My five year-old son is gay

[dawny0826]

So, most moms you know aren't very supportive of their kids then? Maybe they should try to be a bit more like this mom.



You should be pretty angry when the moms of other kids make negative comments about you. This mom should be pretty angry that some moms found it necessary to make negative comments about her son. And no, it wouldn't be like your mom sending you to a school dance in a low-cut dress and then "bellyaching" when someone referred to you as a ****, and the fact that you use the word "bellyaching" makes your biased position clear.

You're ignoring my point.

 

[Walkntune]

Are you serious?



Let's not kid ourselves here. Why would Lady C think kids would ridicule him for his costume? He is wearing girls clothing. What other than homophobia is this? It's a boy dressing like a girl. There was nothing racy or revealing about it. So what is the REASON it is 'forbidden'?







Oh, misread. After post like 100 with like 10 people, it starts to get fuzzy.



And this equates to his 'suffering' and 'bad parenting' how?

Maybe it wasn't you who use those terms. Someone did.

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and guess you just woke up.Your not even addressing the right posts with the right responses?

 

[Etritonakin]

Social homophobia

The word can be used to describe the fear of a heterosexual that they will be approached romantically by someone of the same sex.


The fear of being identified as gay can be considered as a form of social homophobia. Theorists including Calvin Thomas and Judith Butler have suggested that homophobia can be rooted in an individual's fear of being identified as gay. Homophobia in men is correlated with insecurity about masculinity.[50][51] For this reason, allegedly homophobia is rampant in sports, and in the subculture of its supporters, that are considered stereotypically "male", like football (rugby).[52]


These theorists have argued that a person who expresses homophobic thoughts and feelings does so not only to communicate their beliefs about the class of gay people, but also to distance themselves from this class and its social status. Thus, by distancing themselves from gay people, they are reaffirming their role as a heterosexual in a heteronormative culture, thereby attempting to prevent themselves from being labeled and treated as a gay person. This interpretation alludes to the idea that a person may posit violent opposition to "the Other" as a means of establishing their own identity as part of the majority and thus gaining social validation.


Nancy J. Chodorow states that homophobia can be viewed as a method of protection of male masculinity.[53]


Various psychoanalytic theories explain homophobia as a threat to an individual's own same-sex impulses, whether those impulses are imminent or merely hypothetical. This threat causes repression, denial or reaction formation.[54]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia

I hadn't realized the term was so all-inclusive -thanks for that.

 

[Walkntune]

Again, she admits her mistake.

'
This is correct.
the mom forces her child into a situation that even a five year old was reluctant to be in.
And lets face the facts here, the five year old didn't feel the harassment would come from any accusations of being gay but still knew he would be fun of despite his moms naiveness.
The teachers, as adults recognised this potential right away as anyone with any sense knows that kids do not need much on another to make fun of them.

Mom knows down inside they are right about the potential of setting the kid up to be picked on( even five year old was right) but instead of dealing with her mistake she posts her frustrations out in an article and then throws the word gay and transvestite around to dance on the emotions of others and there you go.

Teachers are bad homophobes for looking out for the welfare of the child and the mother is a hero for writing an article that manipulated the truth of the situation into being one of how Christians are evil but neglected her own child in the process.

 

[Walkntune]

Haha! No, those who see what you see see what you see.

No, I said see, see see rider!




Yes its true if we look for justification for our own resistance we will find it. To bad we look for justification instead of truth.

 

[Storm]

What generalizations have I made other than now stating the people in this thread make sweeping generalizations? I haven't pretended to know anything about the situation. I'm more concerned with the claims based on a brief understanding of a small glimpse of a situation whose context it's obviously a lot more complex than a 1000 word story and a few minutes in a news clip.

I'm sorry, but I'm not making generalizations, either. I'm forming an opinion with the information at hand, just like you.

 

[Storm]

Sure, so your kid wants to dress up like Daphne, and then two days later expresses his doubts. So, specifically, what would you say to your kid (you might want to try free forming this, too) in which you were being realistic and weren't 'lying' at all.

"You're right, baby, people might make fun of you. Do you still want to wear that costume?"

 

[monta]

"You're right, baby, people might make fun of you. Do you still want to wear that costume?"

Exactly this.

 

[dust1n]

It's not bad for kids to realize their parents aren't perfect, but it's best for parents to know what they're talking about -and when they do, express it, rather than undermine their child's trust in their word.

No argument here. She clearly expressed her misunderstanding the blog, not to the child, but she willing stated that she was wrong to presume no one would notice.

