to be bothered by all these references to girl's names and girl's clothes and toys and etc.....

[quirrelquarrel]

I can't shrug it off, I can't take it lightly. Maybe I need to grow up and grow a thicker skin but it really bothers me! Why is it even an issue for boys to wear tights? Why can't girls wear little tops and things from the boy's section? Why do we keep asking these basic Qs over and over? And WHY on earth do people keep making links between sexuality and gender when you're talking about CHILDREN. Never mind later on, how can a little boy in pink even have his sexuality (which is set in stone from bloody birth) magically switched because of the colour he likes, or someone else has put him in.
Wearing a dress = traditionally feminine. Liking boys = traditionally feminine (not necessarily, even!). Why people would even think that one thing, one "concession", would lead to a slippery slope, I don't know.

I'm putting this all very clumsily but I don't know. I don't want to answer threads re: these sorts of topics because I do find it upsetting. I would really like to hear reasons for having distinct boy's/girl's names, that's the most puzzling thing. Anyone?

[SoleSource]

Sorry to hijack bit is it OK to let my DS wear pink clips in his hair to nursery?

Just wondering...

[quirrelquarrel]

is the OP ridiculous?

[SoleSource]

No it is not! :) just peopke worry about all sorts of stuff and questions are repeated. I grt what ypu are saying. Judt eavh to their ow. What can we do to eradicate it, not much now. In time things will improve.

[MrSunshine]

No, but half the people here already think exactly like that, and the other half will tell you you are silly and none of it matters because they are idiots

[quirrelquarrel]

I know they think like that, yes I do.....but other people are cleverer than me and know how to put things more articulately, blah blah etc, I keep thinking there's something big I'm missing.....my father is getting more and more "stuck" in this way of thinking and I see it everywhere. Even on MN, look at the baby names board.

[ZeldaUpNorth]

Hmm actually i may of been guilty of this today. Was in Sainsburys and looking at the halloween costumes. I said to my nan "why are all the girl costumes fairy type witches and the boys ones ugly monsters etc, dd would love to wear something scary." She said well buy her one of the boys ones, and i said "oh no, dd wouldnt wear a boys costume."

[enimmead]

Because certain people make judgements about what you do and firmly believe that boys have to behave in one way and girls in another way.

If a boy plays with a tea set, what will happen to him! Some Dads think it will "give him the gay" and reflects badly on their masculinity. Look at how Billy Elliot's dad treated him when he found out about the ballet.

[Psammead]

Boys wearing tights? Nothing wrong with it. Girls wearing clothes from the boys' section? Nothing wrong with it.

Why do people ask these things over and over? Well perhaps it's the first time for them that the issue has presented itself. Just because a question is answered once or twice, it doesn't go into some sort of hive mind never to be considered again.

Distinct boys and girls names - why not? Boys and girls, and more specifically the men and women thry grow into are distinct from each other. It's a natural linguistic phenonemon to have different labels for different things. Men and women are different. This is not a problem. Having a different value attatched to them is.

[TittyWhistles]

Don't take any notice. My pending dd will be wearing her big brothers cast offs and that's that.

[Trills]

I agree with Psam.

People ask about things because it's new to them.

I disagree with MrSunshine - I think a significant portion of MN do not agree with pointless gender distinction and do think that it matters.

[OldGreyWiffleTest]

One day we'll all be asexual, have the same hair, same style, same colour, wear the same clothes, be indistinguishable from each other.

Until then...........viva la difference!

[quirrelquarrel]

Hmm yes. But James and Oliver and Tom and Bella etc are all perfectly nice ordinary names. I understand how the distinction came about, or why, but why is it still perpetuated when there's not much use for it anymore? A little girl named James would still be beautiful and bright and would still grow up sans penis.

[Ecgwynn]

I agree with you OP. Having said that, I worry that people would think I'm weird if I dressed my son in pink all the time. He does have a lovely pink sleepsuit though.

