I don’t think it’s particularly unique to the Left that children hold an uneasy place in activist spaces. We live in an excessively competitive, resource-scarce society that demands time from working people to the exclusion of generations that don’t do paid work – kids are supposed to be in school or daycare, the non-working elderly in nursing homes, the unemployable in prisons. I do not mean to make this an accusatory piece – obviously, much of the work done by the social justice community revolves around making the world better and safer for children and future generations. This piece serves as an exploration of why, as conscious people and communities, we need to purposefully pursue inclusion of children in our activities, communities, and spaces.

One of the most insightful conversations I’ve had in the last year was with a close friend who recently became a parent himself – he noted that our society discourages inter-generational contact (full disclosure: that friend started this blog). Maybe this is an obvious statement to most readers, but it strikes me as worthy of reflection. I’ve heard a good amount of adult friends, including committed activists, who almost proudly proclaim that they “don’t like children” or “are not good with children”. I don’t know many people who would say the same thing about other groups of people – ethnic groups, religious denominations, the handicapped. I don’t think it could be an acceptable statement about other aged-defined groups, like the elderly. So why is it okay to say towards the young?

Part of the Left’s uneasiness with children may be a backlash against propaganda techniques of the Right – racist, classist attacks on social services, individual rights, and minority communities are so often shrouded in “family values” rhetoric. We are brow-beaten, told repeatedly that there is one acceptable way to live – the nuclear family – and those outside this limited framework don’t count. Also, because of the limited time we have, and level of commitment activism requires under current conditions (and without progressive institutions), many activists are aware of how often activists-cum-parents “graduate” from regular participation to the aforementioned bubble of the nuclear family. But, I think it is less important (at least for this piece) to identify the barriers to a fuller participation by the youngest our activist communities. More importantly, I want to discuss why the Left needs children.

There are numerous reasons we need to seriously approach child-inclusive spaces.

We need our children to grow up knowing the politics of inclusion, of organizing, and of community; and not only knowing about such beliefs, but believing in positive social change. Some reasons I’ve identified:

• Many of the most disenfranchised have children. Generally, in our experience, a lack of diversity in self-identified activists results in a relatively young, upper middle-class population of activists speaking on behalf of oppressed communities. We create unbalanced political movements when kids are excluded and the norm of attendance is from the privileged without children.
• Childrearing is a political act. Our political acts and the fact that some choose to rear children are not separate. We need to collectively recognize that parenting, mentoring, raising children, is not done in a vacuum, nor is it the sole responsibility of those that have chosen to parent children. All activists should take the time to interact with, be around, and teach our young.
• Actively including children makes it desirable for families to participate. In our family’s experience, we have been much more apt to attend meetings and events where childcare is announced as available. Our neighborhood social justice group always ensures childcare will be available; we often make a point of attending not only to attend the “adult” part of the event – a forum, documentary, etc. – but with the knowledge that our daughter will have a chance to play with some of her friends.
• Children bring unique and creative energy to movements. During a visit to Palestine, one of my most inspiring experiences was attending a children’s protest at an Israeli checkpoint near Nablus. Many of the village children got together at a community center and drew posters, practiced songs. With their parents and supporters looking on, this group of kids created an incredible moment of resistance.

This post is a very rough start in my effort to consider the relationship between the Left and children. I’d love to get feedback and perspectives to continue this conversation.

It’s an idea that’s pretty easy to chuckle at: unrealistic, potentially chaotic, and probably something kids themselves aren’t even that interested in. We all agree, after all, that children haven’t reached the age of reason, and if democratic politics require one thing, it’s that citizens’ make political choices based on reason.

But what is reason, exactly? As early as 1781, Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason, was pointing to reason as both the most fundamental and most vexing concept in Western philosophy. In politics, “reason” stands in, all too often, for “the way I think, but not the way that those other people (with whom I disagree) think.” An even darker part of reason’s history in the West is its use to create a dividing line between those who are treated as full persons and those who aren’t: women, blacks, non-landowners and colonial subjects have all been considered unable to reason, and thus unworthy of the vote-dangerous to democracy, even. It should go without saying that, to an Englishman in, say, 1869 (the year John Stuart Mill published The Subjection of Women, his radical call for sexual equality), many of these ideas seemed as natural as children’s lack of suffrage seems to us now.

If you look at suffrage throughout history, you often see the real story of political power buried under the rhetoric of equality. Right now in the United States, the fact that prisoners can’t vote shows how little incarceration has to do with rehabilitation for reentry into society, how much it has to do with the creation of a space where people, overwhelmingly black and brown males, feel the effects of the law but don’t have any say in writing it.