You do not know that the mother did not assume something at that moment. I think it is evident that it is at least possible that she assumed the child's decision had something to do, IN HIS MIND, with sexuality rather than identifying with a popular character for any number of reasons not including sexuality or gender.

You are right, I do not know, which is why I did not assume. But how you can then assume that the opposite is true is beyond on me, especially when she outlines it has having little to do with the situation.

When the child picked up the costume, and the parent knew (should have known) it could lead to ridicule -right or wrong -it would have been responsible for the parent -NO MATTER THEIR OWN VIEWS -to bring up that possibility to their child -and discuss THAT PART of the "birds and bees" as it might relate to why they might be ridiculed.

1. The possibility for ridicule exist for any single costume. Is it the responsibility of parents to acknowledge to their children the faint chance they might be ridiculed with any of their selections? As stated in the blog, no child ridiculed the costume, only parents did. 2. How can you explain THAT PART of the 'birds and bees' and have it make any sense without knowing the REST of the 'birds and bees'? The real reason the parents have a problem with the costume is because it breaks gender normality and suggests an acceptance on the mother's part of her child's potential homosexuality.

I think doing so then could have prevented the fiasco on the day -not due to pushing any religious belief, but by understanding the child's motives and explaining the possibilities. Though I, personally, would teach from a religious perspective, I don't even think it would have been necessary, as sexuality was probably not the real issue to the child -but liking the character -not necessarily due to anything relating to gender.

But sexuality and gender had everything to do with the actual fiasco.

Yes, there are an infinite number of WHY?s -and they should be addressed AS THE CHILD IS CAPABLE OF PROCESSING THE ANSWERS -and AS THEY RELATE TO THE CHILD AND CURRENT SUBJECT.

Right, so when the conversation continues:

"You might get made fun of for dressing like a girl because you are a boy."

"Why?"

Go ahead an answer the next question in a fashion in which a five year old is capable of processing the answer, without holding the truth from the situation.

As it relates to clothing, there are a number of issues to address. There are good reasons for certain people to wear -and not wear certain clothes. There are also bad reasons.

Clothing and Halloween costume are not even close the same.

I most definitely believe that it is ideal -especially for creating the best environment for raising a child -for a male and female to be married before having sex and remain together exclusively. I would definitely explain this in detail to my children -given the opportunity. (I actually did not have that opportunity partly because I did not always adhere to that -which is probably the worst way to prove a point!)

And it seems the parent did not share the same unfounded biases.

Though I would teach my children and raise them according to my beliefs -which I have proven exhaustively and would feel responsible to teach them, I would encourage them to prove their own beliefs. I would definitely try to discourage them from abnormal sexuality -and explain how sexuality relates to God -and obedience to him (Our reproduction is a mirror of God reproducing himself -

You want a five year old to prove his own beliefs, when your own beliefs aren't?

I would also teach them to not be judgmental -to treat everyone well -to help those who need help regardless of who they are -to defend those who are being persecuted -to be slow to speak, slow to anger, quick to understand, etc...

After such judgments made on homosexual couples, I could only imagine how well this plan will work out.

I also realize that they would not necessarily adhere to the same beliefs I have, and that having real beliefs requires a bit of living and experience -but as I have proven my beliefs exhaustively, I do believe they would eventually return to them -and would have laid a good foundation for them.

You can prove all of those ontological claims about God?

But... life is life. Sometimes it happens before you have any beliefs at all -I haven't always believed the way I do -and even then haven't always done what I believe.
Even then we don't always have many choices.

Agreed.

 

[Walkntune]

5. Boo’s best friend is a little girl
6. Boo has an older sister
7. Boo spends most of his time with me.
8. I am a woman.
9. I am Boo’s mother, not you.

I wonder why she needed to justify his wearing a female costume in her own article?

 

[dust1n]

Point taken (@^*%^@$ -that's not easy to get from me -hehehehehe)-a very small percentage may have laughed because the costume was cute, etc...
-not technically a lie, but also not addressing the point which was obviously most important to the child at the time.

"My method" would have withheld some things, yes - but addressed the most important issues.. what the child was feeling, why -and what he wanted to do about it -as in.... letting him be him.
"I pointed out that some people will because it is a cute and clever costume. He insists their laughter would be of the ‘making fun’ kind. I blow it off" -does not say what you said it said. It, at least, suggests that she was suggesting they would not be ridiculing him for anyother reason than the one she put forth. It definitely suggests she was avoiding the real issue.

I realize I am not the norm in this regard, but I am far more accepting, tolerant and open-minded since I developed deep religious beliefs and began to study the bible, etc.... I find I am much more able to see a person rather than get caught up in their beliefs, lifestyles, etc... which aren't often permanent and are constantly changing, anyway.

