Gender Identity Storm

I've been watching this public debate about gender roles with interested curiosity. A Canadian couple decides not to tell anyone what the gender of their child is, and refuses to impose gender roles upon the child. At age 3 months, I guess that means no blue or pink jammies or wallpaper, no dolls that depict typical boys or girls, etc. From CNN's report:

Instead of the usual birth announcement of 'It's a Boy!' or 'It's a Girl!', Stocker and Witterick sent out an e-mail announcement that said, "We've decided not to share Storm's sex for now -- a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm's lifetime (a more progressive place? ...)."

At 3 months, I say, 'Big Deal'. The child isn't processing much more than 'Mommy', 'Daddy', 'Hungry!', 'Wet', or 'Tired'. With our kids, we didn't go out of our way to put the girl in pink, and the boy in blue. Heck, the boy is youngest, so at 3 months, he wore some pink. We just weren't going to go and buy more outfits because the color wasn't right for a kid who couldn't comprehend the difference anyway.

As parents, we aren't in any kind of hurry for any kind of roles for our kids, apart from 'avid reader', 'good student', and 'thoughtful, polite kid'. We kept them away from Barbie dolls and monster trucks.

Funny thing about that. The kids both embraced their gender roles, but hard. Isabel's wardrobe and bedroom are monuments to pink and purple, princesses and ponies. Not because we foisted it upon her. Nope. She just loves it. Nobody had to force it on her. Likewise, Ethan just loves construction machinery, garbage trucks, cement trucks, buses, and trains. Nobody directed him to these things. Well, ok- he got some of the train enthusiasm from me. Maybe a lot, even. But he is such a boy. He has long hair and people sometimes think he's a girl... despite wearing camo's. people are so funny with assumptions. But, spend 15 minutes with him, and you discover that he is all boy. He runs into walls full speed, he's into everything, and if it's machinery, he loves it.

In the case of Isabel, we specifically wished to avoid all the princess stuff. It's so over-the-top, and we don't want our kids thinking of themselves as royalty. You can fight it as hard as you want. She saw it once, was totally fascinated, and gravitated to all things princess ever more. So, why should we withhold something she loves from her? It might not have been our preference, but it's pretty harmless stuff if it isn't indulgent.

We want a lot of things for our kids, and I think too many times parents want to sculpt their kids into idealized versions of themselves, at the expense of what the kids really have inside themselves. I think that's where this discussion ought to lead, if it's too be constructive. These parents seem to have a 'progressive' idealism worked out for their kid. What if what's really inside the child is nothing of the sort, and a strong identification with whichever gender role the child happens to be? Are they going to stifle it? Would that be 'progressive'?

Rare, Honest- Refreshing

I was bowled over by a CNN article, on it's own news story.

It's very rare that I'm going to be interested in that kind of story. News that talks about itself? That's usually self-absorption on the order of an American Idol contestant, and thus, not at all interesting. But since it may signal that finally, FINALLY, on the day after the holiday to celebrate the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., finally CNN and other mainstream media may begin to be getting the greatest essence of King's great speech:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

You see, CNN and all the other major media tend to denote Barack Obama as the 'black candidate', and Hilary Clinton as the 'female candidate', at least implicitly. A recent CNN article promoted this 'vision' as the main way for black female voters to look at the Democratic primary in South Carolina, with race and gender the only factor; issues a non-factor, John Edwards a non-factor... nevermind for Dennis Kucinich. Choose: a female president, or a black president.

For these women, a unique, and most unexpected dilemma, presents itself: Should they vote their race, or should they vote their gender?

In the context of Dr. King's words, or any other intelligent context, it's appalling. But, it's refreshing that CNN viewers and website readers rebelled. It's just as refreshing that CNN had the courage to create an article out of the acknowledgment of their stupidity. That's the sort of accountability in media I would like to see more regularly, so kudos to CNN.

The email response is just marvelous. Here's just one message:

An e-mailer named Tiffany responded sarcastically: "Duh, I'm a black woman and here I am at the voting booth. Duh, since I'm illiterate I'll pull down the lever for someone. Hm... Well, he black so I may vote for him... oh wait she a woman I may vote for her... What Ise gon' do? Oh lordy!"

Tiffany urged CNN to "pull this racist crap off" the Web site and to stop calling Hillary the "top female candidate."

"Stop calling Barack the "Black" candidate," she wrote.

The entire articles are worth reading. And if you didn't yesterday, read the entire text of Dr. King's great speech. Then remember: 'content of character', and think about the policy they would promote.