Export thread

Bubble181 said:

I have a personal distaste for the whole "pink for girls, blue for boys" thing. Not only because it was the other way around until about 50 years ago, but also because it's that sort of thing that implants notions in children's heads. I think it was Mike from Penny Arcade (though I'm too lazy to go look it up) who remarked recently that his boy loved pink as a color, and would wear pink, play pink characters in games, and so on - until he got to school, got ridiculed, and suddenly pink is gay he doesn't like it, he likes green! Obviously!
I just think that's sad, and it'll be at least a whole other generation before that sort of silly prejudice is gone.

Click to expand...

(Emphasis added)

I'm curious about that statement. Throughout history humans have aligned themselves with ideas, whether outward or inward, and just based on those ideas alone would determine whether the person in front of them was friend or foe - a survival trait that the above posits is no longer necessary, and thus should be cast off.

I know color choice is relatively low on the scale of personal identity, so ideally it won't be as contentious here as discussing sports team affiliations or steak cooking preferences.

Are we, as Homo sapiens, even able to divorce ourselves from identity to the point where identity doesn't matter, or is this merely a case of making it socially unacceptable to claim a color identity coupled with gender, and thus deprive people of this identity through social cues, while self identity itself will still linger on in our other personal choices?

I always thought the argument against pink for boys wasn't because it was considered feminine, but because it was the mark of a douchebag

Pink used to be the norm for boys. Let me find the article.[DOUBLEPOST=1371652884][/DOUBLEPOST]http://jezebel.com/5790638/the-history-of-pink-for-girls-blue-for-boys

I'll answer the question, at least: Nope.

MindDetective said:

I'll answer the question, at least: Nope.

Click to expand...

I just realized my thread title and my final question are at odds with each other, so a binary response probably isn't going to convey what you're saying.

I'll assume you meant to say, "gender identity isn't important, but Homo sapiens aren't going to be able to eliminate identity as a tool"

Dave said:

Pink used to be the norm for boys. Let me find the article.[DOUBLEPOST=1371652884][/DOUBLEPOST]http://jezebel.com/5790638/the-history-of-pink-for-girls-blue-for-boys

Click to expand...

C'mon, man... you're gonna go and not read the very first post?

stienman said:

I just realized my thread title and my final question are at odds with each other, so a binary response probably isn't going to convey what you're saying.

I'll assume you meant to say, "gender identity isn't important, but Homo sapiens aren't going to be able to eliminate identity as a tool"

Click to expand...

Well, the second half, is all I was going for. The first half I think hinges on what is deemed important.

I think homo sapiens is certainly a loooong way from being able to not use ingroup-outgroup identity, although I also think it would be desirable. Perhaps it's so far away that one could say that it's impossible for the species homo sapiens and so much biological (as opposed to purely cultural) evolution would be required to completely eliminate the phenomenon that those hypothetic humans are part of another species altogether.

Regarding gender identity I think it's not the best kind of it. If we must have an identity that includes some degree of confrontation/fraternity, I'd rather have one that is more fluid and is also not so strongly imposed by society.

Bret "Hitman" Hart wore pink. Bret Hart is awesome.

Argument over.

Ravenpoe said:

C'mon, man... you're gonna go and not read the very first post?

Click to expand...

I did read the post, but I felt that the pink/blue thing was not touched on other than an aside. So I was reiterating with more information.

Gender identity is important.

Not me telling YOU what gender you're supposed to be.

Also, like whatever color you want, I don't care!

I would like to be in charge of assigning gender identities and favourite colours. "YOU! BOY! PUCE!" "YOU! GIRL! BEIGE!" "YOU! HERMAPHRODITE! MAUVE!"

stienman said:

Are we, as Homo sapiens, even able to divorce ourselves from identity to the point where identity doesn't matter...

Click to expand...

tegid said:

I think homo sapiens is certainly a loooong way from being able to not use ingroup-outgroup identity...

Click to expand...

Homo sapiens seems to have a deep-seated need to compartmentalize everything. Pepsi or Coke, Mac or PC, IHOP or Waffle House, Superman or Batman, Democrat or Republican, everyone is judged on which of the two frontrunners you follow. I would wager that gender is no different. People who do not identify with a specific gender (or, by extension, who do not subscribe to the conventional gender "tags") are ostracized since they are obviously counterculture rebels who wish to tear down society.

--Patrick

Food for thought.

Bowielee said:

Food for thought.

Click to expand...

Too lazy/busy to dig up that early Teddy Roosevelt photo right now. Can someone else find it?