Not that reason is always about identity and exclusion. The argument for excluding “unreasoning” people from the vote rests on the dream of a perfect democracy, where every voter deliberates and makes choices that are based logically on the evidence presented, even if interpreted through particular values and interests: a Detroit autoworker, for example, may vote differently from a Seattle environmentalist even when they are both being reasonable. The reality, however, is that in modern democracies most of us tolerate (grudgingly, perhaps) not only interests, but also types of reasoning, that are different from our own, perhaps even “impaired” by most definitions. Few people argue for taking the vote away from elderly voters who may occasionally forget what year it is, or what war is going on. They’re citizens, and the law applies to them, so they should have a vote even if that vote is somehow flawed or unreasonable. Why doesn’t the same argument seem to apply to kids?

Children are different from women or colonial subjects, some will say, because they are by nature, not merely by health or social position, dependent on others. The danger of child voters is not just that they will be capricious, but that they will merely vote how their parents instruct them, conferring more political capital on a Utah Mormon with 10 children than on a Boston banker with only one. This argument has some truth to it, but it is also remarkably similar to the old belief that a husband could be trusted to vote in his wife’s best interests, so why bother to let women vote?

As Mill pointed out in his defense of women’s suffrage, the problem with what we might call the “dependence” theory is that it creates the very reality to which it claims to respond. If women in Mill’s day seemed unprepared to get involved in politics, it was because they were confined to the home and the kitchen, kept from reading the newspaper, given less education than their male peers. They were nurtured, not natured, out of politics. Youth voter turnout, in the United States and the democratic world at large (acknowledged by the United Nations in a 1995 report) is low, giving young people disproportionately little voice in politics. But what exactly do we expect when, for the formative first 18 years or so of their lives, we deliberately box them out of the political process? We don’t wait until age 18 to buy our children an iPod and see if they’ll take to music; so how could we think that, after 18 years without the basic right of political participation, they’ll passionately enter democratic culture? Isn’t encouraging a life-long interest in voting and politics worth the cost of some immature votes?

Another way to dismiss or ridicule the idea of children’s suffrage is to compare it to children smoking, driving or any of the other generally harmful things adults can do and kids, at least in theory, can’t. But the analogy is a false one. One of the important distinctions in democratic theory (which, despite some reservations, I won’t be deconstructing in this particular post) is between a privilege and a right. A privilege, like driving or smoking, is something that makes your life more convenient, happier, perhaps more profitable in financial as well as other senses. A right, on the other hand, is one of the preconditions of living life within the political community. If you can be tortured, imprisoned without charge, spied on (how sad that these words now immediately evoke thoughts of my own country rather than somewhere else), then you don’t live in a democracy. You may live under a democracy: under its boot, or under the layers of secrecy it uses to cover its undemocratic spaces. Because democracy is a political system whose principle tool is the vote, there is perhaps no clearer difference between those who live in and those who live under democracy than the right to vote. I don’t see why it should be more “natural” to us for children to live within our borders and subject to our laws without voting rights than it is “natural” for women not to vote, or for inner city blacks to wait in polling lines for four hours while white suburbanites cruise through the voting process, as is the current situation in many states. Show me someone who wants to vote but isn’t permitted, and I will show you someone whose life in a democracy is a geographical, not political, fact. That will be true for my son sometime soon.

We cannot blame China this time, because the drug is in the concept, which was spawned in the Disney studios. Before 2000, the Princesses were just the separate, disunited, heroines of Disney animated films – Snow White, Cinderella, Ariel, Aurora, Pocahontas, Jasmine, Belle, and Mulan. Then Disney’s Andy Mooney got the idea of bringing the gals together in a team. With a wave of the wand ($10.99 at Target, tiara included) they were all elevated to royal status and set loose on the world as an imperial cabal, and have since have busied themselves achieving global domination. Today, there is no little girl in the wired, industrial world who does not seek to display her allegiance to the pink- and-purple clad Disney dynasty.

Disney likes to think of the Princesses as role models, but what a sorry bunch of wusses they are. Typically, they spend much of their time in captivity or a coma, waking up only when a Prince comes along and kisses them. The most striking exception is Mulan, who dresses as a boy to fight in the army, but—like the other Princess of color, Pocahontas—she lacks full Princess status and does not warrant a line of tiaras and gowns. Otherwise the Princesses have no ambitions and no marketable skills, although both Snow White and Cinderella are good at housecleaning.

And what could they aspire to, beyond landing a Prince? In Princessland, the only career ladder leads from baby-faced adolescence to a position as an evil enchantress, stepmother or witch. Snow White’s wicked stepmother is consumed with envy for her stepdaughter’s beauty; the sea witch Ursula covets Ariel’s lovely voice; Cinderella’s stepmother exploits the girl’s cheap, uncomplaining, labor. No need for complicated witch-hunting techniques – pin-prickings and dunkings—in Princessland. All you have to look for is wrinkles.
Feminist parents gnash their teeth. For this their little girls gave up Dora, who bounds through the jungle saving baby jaguars, whose mother is an archeologist and whose adventures don’t involve smoochy rescues by Diego? There was drama in Dora’s life too, and the occasional bad actor like Swiper the fox. Even Barbie looks like a suffragette compared to Disney’s Belle. So what’s the appeal of the pink tulle Princess cult?

