costumes of their choice...but it is much less about the item itself and much more about the autonomy of choice, which is a human need.

The question is, in our current state of affairs, how do we know when our daughters are making a genuine choice and expressing a genuine preference and when they are just reacting to the social pressures around them.  Even my not yet 2 year old can suss out that pink and glitter gets her WAY more oohing and ahhing and smiles and attention in public than her blue overalls and red sweatshirt (which she used to love but now screams in anger when you go near her with them).  That is the tricky part for me.  How do I know she is choosing it and not just being conditioned to choose it?

[hakeber]

Originally Posted by Imakcerka 

So right, and it goes much deeper than that.  Falling in line to any side is an easy way to hurt who you are.  Damn it if sparkles make you happy and pink is your wardrobe than DO IT!  By the way DD2 asked for a jar of sparkles for Christmas.  Such an easy list. 
 

A jar of sparkles...that is so easy. Do you have bead store near you, or a Swavorski dealer?  

I actually would adore a set of food glitters for my baking supplies. They'd make my cupcakes and cookies extra fun.

:)

[SweetSilver]

Originally Posted by hakeber 

Sweet Silver, I think it is awesome that your niece is an accomplished progressive cheerleader who can pose in a sexy calendar and stillnot feel objectified by society.  I am also sure that if she ever ran for public office that is the first thing the opposition would pick up on, and she would be lambasted for participating in soft porn and setting a poor example for young girls...what a dispicable catch 22, no?   When a sexy cheerleader can be also taken seriously in the realms of society traditionally thought of as for men, I think we'll know we've gotten somewhere. 

I guess I wasn't bringing my point as far as politics.  What I meant to illustrate is that different tendencies in childhood, even in adolescence, is not the indicator we imagine it is. 

And, yes, I did think positively about my niece who is so different from what I value (in general) and yet seems more empowered and open hearted than others that have had the more gender neutral upbringing that I find more appealing (in general).  I think much of her outlook is because of her parents.  I don't know any parents who expressed their love and support for their kids so well.  Both of their kids are moving through life as if the world is their oyster-- pardon the cliche.  

So, politics is far from my mind with this issue, though it is an important point.  I prefer to see this as raising good people-- thoughtful, openhearted, generous, unselfish, brave, self-reflective, healthy, happy people.  Frilliness (or not) is a red herring.  It is not indicative of the outcome.  That's my point.

[hakeber]

Originally Posted by SweetSilver  I prefer to see this as raising good people-- thoughtful, openhearted, generous, unselfish, brave, self-reflective, healthy, happy people. 

I wish we had more people like that in politics.  The world would be a better place.  But  I didn't just mean politics...generally in the realms traditionally reserved for men such as politics, but also law, medicine, finance, academia, science, technology, business...women are generally held to a higher standard of seriousness than men.  I hope that the world continues to be her oyster even if she ever does leave the world of Cheerleading and enter a field more dominated by men.

Frilliness (or not) is a red herring.  It is not indicative of the outcome.  That's my point.

Well in that you are absolutely correct. Ultimately your niece's parents did something we all strive to do, I think (hope?): love our children ferociously, and unconditionally and encourage them to love themselves no matter who they turn out to be.  Who are at six doesn't necessarily determine who you will be forever.

BTW Beanma, I looked up Ilona Staller, the Italian politician with a history in Porn (not just sexy calendar stuff, but still)  Despite being democratically elected to her position, there is not a single link on the first 5 pages ( didn't look beyond that) of a google search of her name that doesn't refer to her as an Ex-porn star or pornstar/politician...always the porn thing comes first...She is known for being a pron star first, rather than one of a handful of democratically elected female politicians in Italy. 

On the flip side, I can't find any references to any male politicians with a past in stripping or porn, though musician and political activist Tom Morello once stripped for a living and no one ever seems to focus on that in his headlines.

ETA:  I have no problem with porn, sexy calendar girls, or strippers, I am just pointing out the difference in treatment in one particular case as I find it indicative of a trend.

[SweetSilver]

Originally Posted by hakeber 

On the flip side, I can't find any references to any male politicians with a past in stripping or porn, though musician and political activist Tom Morello once stripped for a living and no one ever seems to focus on that in his headlines.

Not porn-- but Ronald Reagan never escaped his Hollywood past (of course, I was in high school at the time and may have heard a disproportionate amount of ribbing in the area).  George W. was forever branded a "cowboy" and still was identified with his substance abuse (though he used that time as a testament to his faith).  Jesse Ventura, Arnold Schwarzenegger, etc. have all been identified with their pasts long into their terms.  While men don't usually get criticized for their looks, still the past can loom large.

True, if you researched the Presidents their past occupations would be footnotes.  But for lesser known politicians you could find it useful to say "Oh yeah, that lady really is that porn star."  If she was a famous porn star then all the more reason.  Just speculation on my part.  I have no vested opinion in this particular instance, but I do admit to not being suspicious about any ulterior motives.  (Well, Italian politics is a different beast than the American one.)

I live in a state where the governor and both US Senators are women right now.  I'm not hearing about Chris Gregoire's clothing choices or anything like that.  Except for some criticism about tennis shoes in Patty Murray's first term, the jabs seem to me the same as for the men in our state, in the sense that they are no more and no less, just different.  (And I hear it a lot!  My extended family is pretty conservative politically and we live in the "blue side" of a blue state.)   Perhaps our state is different, or that I am so disconnected with the corporate and political culture that I don't see bias as being pervasive.

Random point I couldn't fit into a paragraph--  the most serious criticism about Sarah Palin's wardrobe was that she used McCain's campaign funds to buy outrageously expensive clothes, so it wasn't just anti-feminist media fluff.  

Sorry, OP, I've tried to keep my posts relevant to your original post, but this one went astray.  I will add that my sister's success with her kids was that she *demonstrated* her love for them better than any parent I know, not that she loved them any more.