Is Imposing Ideology on Children a Form of Child Abuse?

[nobahar]

Not sure if anyone has posted this, but I thought it was interesting:
A couple have decided "to keep their infant's sex a secret", and allow their children to choose their own clothes, etc. Their children's names also seem unisex: Storm, Kio and Jazz. (Kio is either a Japanese female name or Chinese male name according to the internet, but I don't think either source is reliable.)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13581835

I am more interested in the comment:

"Kathy Witterick and David Stocker have been widely criticised for imposing their ideology on four-month-old Storm."

I think an analogy can be made to religion. A more serious form of imposing an ideology on and labelling of a child.

I'd be interested to know other people's opinion.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

They are wasting their time. The kids know.

 

[Jack21222]

It's impossible to NOT impose ideology on a child. One could easily argue that naming the male child "Bob" and giving him "boy" toys to play with is imposing an ideology on him.

The best you can hope for is to impose an ideology that society finds favorable, or that leads to the relative success of the child in life. Or both.

 

[turbo]

My barber for the last 30 years, is a very attractive petite woman. She has her favorite childhood toy on top of her kitchen cabinets - a Buddy-L dump truck. She loves cutting brush, haying, gardening, and bee-keeping, and she never bothered getting married to the guy she built a house with and has been her partner for maybe 25 years. Nobody indoctrinated that little girl.

 

[Evo]

I think it's terrible. Their son is taken into the girls clothing department and encouraged to buy what he thinks is pretty.

The little boy is upset that people make fun of him. He has made it clear to his parents that he wants it to be clear that he is a boy.

But Stocker and Witterick's choices haven't always made life easy for their kids. Though Jazz likes dressing as a girl, he doesn't seem to want to be mistaken for one. He recently asked his mother to let the leaders of a nature center know that he's a boy. And he chose not to attend a conventional school because of the questions about his gender. Asked whether that upsets him, Jazz nodded.

These parents are confusing and hurting their children. The link below explains what's happening in much more detail.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110524/ts_yblog_thelookout/parents-keep-childs-gender-under-wraps

Being accepting if your child tells you they feel they are a different gender, is one thing. Sending confusing messages to a child that knows no better can be psychologically damaging.

Teaching your child that they are not limited by their gender is a good thing, confusing them as to what their actual gender is is wrong, IMO.

 

[ideasrule]

I think it's terrible. Their son is taken into the girls clothing department and encouraged to buy what he thinks is pretty.

Your link doesn't support this point. The Yahoo article says:

"Though they're only 5 and 2, they're allowed to pick out their own clothes in the boys and girls sections of stores and decide whether to cut their hair or let it grow."

The kids are given the choice; the son isn't being forced to buy girls' clothing.

The little boy is upset that people make fun of him. He has made it clear to his parents that he wants it to be clear that he is a boy.

If he wants to be seen as a boy, he can simply choose to wear boys' clothing, but he chooses not to because his preference is for girls' clothes. Should his parents force him to give into the school bullies and wear the "right" clothes?

Teaching your child that they are not limited by their gender is a good thing, confusing them as to what their actual gender is is wrong, IMO.

Where's the evidence that the children are confused in any way? I would be surprised if the children didn't know their own sex. They probably don't know why society has decided that A is for boys whereas B is for girls, but neither do I, since most of it makes no logical sense.

 

[Evo]

Your link doesn't support this point. The Yahoo article says:

"Though they're only 5 and 2, they're allowed to pick out their own clothes in the boys and girls sections of stores and decide whether to cut their hair or let it grow."

The kids are given the choice; the son isn't being forced to buy girls' clothing.

When they've been raised not to know the difference, and then find out the difference once they are around other children, that can be extremely psychologically damaging.

They were fooled by their parents since birth to think it doesn't matter, when in fact, it does matter as their poor 5 year old just found out.

 

[arildno]

The hatred som politically correct persons have for anything that might be called "natural" is quite simply pathological.

These parents are falling precisely into the trap they are desperately trying to avoid:
Conflation of nature and morality, in that they demonize everything that seems more "natural" than "cultural".

 

[arildno]

ideasrule:
WHY should children be given the right to choose??

To impose conformity on some issues does NOT necessarily violate any rights of the children.
But to allow children to develop in a way that will predictably harm them them (due to, for example, sanctions from the outside world) might well, in many cases be evidence of neglectful parenting.