The other day my PIL and I were putting FIL's flat cap on the baby, for a laugh. Then MIL spied her fascinator and went to get it. My FIL said 'No that's enough', as if it would make my DS gay (which I assume he thinks would be an undesirable state of affairs). Next time I see them then DS is going in his pink sleepsuit and maybe one of those awful baby hairbands if I can get my hands on one!

I think that although people are happy to accept homosexuality in other people, people don't want their child to be gay. Also the old fashioned view that dressing like a girl will make a boy gay still exists.

It's sad :(

[MarysBeard]

I don't think there needs to be any distinction between boys and girls toys. Or clothes/shoes until puberty really.

[quirrelquarrel]

Oh by asking the same old questions over and over- I just meant, why aren't we getting anywhere.

[SoleSource]

I like Charlie.

[strandednomore]

My dd has gone to school today in boys trousers. About half her wardrobe now is made up of boys clothes. (she is 7). I actually confess I have to fight myself to allow her this, as we do live in culture where some people think this is strange and what I really don't want for my daughter to be seen as "different", to get picked on etc. But it's her choice so I'm going with it.

[HolyAutumnGoldBatman]

I've never considered this about boys/girls names before. It's an interesting thought that all names could be unisex, so when a job application comes from a Sarah Smith you'd have no idea if they were male or female. Very interesting OP.

[HolyAutumnGoldBatman]

sole was that about the boys/girls name thing? Or a confession that was meant for an NA thread?!

[MrsKwazii]

IKWYM OP. To my mind toys are toys and clothes are clothes. Children should be allowed to like and wear what they like without adults and other children questioning or ridiculing those choices.

My DD liked Star Wars and had a very cool new SW t-shirt that she wore to nursery. Another child's dad asked DD why she was wearing a 'boys tshirt' and she told him it was just a tshirt and that girls liked Star Wars too But on another day she'd wear a pink dress.

I do think it's easier for girls though, with them simply being described as tomboys (which is also irritating) if they like 'boy' clothes, toys or god forbid colours. I think for boys, there is that homophobic streak in society that thinks that wearing pink may turn them gay. What a load of old crap.

Retailers and toymakers don't help either, with ELC going through that phase where you could get everything in either blue or pink, and Lego now bringing out 'girlie' lego (which is another rant of mine at the moment - LEGO IS JUST LEGO AHHHHHHHHH!). But then, are they simply reflecting what customers want, or reinforcing gender stereotyping - or is it all just reinforcing the other in a big reinforcey loop from which there is no escape?

On the name front though, there are often masculine and feminine versions of names still (George, Georgina) but I think that the gender reasoning for that is further back in cultures and, I assume, would be found across the world. Don't know why it is. Not as insidious to me as the gender straitjacket of colours, clothes, sports and toys though. Not sure why.

[Psammead]

Quirrel, but why not call all children table and lampshade in that case? The existense of given names is one of the few linguistic certainties in all languages. It is not strictly necessary in modern day UK to give traditional female or males name with their associated qualities any more, but equally, why not? Names are so deeply etched in our subconscious that I do not think it is a disadvantage for anyone to have a male name advertising the fact that they are, indeed, male, or a female name advertising the fact that the person in question is female. You could call a girl Benjamin, or a boy Joyce, but what benefits do you think it woukd bring?

[MrSunshine]

It's a fundamental necessity of the human mind to categorise. To the point where when we can't put things in the right categories, it can upset us and irritate immensely. It's automatic and deep-seated. This is one reason why we like boys names and girls names, it helps us to categorise.
However we take this tendency and go too far with it, with some feeling the need to have girls and boys everything. Who needs a pink globe, for fucks sake, the sea is blue, not pink.

[HolyAutumnGoldBatman]

'the sea is blue, not pink'

[MrSunshine]

Was that somehow contraversial? ELC has globes in pink. Whats with the

[strandednomore]

The pink/blue thing is pure marketing. It just didn't exist when I was a child. Agree with the irritation about the new lego aimed at girls - however, I also get annoyed that lego is now all about following instructions and building what's in the picture rather than using your imagination to create (doesn't bode well for our future as an inventive/designing nature) but that's another thread altogether.