Seen from the witchy end of the female life cycle, the Princesses exert their pull through a dark and undeniable eroticism. They’re sexy little wenches, for one thing. Snow White has gotten slimmer and bustier over the years; Ariel wears nothing but a bikini top (though, admittedly, she is half fish.) In faithful imitation, the three-year old in my life flounces around with her tiara askew and her Princess gown sliding off her shoulder, looking for all the world like a London socialite after a hard night of cocaine and booze. Then she demands a poison apple and falls to the floor in a beautiful swoon. Pass the Rohypnol-laced margarita, please.

It may be old-fashioned to say so, but sex – and especially some middle-aged man’s twisted version thereof – doesn’t belong in the pre-K playroom. Children are going to discover it soon enough, but they’re got to do so on their own.

There’s a reason, after all, why we’re generally more disgusted by sexual abusers than adults who inflict mere violence on children: We sense that sexual abuse more deeply messes with a child’s mind. One’s sexual inclinations – straightforward or kinky, active or passive, heterosexual or homosexual – should be free to develop without adult intervention or manipulation. Hence our harshness toward the kind of sexual predators who leer at kids and offer candy. But Disney, which also owns ABC, Lifetime, ESPN, A&E and Miramax, is rewarded with $4 billion a year for marketing the masochistic Princess cult and its endlessly proliferating paraphernalia.

Let’s face it, no parent can stand up against this alone. Try to ban the Princesses from your home, and you might as well turn yourself in to Child Protective Services before the little girls get on their Princess cell phones. No, the only way to topple royalty is through a mass uprising of the long-suffering serfs. Assemble with your neighbors and make a holiday bonfire out of all that plastic and tulle! March on Disney World with pitchforks held high!

In a recent Harper’s article, Mark Shapiro chronicles the chemical lobby’s gutting of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and the US government’s continued badgering and undermining of the EU’s attempts to protect people from dangerous chemicals.

In 1976, the United States passed the first bill anywhere to regulate the safety of chemicals. While this was a potentially revolutionary act, it was undermined by chemical industry lobbying that fought for an exemption for 62,000+ chemicals that were already in use. Today, that means that only 5% of chemicals in products we consume and are exposed to have been tested for safety.

In a disturbing study from 2005, the World Wildlife Fund tested three generations of European woman. As you might expect, the oldest generation had the highest level of chemicals in their blood. However, in a close second was the youngest group-their grandchildren. This generation, on average, had 59 different toxic chemicals in their blood.

When the European Union moved to test and regulate the huge quantity of untested chemicals because of this study and others, the US has used its muscle to block any attempt to do so.

Furthermore, US toy companies are quick to scapegoat China for their own errors. In their drive for profit, they turn a blind-eye to dangerous design flaws, not to mention safety and workers’ rights in production abroad. And in one of the largest recalls, Mattel apologized to the Chinese government after it turned out their was not high levels of lead in the toys and the recall was because of US-side design flaws. A recent study by Hari Bapuji and Paul W. Beamish concluded,

…that the number of recalls and the number of recalls of Chinese-made toys have shown an upward trend. However, an examination of the reasons for the increase shows that the number of defects related to design issues attributable to the company ordering the toys is far higher than those caused by manufacturing problems in China.

A recent NPR report (I couldn’t find the link) mentioned, in passing, that many of the workers at a particular Chinese toy factory had no idea that the products they were making contained lead. And why would they? Management certainly doesn’t want them to know that they are inhaling toxic fumes on a daily basis. Although we view China as a monolithic, repressive state, workers‘ and peasant struggles occur, often over environmental issues. Supporting workers’ rights in China and other places our toys and clothes are made would go a long way to making them safer. Strong, independent trade unions would be a first-line defense against toxic chemicals.

If we’re serious about toy and product safety for our children, we should pay attention to what happens in China. Perhaps more importantly, though, are the chemicals that our government doesn’t want to test, for fear of hurting chemical companies’ profits. We should demand that the NSCA is strengthened, that EU chemical legislation is not gutted, and that Chinese workers are able to freely organize for safer workplaces.

Just this month, in Ohio, an undocumented Honduran woman was arrested during a house search and separated from her exclusively breast-fed baby for 11 days. Her baby, who would not take a bottle, did not eat for three of them. Anyone who breast feeds or has a partner that does also knows what happens when you stop suddenly-It is an extremely painful.

About an hour’s drive from my house, in Taylor, TX, is a prison run by Corrections Corporation of America, a for-profit company. Hutto prison is notable because, aside from being a “non-Mexican” facility, they incarcerate immigrants and their children who are not accused of any crime. Even worse, Hutto was given a childcare license exemption by the state, allowing the prison to care for children 24/7 without any childcare expertise. Kids get only one hour of recreation a day and rarely enjoy the outdoors. I recently designed a website for a documentary about the prison, Children in Jail. Please check it out for more information.