 

[ideasrule]

"Kathy Witterick and David Stocker have been widely criticised for imposing their ideology on four-month-old Storm."

I think an analogy can be made to religion. A more serious form of imposing an ideology on and labelling of a child.

I'd be interested to know other people's opinion.

It's ironic that Witterick and Stocker are being accused of imposing their ideology by giving their child a choice, whereas other parents are presumably not imposing their ideology by forcing their child into a specific gender role.

As for religion, I agree 100% that imposing religious beliefs on children too young to logically analyze them is immoral. Unlike the case with gender roles, it's very easy to avoid religiously indoctrinating children. Don't take them to church if they don't want to come. Don't force them to pray if they don't see the point. Don't make them memorize Bible verses that might as well be Greek (or Hebrew) to them. Most of all, DON'T teach them intolerance towards the LGBT community or non-believers.

 

[arildno]

Children are not deemed mentally competent, ideasrule.
That is why, for example, consensual sex with them is a non-existent juridical category (they are not qualified to give a juridically relevant consent) and why they cannot, generally, be prosecuted as adults.

Due to their mental incompetence, it is perfectly acceptable, and even necessary, that their wards make decisions FOR them, even in spite the childrens' protests.

 

[lisab]

Intentionally raising children to be freakishly different is cruel. I don't think there should be laws against it though.

But it would be good if the parents sought counselling to find out what their true motivations are, and how to satisfy those needs without harming their children. Maybe they'd actually do that if it was called "A mystical journey of self-discovery" or some such thing.

 

[Giantevilhead]

It's impossible not to impose ideology on children because even when you have a child choose, you're unconsciously sending the child cues about what you think of the child's choices. You can say that you're fine with a child's choice but you'll still express approval or disappointment through facial expressions and nonverbal gestures.

 

[russ_watters]

Intentionally raising children to be freakishly different is cruel. I don't think there should be laws against it though.

I think that because it is cruel, it should be against the law.

 

[russ_watters]

If he wants to be seen as a boy, he can simply choose to wear boys' clothing, but he chooses not to because his preference is for girls' clothes. Should his parents force him to give into the school bullies and wear the "right" clothes?

Yes.

Ever hear the saying: "Normal is what everyone else is and you're not."? Even if it could be successfully argued that society is wrong for defining such a thing as "normal", you can't argue your way out of its existence. It exists. It's real. And it matters. Raising these kids to reject societal normalcy and define their own (when, as someone pointed out, a child is not competent to make their own decisions, much less define who they are) harms them.

 

[Pengwuino]

Children are not deemed mentally competent, ideasrule.
That is why, for example, consensual sex with them is a non-existent juridical category (they are not qualified to give a juridically relevant consent) and why they cannot, generally, be prosecuted as adults.

Due to their mental incompetence, it is perfectly acceptable, and even necessary, that their wards make decisions FOR them, even in spite the childrens' protests.

Exactly. What if a kid decides it's fun to just randomly hit people? It almost feels like if it's something that society rejects, it must be a good thing! Children are taught how society works and what is accepted in society for damn good reasons.

 

[rootX]

Yes.

Ever hear the saying: "Normal is what everyone else is and you're not."? Even if it could be successfully argued that society is wrong for defining such a thing as "normal", you can't argue your way out of its existence. It exists. It's real. And it matters. Raising these kids to reject societal normalcy and define their own (when, as someone pointed out, a child is not competent to make their own decisions, much less define who they are) harms them.

In this context, I would agree. I don't understand the idea of rejecting one's gender - maybe some 3011 year idea that goes completely above my head.

 

[ideasrule]

Everybody seems to be arguing that conforming to society's norms is beneficial, but there's no need to argue this, because I fully agree. However, it's not in the benefit of society itself for every person to be a conforming automaton who doesn't challenge irrational "rules". Think about the most influential figures in history--scientists, religious/political leaders, civil rights advocates, whatever--and it becomes clear that most of these people are freakishly different (to use lisa's words), weird, and sometimes insane.

I also don't agree that because children are not considered mentally competent, they should not be encouraged to think for themselves. Indoctrinating the children at a young age, then trying to reverse the conformist mentality later on, simply isn't logical--the "rules" people learn as children are extremely resilient, regardless of whether they make sense.

