Thursday, July 25, 2013

Day Four: Seven Posts in Seven Days

Jen at Conversion Diary issued a bloggers challenge for this week, and I am working on completing it!

In the past, I have written about my troubles with the "pink" or "princess" culture in which we surround our girls, as well as my struggles to translate my thoughts and beliefs on the matter to parenting techniques. There have been a few things I have seen being passed around on the internet lately that relate. 

In case you have not read my thoughts, here are a few posts to get you started: (Please excuse the formatting issues. I do not know how to fix them!)




I read this a few weeks ago, and have been mulling it over. I realize that many of my thoughts might not be popular, but I keep it honest on here no matter the push back, so hear me out. 

Things are just things. Toys are toys, colors are colors, sparkles are sparkles. They have no gender. It wasn't so many centuries ago that men walked around in tights, and wore robes that were not, *GASP* pants. So it follows that fashion is fashion. 

Perhaps it is not healthy to continue to encourage items to have a gender. Maybe our interests in clothing, colors, toys, activities are not gender related, but just our interests. Maybe, JUST MAYBE, we have tricked ourselves into falling for the giant marketing conspiracy that assigns gender to things that do not have a gender. Why are we so opposed to boys liking sparkle if we think it is okay for a girl to be a "tomboy" (I hate that word.) 

Honestly, what do items have to do with who we are as a man or a woman? Our culture is telling us things and activities are gendered. That does not mean that they are. 

"But how can we tell who is a boy and who is a girl?!" Who cares? Will knowing their gender or sex or whatever word that is supposed to be PC now make us treat them any differently? If so, we have a problem folks.

I am not advocating for following Sweden's lead, just rolling my eyes at things like this:

Can the entire Bible be for everyone, please?









2 comments:

  1. Lord spare us from the "if it stars a girl it's for girls, and if a boy it's for boys" mentality.

    I'm willing to bet the story of Judith and Holofernes isn't in the book for girls. It wouldn't fit with the "girls must sparkle and be sweet and pretty in order to be good girls" theme--which in Christian culture reduces women, even Our Lady, to pretty pious figurines, and in the larger culture writes of anything feminine as Undesirable #1.

    (To be fair, it's also probably not in there because it's a bloody story and these versions look as sanitized as it's possible for the Bible to be.)

    And what is with the girl's cover? The boy's book looks to be Joseph and his famous coat, but the girl's cover is a simpering angel... blessing sheep? Surely they could at least have put a Biblical woman on the cover.

    I'm really enjoying your daily posts, by the way!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That was my thought also, LeighAnna: the male character is recognizable but the female character is not. I don't get it. How are we still here? It might seem like a first world problem, but we are still fighting the same old ideologies.
      I am glad you are enjoying them! I am running out of things to talk about, ha!

      Delete

Comments are always welcome! Come join me on:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jessfayette
Twitter: @jessfayette
Tumblr: jessfayette.tumblr.com