As an Alternet article points out, conditions in Texas are particularly bad, where the state has only one attorney for 500 incarcerated immigrant children. Many just fall through the cracks, often separated from their families by INS agents at their time of arrest.

In Texas, there is a growing movement to close Hutto. You can visit the “What can I do?” section of the Children in Jail site here. There is also an upcoming demonstration at Hutto on December 16 at 2:00 at the prison. This is certainly an issue that parents should care about.

This resource is for parents – all parents. I do not want this resource to mistaken as being directed at parents with transsexual children only. My belief is all people are subject to and even suffer from gender and its implications on our lives, and as such, all parents and children can benefit from the ideas and information here regardless of their gender expression. Furthermore I believe that parents’ work in this area (and it is a great deal of work) ideally needs to begin pre-conception, well before a child is born. However, it is never too late to begin Gender Neutral Parenting!

The idea for this project came out of my own experience as a new parent who is aware of and wishes to challenge the dichotomous and heavily stereotypical gender world in which our children grow up, and my lack of knowledge and support to do so effectively. As yet I have not found any parenting book that is dedicated to this topic or that fully addresses my concerns with regard to my child and gender. It seems that currently there is no authoritative model on how to parent without imposing gender on our children or an explanation of why this is important or beneficial to children. Where appropriate, I have drawn on resources for transsexual and intersex children and their parents and applied them to Gender Neutral Parenting, however a good portion of this series is cobbled together from my own observations, as well as conversations with other parents, and people I consider gender experts.

I have purposely left this project as a work in progress because I believe that, through practicing Gender Neutral Parenting and with feedback from others who are interested in this work, it will change shape and grow into a resource that becomes more and more useful. I also only have the experience of raising an infant. I am certain that there are many stages in my child’s life that will cause me to reevaluate and re-think how Gender Neutral Parenting works at different ages, including the development of verbal communication skills, the ability to choose clothing, attending public school, and dating.

I am using the blogging medium for this project to encourage ongoing dialogue, support, and sharing about Gender Neutral Parenting. Getting other parents on board and collectively grappling with this challenge is a very important step in realizing all the benefits of Gender Neutral Parenting. Please post your ideas, your questions, your concerns and struggles with your Gender Neutral Parenting practice. We are all in this together!

Contents:

[I: About this Project] [II: What is Gender Neutral Parenting?]
[III: Getting Started] [IV: The Gender Inventory] [V: About Gender] [VI: What's the problem with Gendered Parenting?] [VII: Tips] | [VIII: Anecdotes] [IX: FAQ] [X: Resources] [XI: Forum]

II. What is Gender Neutral Parenting?

• It is an approach to parenting that allows for openness, exploration, and self-discovery for children regarding their gender identities and other aspects of identity that are important to them.
• It is a term that I created that does not adequately capture the scope of what I am suggestion. I welcome suggestions!
• It is a parenting philosophy that I have developed from personal experiences, anecdotal evidence, research, and gut instincts.
• It is an experiment. I do not profess to have the answers, but expect that, over time and through the practice, answers will emerge as well as new questions.
• It is an on-going process, and should be by design. Just as self-improvement is a lifelong journey, so is Gender Neutral Parenting, and the juicy part is in the process!
• It is applicable to many aspects of a child’s identity development, not only the development of their gender identity.
• It is not, in most cases, evidence based.
• It is not, immutable. In fact, I hope that over time it becomes better developed and more useful.

III. Getting Started: Things you should know

If you have navigated to this page you probably are already somewhat convinced of the merits of Gender Neutral Parenting. As I embarked on this project I found myself being challenged to really embrace what truly being convinced and committed to this type of practice would mean. Here is what I believe you should know and internalize as you begin your Gender Neutral Parenting practice:

• You must be committed to this journey. Being committed does not mean that you cannot make mistakes or waver from this practice. Being committed means being in it for the long haul. Since it is unlikely that gender will be erased from human consciousness within our lifetime, be prepared to be practicing, exercising, and grappling with Gender Neutral Parenting for the rest of your life.
• Gender Neutral Parenting practice is a journey for both you and your child. In order for you to change the way gender occurs in your family and community, you must take a good hard look at your own experience with gender.
• As a practitioner of Gender Neutral Parenting, you will be a minority among your family, friends, and will probably be challenged at every institution that your child has contact with. You probably already know this, and if you are like me, you are fearful of this isolation. In large part, this series is dedicated to confronting that isolation and other challenges outside of your home that you will encounter.
• You must fully embrace that choosing Gender Neutral Parenting practice is about making choices that are in your children’s best interest, and that your own image and ego are secondary to your child’s wellbeing.
• Gender Neutral Parenting does not just happen. It is hard work that will require a lot of thought, learning, and experimenting on your part. And sometimes that work will be painful. It may bring up things for you that you did not know existed inside, and you will need to confront and work through them in order to truly practice Gender Neutral Parenting. Do not forget the first point, however, which is that this is a lifelong journey, and if it takes a lifetime to work through your personal challenges with gender, that is okay. You need not have worked past your challenges, but you must be continually engaging with them as you evolve as a parent and a practitioner of Gender Neutral Parenting.