Anyway -good convo -have to get some beauty sleep (really -I'm lookin' bad here) -have a good night!

I can agree with the fact that she was pussyfooting around the situation, and she also points out how she was wrong to think that no one would mention anything. The fact that she made a mistake and then the mistake proved to actually be a mistake (meaning someone was going to be a bigot) and that she was upset at those people for being bigoted seems to be the angle of the story.

 

[dust1n]

This is the main issue I have with her, when he expressed a realistic concern about being teased, she brushed the concerns off instead of telling the truth, which is that there is a strong possibility that you might get teased for wearing a girls costume, after that if it's still what he wanted, of course she should have supported him.

This is the main issue I have with your main issue. She addressed that she was wrong in her presumption. Not only that, no kid is reported as having teased him for anything. Also, the mother probably has little understanding of how boys treat one another in their natural school settings. Also, that is still not 'telling the truth' as it conveniently withholds the same details as saying the kid might get teased because their costume is creative and cute; a kid might get teased for wearing a girls costumer: "Why, Mommy?" Are you going to tell the truth?

As it turned out he didn't get teased, so even if the parents do have some backwards notions, at least they haven 't instilled them in their kids, or else the school has done an excellent job in quashing them.

So where was she wrong at?

 

[dust1n]

He expressed his concern about the costume. She sends him in it anyway. He's then poked at...

By adults, not by kids, mind you.

and she proceeds to post a picture of him and a rant on the internet - focusing on how wrong everyone else was in this situation.

No, see actually only focused on how wrong the bigots where. Who else besides the bigots had been scrutinized?

I don't buy that she didn't see this coming. And now her son is literally all over the internet. I've seen him on multiple websites and I'm sure he's circulating through email.

But you did that she did see it coming. And did you get an e-mail? Again, what does it matter? Where has this kid been humiliated or endured suffering?

I couldn't do that to my kid. I don't see this as a noble act of heroism.

Where did the writer pass this off as a noble act of heroism?

Now, she's spread his humiliation over the entire internet without care as to how he'll feel about this years from now when his picture is being captioned on LOLcats.

What humiliation are you referring to?

 

[dust1n]

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and guess you just woke up.Your not even addressing the right posts with the right responses?

I retracted one statement, stated I had no argument that the kid expressed concern (so what?) and that it was probably not you who had equated it to the 'suffering' and 'exploitation' that has been repeated with. You did however, ask:

I didn't notice the other parents making a comment about being gay in the op?

You also stated the whole 'gay' thing was added drama by the writer.

It is rather naive to pretend that the parents reactions to the kid dressed like a child had nothing to do with homosexuality (regardless how well they worded themselves not to sound like a bigot) and I provided information on how their actions are in fact homophobic. Did you want to debate this?

 

[dust1n]

'
This is correct.
the mom forces her child into a situation that even a five year old was reluctant to be in.

I saw no where in the story was 'force' was applied nor does his reluctance implies that it wasn't his decision. I also did not implied that when I stated, "the writer admitted their mistake."

And lets face the facts here, the five year old didn't feel the harassment would come from any accusations of being gay but still knew he would be fun of despite his moms naiveness.

So? The harassment came from adults (not kids) that took form in the accusations of him being gay (or that it was irresponsible for his mother to allow him to dress up like a girl and that it would be forbidden).

The teachers, as adults recognised this potential right away as anyone with any sense knows that kids do not need much on another to make fun of them.

Except no where is it reported that kids made fun of them. 'This potential' is a social construct created in those mother's minds and it is aimed exactly at homosexuality.

Mom knows down inside they are right about the potential of setting the kid up to be picked on( even five year old was right) but instead of dealing with her mistake she posts her frustrations out in an article and then throws the word gay and transvestite around to dance on the emotions of others and there you go.

Again, the potential for a kid to be picked on can stem from a multitude of things, the majority which go unaddressed by all parents. The truth of the matter is, no mention is made about any kid making fun of them. Mom doesn't know down inside they were right, because they were not right; the kid wasn't made fun of by any kid. She did post out of frustration, and she threw the word gay and transvestite around because that is what the other mothers were getting at with their comments. They were biased and wanted the kid to dress in a gender-normative way, which is essentially homophobia. This was quite obvious to the mother in her writings.

Teachers are bad homophobes for looking out for the welfare of the child and the mother is a hero for writing an article that manipulated the truth of the situation into being one of how Christians are evil but neglected her own child in the process.

Right.. restricting boys from dressing like girls because THEIR STUDENTS might pick on them is 'looking out for the welfare' of the child. Being too lazy of a teacher to actually address kids who bully kids over THINGS WHICH ARE MORALLY WRONG ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN 'TEXTBOOK' is negligence on the child's well being though. Nice.