 

[ideasrule]

In this context, I would agree. I don't understand the idea of rejecting one's gender - maybe some 3011 year idea that goes completely above my head.

There's nothing hard to understand about it. Many (most?) of society's gender roles are arbitrary, with no biological basis, so it's entirely possible for a person to prefer gender roles which don't match their biological sex. It's no easier for transsexuals to consciously control their gender preferences than it is for you to consciously control yours.

 

[Astronuc]

Interesting commentary - http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/americas/05/27/canada.gender.storm/?hpt=Mid

If the parents want to challenge societies norms - then let the parents challenge the norms, rather than using their children to challenge those norms.

It looks like the couple accept society's gender roles for themselves. That seems inconsistent.

I'd ask the question - will these children benefit from this experiment?

I'd also disagree with a statement that the children are being raised 'gender-free'. It seems that they are being given a choice for wearing 'boys' or 'girls' clothing rather than gender-neutral. That's not 'gender-free'. It's a choice of 'one or the other', which isn't much of a choice.

 

[Jack21222]

I think that because it is cruel, it should be against the law.

Aren't you a conservative, Russ? Do you really want the government enforcing what counts as boys clothing and what counts as girls clothing? Even if it seems like there should be a law against it, enforcement would be such a nightmare I'd have to conclude it should NOT be against the law.

 

[Astronuc]

Aren't you a conservative, Russ? Do you really want the government enforcing what counts as boys clothing and what counts as girls clothing? Even if it seems like there should be a law against it, enforcement would be such a nightmare I'd have to conclude it should NOT be against the law.

Russ indicated the issue is cruelty to children, not choice of clothing. Societal conventions already determine what is 'boys' clothing and what is 'girls' clothing.

 

[AlephZero]

I think the old African proverb is very relevant here: "It takes a whole village to raise one child". I.e. a complete society, not just its parents.

In any case, the necessary imposition of other people's values on a child (simply because it is not physically capable of indepedent survival) comes with a built-in self-correction mechanism. It's called "adolescence".

 

[ideasrule]

It looks like the couple accept society's gender roles for themselves. That seems inconsistent.

That's similar to saying that because I like basketball but allow my children to play soccer instead, I'm being inconsistent. Tolerating another person's preferences doesn't mean changing your own.

 

[Evo]

The difference here is that they are confusing the children about their gender. It is not necessary to do this to a child in order to expose them to non-gender specific roles. Let the girls play with tanks and trucks, let the boys play with kitchen sets and dolls, if that's what they like. Teach their children that they can go into any career they want, the girl can be a construction worker, and the boy can be a stay at home dad. That's healthy.

What the parents are doing is not healthy.

 

[turbo]

The differnce here is that they are confusing the children about their gender. It is not necessary to do this to a child in order to expose them to non-gender specific roles. Let the girls play with tanks and trucks, let the boys play with kitchen sets and dolls, if that's what they like. Teach their children that they can go into any career they want, the girl can be a construction worker, and the boy can be a stay at home dad. That's healthy.

What the parents are doing is not healthy.

Exactly right. My barber grew up on a farm, and she liked playing with trucks. My neighbor's younger daughter years back played with her older brothers' Tonka toy construction stuff, like bulldozer, dump truck, front end loader, etc, while her older sister mainly played with dolls, toy tea-sets and other "girly" stuff. Both of the ladies who played with trucks are quite feminine and attractive AND they enjoy doing outside activities like landscaping, splitting and stacking firewood, etc. And as I mentioned earlier, one of them has taken up bee-keeping to augment her gardening. Their parents should be applauded for letting them play any way they wanted, and not steering them toward female-sterotypical activities.

BTW, my wife grew up on a farm, too, and her idea of a perfect weekend getaway is when we 4WD to a remote pond and tent there, fly-fishing for the evening mayfly hatches. She likes to sleep in, so I get up early and fish until dawn or so, when she yells "breakfast". That means home-made baked beans, home-fried potatoes, bacon, eggs, and grilled biscuits, at a minimum. I built her a collapsible "kitchen" big enough for food prep and to hold our portable propane stove, so she's right at home out in the woods. During my time doing technical service and consulting, we occasionally entertained clients at the Balsams Resort or the Mount Washington Hotel. Great food, great service, etc, but those are never the weekends that my wife mentions as favorites. It's only the ones out in the north woods, fishing, picking wild berries, etc.