IV. The Gender Inventory

I found one really tangible way for me to begin my Gender Neutral Parenting practice was to take a look at the physical environment that we have created in our home and do an inventory of where I see gender. At the very beginning of her text My Gender Workbook, Kate Bornstein explains to the reader that, in working out her own gender issues, she has identified where gender exists, and then looks the other way. I believe that this is a good framework to use for conducting a gender inventory in your home, and then finding creative ways to replace or bypass gender. Once you get started, I bet you’ll be surprised at all the places you see gender! It can get overwhelming, so I recommend breaking you space into categories. My categories are below.

Baby/Kid stuff Parent Stuff Other Stuff

Clothes Clothes Wall Art/Decorations

Toys Books/Magazines Pet Stuff

Books/Music/Videos Vehicles

Miscellaneous Music/Movies

Once you have categories you can work on one at a time. I think it’s easiest to start with baby or kid stuff, partially because it is so often clearly gendered, especially their clothes. The goal in this first step is not to start throwing away all your blues and pinks, but to take note of them. You can even make a tally, just to see what kind of clothes your child is typically wearing. Though we have been conscious of not gendering our child with clothing, our baby’s wardrobe is overwhelmingly blue and green.

After looking at clothes, check out toys. Do the toys have gender? Are the toys geared toward a boy or a girl? Again, just take inventory to start.

Books and other media are especially interesting (I think) to look at. My finding is that my child’s story books, even the cardboard ones with only pictures and no words, are very gendered!

The miscellaneous category would include things like blankets (geez do we have a lot of blue baby blankets!), Christmas stockings (we were just given the shining example of a “baby boy” Christmas stocking), furniture (like baby seats, high chairs, etc.), diaper bags, and any other baby or kid things that do not fit into the other categories.

Now that you have completed one part of your inventory, what do you do with the information you have learned from it? Well, I believe that is up to individual parents. I do think, however, that no matter what you decide to do, whether it is to rid your house of gendered baby stuff or not, you will be amazed and therefore much more aware of where gender exists in your child’s physical environment. If you are not sure what to do with this information, here are some suggestions:

• Keep all this stuff, and make a commitment not to bring more gendered stuff into the house for your child. You may not want to part with all of those great baby gifts (I know I don’t want to)!
• Purge your house of gendered baby and kids stuff. Simplifying and downsizing is a positive thing in more ways that one!
• Cut down on the gendered stuff. Maybe that hand-knit blanket with the sailboats is really special to you or your child, but you could do without all five sport-related onesies.
• Give stuffed animals gender non-conforming names OR start calling them by what they are, i.e. call a teddy bear “Bear”
• Eliminate all gender pronouns when reading books to your child OR change the names to gender non-conforming names

Regardless of whether you take one of these suggestions or find another solution, your awareness of gendered items in the home is the ultimate goal, and talking with your children (even an infant) about gender where it exists and challenging them and yourself to find a variety of ways for gender to exist at home is bonus points.

Working on the Parent Stuff gender inventory might be a little more difficult. It may be hard for us to recognize where we, as parents and adults, conform to gender stereotypes, and it may also be difficult for us to part with our gender habits or to reframe them. Nonetheless, the more you practice the easier it will become, and in time I believe we will be able to build “Gender Force Fields” around the physical spaces in our homes that will help us guard against the intrusion of gendered stuff.

Once you have done a gender inventory of your physical environment, you will likely be better prepared to do the same kind of inventory of your metaphysical, i.e. your language, your reactions, your behavior, and even your thoughts. This inventory list is one that you just have to whip out when you recognize your embedded gender education rearing its ugly head. Keeping a list or journal of these things will be helpful in creating ways to get around or subvert the gendered nature of them. Below is an anecdote that I hope will clarify this point.

Recently my neighbor was chatting with me about her nine year old daughter’s desire to wear make up, and her aversion to letting her do so at a young age. Later in the day I was recounting that conversation to my partner, and wondering out loud if we would ever have that discussion with our child whose birth assigned gender is male. Though I have no problem with boys wearing make-up, I do think that there is an age below which wearing make-up is inappropriate. I wanted my response to reflect my opinion about age, not about gender and make-up wearing. In my mind I imagined myself saying to my child, “Sweet Pea, make up is for mommies.” However, I immediately realized that a gender-inclusive response would be, “Precious, make up is for adults.” In my gender inventory I noted that I intend to make all responses about what is possible for my child gender neutral.

