I think that many of you will agree that this summer has provided a plethora of very interesting and/or entertaining news pieces. Sex scandals involving politicians (Schwarzenegger and Weiner, mainly), the arrest of the IMF chief, Strauss-Kahn, and the Casey Anthony trial have held the focus of many for a while, but another article was also generating a lot of heat. Normally, a popular story will involve a combination of any of the following: celebrities, politicians, drugs/alcohol, sex, jail, death, criminal activity. Interestingly, one of the most debated stores so far this summer has involved none of the typical key ingredients that would make a story.
What gets people so worked up is that this particular story happens to involve how other parents decide to raise their own children. You can read the full article here, but I'll lay out the larger details in hopes of saving you some time.
A couple in Canada recently gave birth to their third child (well, the mom gave birth, but you know what I mean). In an interesting move, they have decided to keep the sex of the child a secret. You may be wondering how this would be possible. As of the publishing of the article, only seven people know the actual sex of the child (the parents, the child's two older siblings, the two midwives who facilitated the home birth, and a family friend). The parents are openly progressive and allow their older two children (both are boys with gender-neutral names and long hair) to pick their own clothes and toys at the store. Therefore, it would be entirely possible that the family could come out of the story with a cart that had a mixed bag of toys ranging from Disney Princesses, Thomas the Train, Barbies, and Transformers, and clothes consisting of jeans, dresses, shirts, skirts, and shirts, all in various colors.
The parents have decided to keep the sex of their newest child, Storm, a secret. Until the reveal, the parents will dress the child in gender neutral clothes and not refer to the child as a 'him' or 'her.' Further, they also maintain that they don't want people to treat their child differently (i.e. If the baby is a girl, she would be referred to as "beautiful" and people might be more delicate with her, whereas if he's a boy, he'd be called "handsome" and would be expected to be more of the "rough-and-tumble" type.). Therefore, the by not revealing the sex of the child, they are making Storm immune to societal gender stereotypes.
I think this is a good point to make two clarifications for those who may be confused. The term "sex" is strictly a reference to the genitalia that one is born with (if in any case a child is born with ambiguous genitalia, doctors will look at the child's chromosomes to determine if the child has a set of XY chromosomes that make them a male or XX chromosomes that make them a female. Parents used to be able to pick if they'd raise the child as a boy or a girl in cases of ambiguous genitalia, but this ended after horrible cases of gender and sexual identity crises. Now, chromosomes are analyzed.). The term "gender" refers to one's identity of being male or female. For example, remember those rhymes that asked, "What are little boys made of? Snakes and snails and puppy dog tails,"? It turns out that those rhymes are referring to gender, since genitalia is not taken into account. So, by not disclosing if their new baby has a penis or a vagina, they're controlling for how others would react to/with their baby based solely on if the baby is a male or female.
Many people, both parents and not, are in an uproar over this family's decision. For me, it's definitely a split issue. Over the years I've read numerous research articles in various psychological journals concerning child development and parenting. While this way may be different and even extreme to some, it sounds like the parents do have the child's best interests in mind and want their children to be open-minded and accepting of others. While this may be a potentially groundbreaking method in parenting, the big downside to this is the rest of society. After talking to a few of my progressive girlfriends, we've pretty much agreed that the best way for something like this to work would be if the family lived on a commune, separate community, or their own utopian community that rarely interacted with larger society (the community in the movie "The Village" comes to mind). While that may be a bit extreme in and of itself, it would be a necessity at this point because, as a whole, people are mean and judgemental. My personal view on this particular issue is that it may be different, but it isn't wrong. However, many others believe that becasue it is so different, it must be wrong. Because of the judgement from people who are outside of the family, it is very possible that the greater society could pose more harm to the child, no matter how much and how well the family provides love, support, and tries to make the children secure in themselves.
Futher, gender is also a cultural issue. Many other cultures allow for fluid gender roles; a child may be free to switch between masculine and feminine gender roles as they choose before adulthood. What's more is that these children are just as healthy and well-adjusted as those who don't have gender fluidity. I think that people, especially Americans (because we do tend to be a bit narrow-minded...our country was founded by Puritans, after all) need to recognize that differences, cultural or not, are not necessarily wrong. Now, if someone believes that beating their child senseless builds character, PLEASE intervene.
What's more is that it's been found that children are very aware of gender roles at an early age. Once children hit a certain age, they become very receptive and know how things are meant to be. However, as anyone who has ever worked with children could tell you, children love to play pretend and use their imagination. I can recall a story one of my psychology professors told our class about her mentor, psychologist and gender studies authority Sandra Bem. Bem was getting her children ready for school one day when her son (who was rather young at the time) was insistent upon wearing a barrette in his hair. Bem allowed this without much thought. Later that day, Bem was talking with her son about his day and he seemed distressed. He was upset that another child kept calling him "a girl" because he wore a barrette. After some ribbing and insisting from this other child that little boy Bem was a girl, her son said he was fed up with this kid's teasing, pulled down his pants, pointed to his penis and said, "I am a boy." While I'm sure that Ms. Bem probably received a phone call from the school that day, at least she had a son who knew he was a boy, but still felt comfortable crossing the gender line and wore a barrette in his hair with no qualms.
I got into a bit of a debate on this issue myself and should clarify a big misconception that many people have. As I was trying to explain to some that one of the main goals of this family is to help redefine gender roles, someone exclaimed that lax parenting styles such as this is what makes children gay.
"Wait, what?! Pump the breaks, step back, and take a breath," I thought to myself as my soul started to weep.
Let's be clear on this: you cannot make someone gay by imposing your will on them. Further, why do conversations about raising children differently end up in a gay debate (Insert 'sigh of frustration.')? Frankly, I'd rather save the gay debate for another day.
My bottom line is plain, simple, and two-part.
1.)While I have great respect for what these parents are doing, I know that this is not something I would be able to do. I hope that the parents give their children thick skin so these kids can withstand the judgements of society.
2.)These parents are not raising your children, they're raising their own. They are doing things as they see fit and are thinking of the best interest of the children. Everyone else needs to calm down and chill out.
Just remember, if it's different and if you're uncomfortable about it, it doesn't always mean it's wrong.
Have a great day,
~Jenna