 

[Jack21222]

Russ indicated the issue is cruelty to children, not choice of clothing. Societal conventions already determine what is 'boys' clothing and what is 'girls' clothing.

From what I understood, Russ was saying that dressing your kids in the wrong clothes IS cruelty to children.

Societal convention is really hard to legislate.

 

[SamirS]

And what if the children themselves decide that they want to wear what they like despite the bullies and despite societal convention?

Should the parents then enforce clothing behaviour to match the convention?

To be honest, school bullies are, in my opinion, not the best idol for convention. If the parents tell the child what the conventions are, what is expected from them by society (what to wear), what would make the bullies go away (though I reckon they would just find something different. I was a school bully too, though non-violent, I had quite the sharp tongue as a child already), and the child decides that despite this it wants to wear something different - by all means, go for it.

The same thing with religion. I'm a staunch atheist, I would tell my children what the major religions say exactly, and what they do and did so far (bad AND good), and also what the secular humanist position says. Then they can go and choose for themselves.

Enforcing physically unnecessary adaption (such as which colour to wear) looks pointless to a child, and by enforcing important AND pointless rules which are readily identifiable as such, parental authority is undermined.

 

[alt]

These parents are simply friggin MAD !

Parents shouldn't impose ideology on their kids ? Why not ? Eventually, someone, somewhere, will impose SOME ideology upon them. Why not their parents who, by far and above anyone esle, would have their best interests at heart ?

 

[HeLiXe]

I'd also disagree with a statement that the children are being raised 'gender-free'. It seems that they are being given a choice for wearing 'boys' or 'girls' clothing rather than gender-neutral. That's not 'gender-free'. It's a choice of 'one or the other', which isn't much of a choice.

^^This is a very good point. It can also be said that the parents are imposing their "gender-free" ideology on their children. I also think most small children would be attracted to girls clothing if they had to pick clothes in the store for themselves...simply because of the colors and shiny things. Other than that children in MDCs (particularly 10 and under) usually care more about playing and discovering things than the clothes they wear. I know many that get disappointed when others give them clothes as presents, including myself as a child.

 

[russ_watters]

From what I understood, Russ was saying that dressing your kids in the wrong clothes IS cruelty to children.

That's part of it, but this is about much more than just clothing.

Societal convention is really hard to legislate.

In some cases, maybe, but not in this one. You have two choices as to which bathroom to use and which box to check when you are filling out forms.

 

[Jack21222]

That's part of it, but this is about much more than just clothing. In some cases, maybe, but not in this one. You have two choices as to which bathroom to use and which box to check when you are filling out forms.

You have thousands of choices of clothing, and not all of them fit neatly into "boys" or "girls" clothing.

I maintain it would be almost impossible to draft a law to make sure parents make their child's gender match their sex. You'd have to codify into law social conventions, which change over time.

 

[Astronuc]

That's similar to saying that because I like basketball but allow my children to play soccer instead, I'm being inconsistent. Tolerating another person's preferences doesn't mean changing your own.

This does apply to the case being discussed. One's like for a sport vs one's children is irrelevant. This is not about tolerating personal preferences.

You have thousands of choices of clothing, and not all of them fit neatly into "boys" or "girls" clothing.

I maintain it would be almost impossible to draft a law to make sure parents make their child's gender match their sex. You'd have to codify into law social conventions, which change over time.

The cruelty aspect comes in where the parents knowingly use their 'children' as a means to challenge societal norms. The children would likely be criticized or tormented because of their clothing (that's the cruel part). It's certainly not fair - people shouldn't mean - but many are. If the parents want to challenge societal norms/conventions, then they themselves can exchange clothing and go out in public, or otherwise engage in civil disobedience. They should not be 'using' their children as experimental equipment.

The parents have the knowledge about societal conventions, the children do not. The children are at the mercy of their parents. I don't think the parents are acting in the interest of the children. Instead, the parents are being selfish and are merely interested in their own agenda to the potential detriment of the children.

 

[Jack21222]

Astronuc:

Would you like to make an attempt to write that into an enforceable law that will:

1) be upheld in court
2) be broad enough to target the people you want to target
3) be narrow enough to not target innocent parents

I don't think it can be done.

 

[JaredJames]

There are already laws in place to protect children. You'd simply have to show that the parents actions are causing (or potentially causing) mental / physical damage.