V. About Gender
In mainstream U.S. society the terms sex and gender are often confused and used interchangeably. In order to grasp the core important of Gender Neutral Parenting, it is important that we gain an understanding of the difference between the terms, as well as how these terms function, and how our parenting practices can have an impact on gender. I find the Gender and Sexuality Continua, developed by Shane Whalley, LMSW and Education Coordinator of the Gender and Sexuality Center at the University of Texas, Austin, most helpful.

The Gender and Sexuality Continua is comprised of four parts, which are useful individually to understand definitions, and useful in concert with each other to understand the innumerable ways that gender and sexual orientation can exist within a single individual. The utility in understanding these terms on continua helps us to understand that these identities are necessarily dichotomous or mutually exclusive.

A: Birth Assigned Gender/Sex

Male —————————————————————————————————- Female

A person’s birth-assigned gender/sex is assigned at birth, by the doctor, midwife, or whomever is attending the birth. This assignment is based on the sex organs, i.e. whether the newborn has a penis or a vagina. In my research I have found that, even babies who are born with “abnormal” sex organs or both sets of sex organs are still typical assigned one or the other sex.

B: Gender Identity

Male/Man————————————————————————————-Female/Woman

A person’s gender identity is how that person feels deep down inside.

C: Gender Expression

Masculine———————————————————————————————Feminine

Gender expression is how a person presents their gender to the world. This presentation includes the way a person chooses to construct a physical appearance, like the way they dress or wear their hair. It can also include the social and cultural roles that they choose to fulfill, like the way that they play, the career that they pursue, the place they occupy in a household.

D: Sexual Orientation

Male Attracted——————————————————————————Female Attracted

Sexual orientation describes the type of person (in terms of gender) to which one is attracted. Notice here that the continuum does not place homosexuality and heterosexuality on opposite poles. In short, this continuum accounts for the very complex identities that can be constructed when we challenge static notions of gender, sex, and sexual attraction. Using these terms for the continuum also challenges the static notions of homosexuality and heterosexuality, and allows us to entertain the notion that for some people (and I believe for a good many people) being able to place themselves somewhere along a continuum is a more accurate description of their sexuality.

Some people plot themselves along each continuum at relatively similar spots. These people can be described as cis-gender, a chemical term which means that their birth assigned gender and their gender expression match. Further more, the mainstream societal assumption is that all people are cis-gender, and more problematic, that an individual has a problem if they are not cis-gender.

One important premise of Gender Neutral Parenting is that, no matter where our children fall on these continua, they have a right to be validated and loved without judgment. In doing so we are challenging static notions of gender and sexuality, as well as the stereotypes surrounding gender.

VI. What’s the problem with Gendered Parenting?

First I want to note that, whether or not you practice Gender Neutral Parenting with your children, you will also be engaging in gendered parenting. It is a very hard thing not to do. So much of who we are and how we are taught to interact with the world is informed by what we are taught about gender. Un-learning gender is an exercise that requires ongoing effort.

That being said, the problem with gendered parenting is that it imposes limits on our children with regard to how they express themselves and the choices they are able to make about their own lives, especially in terms of how they choose to look, what they say, how they play, and their dreams and aspirations. It can also impede the development of certain types of emotional responses that can benefit them as human beings.

A good example of gender stereotyping impact on emotional development is the message that boys are not supposed to cry, but rather deal with their feelings of hurt, sadness, grief or fear in more stoic ways. Many boys are told at a very early age that they are not supposed to cry. However, never being allowed to exhibit a vulnerable side inhibits some boys’ ability to develop, understand, and access the emotions associated with crying, and indeed the ability to cope in a healthy way with these emotions.

When approaching the question of the problem with gendered parenting, I found several exercises that were developed by Kate Bornstein for her book My Gender Workbook particularly useful. This is a book that I recommend to all people, and especially to practitioners of Gender Neutral Parenting. It is very useful for untangling the meanings of gender, sex, and sexual orientation, and also challenges the reader to take a close look at how gender has impacted one’s own life. Personally, it helped me to realize that I am stressed-the-heck-out about fitting into a gender stereotype, and that is something that I have been working to fit into for as long as I can remember. It also helped to me realize that, I do not want my own child to have to fit into a gender stereotype and be stressed out about it for as long as I have. Here are two of the exercises that Kate recommends:

List out five things you do in order to make yourself more attractive. Consider this list ans ask yourself whether any of these five things bring you closer to the dominant culture’s definition of a “real man” or a “real woman”?

Truthfully, do you now or have you ever believed that there is some bottom-line biological difference between men and women? If yes, what’s the difference?
Has anything in your life caused you to question that difference as a valid differentiator between the genders? If so, what? Do you still believe there is some biological difference?
If yes…

• Are you yourself fully qualified as a member of one gender or another?
• Is everyone you know fully qualified as a member of one gender or another?
• From what you know about [Kate Bornstein] is [she] qualified as a member of one gender or another?