--Patrick

WARNING: I've been up 20+ hours with a severe lack of caffeine. Likely to ramble.

Chad Sexington said:

I would like to be in charge of assigning gender identities and favourite colours. "YOU! BOY! PUCE!" "YOU! GIRL! BEIGE!" "YOU! HERMAPHRODITE! MAUVE!"

Click to expand...

As a masculine male, I feel sort of obligated to point to the XKCD where he jokes about men not seeing as many colors as women - no boy would know "puce" if it bit him on the head [either one]. Can't find it though


Anyway, I don't think Homo Sapiens can ever completely outgrow a certain us/them mentality, as the species we are now. We can work on making the "us" bigger, and on altering our behavior towards "them", though.

That is, protecting "our" group against invaders/foreigners/aliens/carnivores/... has its advantages and its reasons. Mostly, you know, no longer valid, but still. But whether it's skin color, physical gender, hair color, age, sexual orientation, place of birth, political stance, sports team, nationality, or anything else, we, in my opinion, need to learn to deal with the "other", not as an aggressor, but as something to explore and learn from.
Consider animals: some animals will see something new and scare away and panic. Others will come closer to investigate. Yet others will try to eat it.
We, as humans, show bits of all of that - a 2 year old will stuff anything in his or her mouth. A scientist will observe something new and hopefully examine it closely. A backwards uneducated hick will see something different and draw back in fear (which leads to hate, suffering, etc).

In a way, I wonder if we'll ever manage to consider "humanity" as "our" group. Probably not until there's a "them" to pit against.(Hey, Watchmen had the right idea!) - there's a reason a lot of SF has humans as the (possibly unwitting) first aggressor.

However, I think there's been a huge leap made from what I said in the original quote vs the question asked here.
Do I think gender identity is important? Well, yes. I do think people, in our current society, need to find their gender identity role. I'll try not to lose myself in all of the options; as far as I'm concerned, they're all acceptable, no matter how many trans- or cis-'s you throw in there.
Do I think we could theoretically do without? Also yes...Though it would be tough. Our sexual identity is, imho, at least partially nature, but it's hard to be sure, as there's no point of comparison. I'm male, and I like women. Could/would I like men if the society I grew up in was based on homosexual sex? I don't know, nor do I think this is the place to try and have that discussion.

However, I think that we should not be imprinting specific presumptions and prejudices on children. It's not because my (imaginary) daughter identifies as female that she "should" like pink. Or dolls. Or tea parties. Or not like football, roughhousing, kickboxing, math, or construction work. "Tomboys" or "effeminate" men shouldn't be seen as breaking some weird gender barrier; they're expressing personal taste and thereby defying prejudices and assumptions.

I think your personal preference for, say, more "logical" things, or more "abstract" things, or a more "technical" leaning, or being a more "nurturing" type, are mostly nature, not nurture. It's nurture, however, that still says a guy who's good with his hands becomes a carpenter, but whatever.
So, I believe children should be allowed to try their hand at all kinds of different things, to "test" them for all kinds of different abilities/talents. Right now, a boy and girl with the exact same talents, interests and abilities, will still get served different tests, different hobbies, and likely evolve in different ways -one may end up a veterinarian and the other a wet nurse. That has nothing to do with gender identity, but, oh horror, I sound like Charlie here,..."the patriarchy" if you insist, but in actuality simply "ingrained, outdated cultural standards which we're only slowly getting rid of".
Perhaps, on average, more women will be of a "nurturing" type than men, and more men are of the "technical" type than women. That doesn't mean "nurturing" jobs are feminine or vice versa. Saying they are, is somewhat akin to (but not exactly the same as, clearly, this is a parallel, not an equality) saying that "cotton picking" or "butler" are just jobs black people tend to gravitate to because it's in their nature.

My wife and I never had any pink or blue with my daughter, all neutral, mostly because we had no idea which we were having. This idea extended until my daughter started choosing pink frilly dresses and dolls. My wife is not a dress wearing type of person so it just happens to be what she likes. She spends more time playing with blocks and trains than dolls still and she is 6.

My son on the other hand prefers green and carries his doll with him. The doll is Luigi though.

My wife and I never had any pink or blue with my daughter, all neutral, mostly because we had no idea which we were having. This idea extended until my daughter started choosing pink frilly dresses and dolls. My wife is not a dress wearing type of person so it just happens to be what she likes. She spends more time playing with blocks and trains than dolls still and she is 6.

My son on the other hand prefers green and carries his doll with him. The doll is Luigi though.