The only 'neglect' she had on her child was a.) pussyfooting around the fact that bigots would question his sexuality and b.) did not fully take in her child's concerns, both she admits how she was wrong. If the mother was wrong, this does not in any validate the bigots in which she addressing in her article. You claim so boldly that the 'truth of the situation was bent' in the article, and you weren't even close to the situation, yet you claim to know to a very specific degree exactly what happened there. The mother may have bent the 'truth' a little (in fact, that's all anyone could ever do), but I certainly take the word of her over yours, seeing how she was at least there, experiencing what she experienced. Of course I take it with a grain of salt, but I need a whole salt shaker talking to you.

 

[dust1n]

I'm sorry, but I'm not making generalizations, either. I'm forming an opinion with the information at hand, just like you.

Well, it wasn't JUST that. It was everything together. Tomato broke it down a couple of posts up.

The thing is, if you want to be supportive, you have to be supportive when the kid decides he DOESN'T want to do it, too.

Everything about this story screams "political football" to me. Like I said, there are certainly worse agendas, but the whole thing is just distasteful.

That is a generalization (note, generalizations are healthy and necessary for human logic and critical thinking). However, your generalization is based off faulty information. What is the political agenda?

 

[dust1n]

"You're right, baby, people might make fun of you. Do you still want to wear that costume?"

Exactly this.

The child expressed concerns about getting made fun of by OTHER CHILDREN. OTHER CHILDREN did not make fun of the child. The parent at least included "might get made fun of" which is not a lie, because he didn't get made fun of. Your response the child insists that they would get made fun of, which is more of a lie than the parents, because the child did not get made fun of by children.

Even then, the answer is going to be subject to more curiosity and questions, in which I would expect anyone who is the parent of a five-year-old to pussyfoot around the 'reality' of the situation.

 

[monta]

The child expressed concerns about getting made fun of by OTHER CHILDREN. OTHER CHILDREN did not make fun of the child. The parent at least included "might get made fun of" which is not a lie, because he didn't get made fun of. Your response the child insists that they would get made fun of, which is more of a lie than the parents, because the child did not get made fun of by children.

Even then, the answer is going to be subject to more curiosity and questions, in which I would expect anyone who is the parent of a five-year-old to pussyfoot around the 'reality' of the situation.

He wasn't teased by the other children on that day of the party, that doesn't mean he won't be teased, with a bit of luck he will be the exception. The parents didn't say anything to him, according to his mother one mother pulled and face and there was a conversation with her about the suitability of the costume next year.

His voicing concerns changed the situation because it gave his mother the perfect opening to address the concerns in a realistic way, she is the adult, he isn't yet able to properly understand the potential consequences of his actions. Even if he hadn't brought it up she should have tactfully broached the issue, if he then still wanted to go to the party in the Daphne costume, that would be a different story.

 

[Storm]

That is a generalization

No, it really isn't. It's saying that THIS story smells fishy to me. It's a specific response to a specific situation. IOW, the exact opposite of a generalization.

(note, generalizations are healthy and necessary for human logic and critical thinking).

Granted.

However, your generalization is based off faulty information.

Again, not a generalization. My OPINION is based on the same article yours is. So, sorry... but no.

What is the political agenda?

I don't believe I specified "political," as that's only part of it. The agenda I see is, first and foremost, that she wants to show how enlightened she is, letting her son dress as a girl. The political part, "it's ok to be gay," is secondary. That's not a bad agenda by any means, but it is an agenda, and she's using her son to make a point.

The first part is ostentation, the second borders on exploitation, and I find the whole thing mildly disturbing.

 

[Storm]

The child expressed concerns about getting made fun of by OTHER CHILDREN. OTHER CHILDREN did not make fun of the child.

So, he lucked out. Doesn't mean it wasn't a reasonable expectation.

The parent at least included "might get made fun of" which is not a lie, because he didn't get made fun of.

Oh, bull. She flat out denied he would be made fun of, and that was either a lie or astonishing naivete. What's more, even if kids didn't have a problem with it, someone clearly did, or she wouldn't have anything to rant about.

Your response the child insists that they would get made fun of, which is more of a lie than the parents, because the child did not get made fun of by children.

Bull again. What part of "might" did you not understand?

Even then, the answer is going to be subject to more curiosity and questions,

Which can be taken in stride and answered in age-appropriate ways. No need to bring up sucking penises.

in which I would expect anyone who is the parent of a five-year-old to pussyfoot around the 'reality' of the situation.

As an actual parent, I haven't and I won't.