VII. Tips
Coming soon.

VIII. Anecdotes

Pea Parents
In our box of plush toys we have a green zippered pouch that is shaped like a pea pod which contains five peas – soft green balls with little eyes to give them the appearance of being animate, rather than simply vegetables. There is one big pea, a slightly smaller pea, and three little peas that are all the same size. When they are all zippered up together they are a little pea family. When we play with the peas I have always described them in family roles. “Here is the Baby Pea, next to the Mama Pea. Can you find the Papa Pea?” The roles are very rigid. The one big pea is always the Papa Pea, the slightly smaller pea is always the Mama Pea, and the little peas are always the Baby Peas. Suddenly I realized one day that I was teaching my child gender stereotypes! Papas are not always the biggest, and they do not have to be. Furthermore, maybe both peas are mamas! So now, we do not have Papa Pea and Mama Pea, we have Pea Parents.

By calling them Pea Parents and not assigning them family roles that are linked to gender I am not validating the societal stereotype that a family consists of male and female parents, or that one parent is necessarily bigger (and by extension stronger or dominating) than the other parent. Rather, both Pea Parents are simply care givers to their Baby Peas. This also allows my child to fill in the story about these peas.

You’re So Pretty
Recently we had dinner at the home of our friends and their parents were in town for the weekend. My friend’s mom, a very loving and sweet woman, commented that our baby is so pretty. “Oh, he’s so pretty. Those eyes, and that complexion. What a little angel!” “Thanks,” we said, “we agree!” She continued on, “Oh, I just can’t get over how pretty he is!” and then grasping his little hand and directing her final comment at our child she said, “And you’re not supposed to be so pretty. You’re supposed to be handsome…yes you are!” This is not the first time our baby has been called pretty, and many people often assume he is a girl. Having been fully engaged in this gender conversation for a few months now, this comment was like nails on a chalkboard for my partner and me. As I got tongue-tied to think of a clever response, my partner came up with a beautiful and simple response. “Oh, he can be whatever he is,” he said. I was so proud!

IX. FAQ

Q: Who benefits from Gender Neutral Parenting?

A: We all do! One way to look at it is like this: We never know who our children will be until we meet them and they reveal themselves to us. This means that our child may grow up and struggle or explore gender, whether we nurture it or not. Why not pave the road for them and make that journey as smooth and supportive as possible?

Another way to look at it is like this: Your child may not grow up to be a transsexual, but will grow up in a world where there are transsexual people. By practicing Gender Neutral Parenting we are cultivating a generation of people for whom the notion of transsexuality is understood and embraced, and we all want a kinder world for our children, don’t we?

A third way to look at it is like this: Whether or not a child identifies as being a transsexual person, that child is very likely to be subject to societal pressures about who they ought to be and what they ought to do according to their gender. As parents practicing Gender Neutral Parenting, we are sending a message to our children that their self-expression and their life choices are valid and valued, regardless of their gender.

Q: Will I turn my kid into a transsexual or into a gay person, or mess them up in some other way by practicing Gender Neutral Parenting?

A: The short answer is no.

Q: Should I not use my child’s gender to refer to them? If so, for how long?

A: My opinion on this is that you get to make this decision. Some groups, like the Intersex Society of America advocate for the elimination of gender pronouns until a child identifies their own gender for you. This approach is certainly at the extreme end of the spectrum. I believe that what is more realistic for most people is to do a self-study on when you use gender pronouns, and make a conscious effort to not use them when possible. For example, instead of saying, “Would you like to play with the little girl?” try saying, “Would you like to play with this child?” The idea is that a person’s gender will be de-emphasized and I believe that your child will catch on to that.

Q: What if I can not always be gender neutral?

A: It is completely okay to mess up, waver, and even stray from your Gender Neutral Parenting practices. Gender and gender stereotypes are ingrained so deeply in our psyches that we often do not recognize the places where we or others are acting out gender. The more we practice, however, the better we will become at recognizing it. Awareness and the ability to be reflective about our actions is a fundamental part of the practice.

Q: Does Gender Neutral Parenting mean that my partner and I have to relinquish our genders?

A: No. Gender Neutral Parenting means that you and your partner model ways in which gender is fluid and flexible. Gender Neutral Parenting also means validating your child’s expression of gender, whatever that might be.

Q: Isn’t there a “Nature or Nurture” debate about gender, and is it important to adhere to one side of the debate in order to engage in Gender Neutral Parenting?

A: There sure is a “Nature or Nurture” debate about gender, but I do not think it has an impact on why Gender Neutral Parenting is important. There are plenty of examples on both sides of the debate that either prove or disprove the other’s argument, and frankly, getting caught up in the debate is paralyzing. Nonetheless, one premise of Gender Neutral Parenting is that the way we nurture our children will have an impact on their ability to navigate their own gender identities and expressions. That does not mean, however, that by nurturing a girl as a girl that we will end up with a child who lives up to society’s expectation of what a girl should be, or even a child who self-identifies as a girl. Rather, my recommendation is to nurture children to be themselves as nature created them, whatever that might be! If you are dying to learn more about the gender debate, a British website called About Gender (http://www.gender.org.uk/about/index.htm) presents what it calls and “interactive account” of this debate with evidence from psychology, biology, genetics, neurobiology, and more.

Q: Is there an age at which you “give in” to your child’s gender tendencies? (Someone asked me this recently and their question was really getting what to do if your child has tendencies toward gendered expression that exemplify gender stereotypes. For example, what to do if a little girl decides to always dress in pink frills and only play with Barbie dolls).

A: I believe that parents should always accept their children’s gender expression no matter the age or the way in which they express it. It may be that you have spent five years dressing your child ambiguously, providing gender inclusive play opportunities, and never used a single gender pronoun in front of them, and your child could end up choosing to be the prettiest princess on the block! However, if you parented in the aforementioned fashion, you can presume that the way the child is expressing gender comes from an instinct within her, and not is not influenced by something you instilled in her about what it means to be a girl (outside influences beyond your control notwithstanding). I also believe that parents should always talk to their children about the choices that they are making. Ask questions like, “Why do you like this toy? How do you play with this toy? Why is this toy wearing earrings? What other toys do you like?” and challenge them think of ways to play that may not be modeled by the toy manufacturers. “Can Princess Penelope push the lawnmower?”

Disclaimer: I do have many opinions about what toys are appropriate for children (Barbie is not one of them!) that extend beyond the gender lens and as such, fall outside of the scope of this project. I do intend to post these opinions on the Parentics blog in the future.

IX. Resources on Gender Neutral Parenting
Coming soon…

Forum
Coming soon…

But let’s try to look at this dispassionately – not as a human rights issue but as a PR disaster, ranking right up there with the 1982 discovery of cyanide in Tylenol capsules. Think of this as a case study in a corporate Crisis Communication course: How is The Gap handling the problem, and could it do better?

This is not the first time The Gap has been caught using child labor, but CEO Martha Hansen went on the air to state that the situation was “completely unacceptable” and that the company would “act swiftly.” Two problems here: One, she failed to detail the actions. It would have been nice, for example, if she had announced that some of the top-producing child slaves would be reassigned to manage Gap outlets in American malls, and that the under-performers would be adopted by Angelina Jolie.

The other, more serious, problem is that she got defensive about child labor. This is the mistake Kathie Lee Gifford made in 1996. When accused of using child labor in Honduras to manufacture her Kathie Lee line of clothing, Gifford broke into tears on TV. Maybe Hansen meant to cover herself by saying that The Gap would not “ever, ever condone any child laborer making our garments” rather than saying the company does not condone child labor itself. We already knew, from the rubber pipes and oily cloths, that The Gap does not condone much from its child laborers.

Hansen underestimated the potential support for a full-throated defense of child labor. More and more American children are tried and punished as adults today. And the ubiquitous conservative pundit William Kristol will surely be enthusiastic, considering his recent – though possibly facetious– statement that “whenever I hear anything described as a heartless assault on our children, I tend to think it’s a good idea.”

The core of the argument, though, is that anyone who opposes child labor has not witnessed its opposite, which is child unemployment and idleness.

Hansen claims to be a mother herself, but I wonder how often she has returned home from a hard day in the C-suites to find her unemployed offspring Magic Marker-ing the walls and crushing the Froot Loops into the carpet. This is what jobless children do: They rub Crazy Glue into their siblings’ hair; they spill apple juice onto your keyboard. Believe me, I see this kind of wantonly destructive behavior every day. Vandalism is a way of life for unemployed children, and they do not know the meaning of remorse.

In fact, corporate America should go further and make a strong statement against the sickening culture of dependency that has grown up around childhood. Why are jobless children so criminally inclined? Because they know that whatever damage they inflict, the Froot Loops will just keep coming. The Gap should portray its child-staffed factories as part of a far-seeing welfare-to-work program, which will eventually be extended to American children as well.

To appeal to American parents, our own child factories should be run more like Montessori schools, where the children are already encouraged to regard every one of their demented activities as “work.” If they’re going to pile up blocks and knock them down all day, then why not sew on buttons and bring home a little cash? But even American families will have to brace themselves for the inevitable cost cutting measures. First the cookies and milk may have to go, then, as in India, the toilets and beds. Wal-Mart has already pioneered the price-cutting defense of human rights abuses, and The Gap should follow suit.

The company can of course expect some lingering opposition. Just as there are vegetarians and pacifists, there will always be some men, for example, who would rather wear skirts than blue jeans impregnated with the excrement and tears of ten-year-olds. Well, let them shop at American Apparel or some other “sweat-free” vendor, and if they can’t find anything there, let them wear dhotis. In a nation that cannot bring itself to extend child health insurance (SCHIP) to all children in need, child-made clothes make a fine fashion statement. And why not accessorize your denim jacket with a scarf derived from one of those oily cloths stuffed in weeping workers’ mouths?