Classifying gender roles

As I was watching this touching video from Sigur Ros I began thinking about stereotypical gender roles and how they affect children while growing up.

I've never much conformed to these gender roles nor pushed or even believed in them.

I grew up a sort-of tomboy. I idolized my brother and would rather play with his Star Wars toys than my sister's Barbie's. I shared a room with two of my sisters growing up and one day, I got so angry at them I packed up my stuffed animals and moved into my brother's room. My punishment from my sisters was to lock me out of the house for 3 hours one day.

My best friends since childhood have usually been male. And now, although I'm not a girly girl by any means, I am a relatively "normal" 25ish woman. I like my jeans and filp flops but like to dress up every now and then.

Then there is my daughter. She IS quite the girly girl and loves to dress up, have her nails done, wear makeup and play with her Barbies. I have no idea where she gets it. However, she also likes playing with her cousins' paintball guns, driving their go-carts, and getting dirty. But nothing she's interested in is going to define her gender role. And nothing should.

I don't think that just because a boy liked to dress up in his mom's dresses or played with dolls when he was younger is going to make him gay. Just like me being a tomboy or my daughter playing with paintball guns isn't going to make us gay.

Why is society afraid of letting children step outside gender roles? Why must we be forced to conform to a standard society has put on us and not be who we really are?

I find it disturbing when parents force their children to play with certain types of toys or do certain activities so they will "turn out a certain way." To me, in doing so will only stifle individualism and character. We can't force kids to be who they are or to be happy.

The secret to raising happy, healthy children is to just let them be who they are. In a perfect world, society will accept everyone for who they are and who they love and what they believe in.

When straight dogs live with gay men

I've been noticing a lot lately that a lot of gay couples (men in particular) have dogs in their lives. Now, it's not that they just have a dog. I mean, lots of people (including straight couples) have dogs. But for most gay couples, their dogs are their "kids."

For example, an older gay couple I know were talking about their new golden retriever puppy at a party last week. They were literally doting on their puppy like it was a brand new baby. "You should see his cute little paws! Oh and his eyes! We can't take him out yet because he's so little; we don't want him to get sick." Scott recently told me that he really wants a dog (it was quite random) and Jesse and Brian treat their dog Titus like he is their kid.

I don't really understand the whole "my dog is like my child thing." Maybe it's because I'm allergic to most dogs, I don't know. I like Titus as much as they like my kid. And my kid really likes them, but Titus likes me more than he should.

Every time I visit their house, Titus shows his affection towards me by "getting it on" with my arm. Jesse and Brian keep telling me that he's giving me a hug cause he likes me so much. "He does it to us whenever he knows we're going to leave the house."

Except, there is more to Titus hugging my arm. Yesterday, as I was sitting on their bed waiting for Jesse to finish packing, Titus jumped up and got on my arm. Before I could tell him no and shove him off, Jesse said, "No, wait. He's not humping you, he just wants to give you a hug!"

When I showed Jesse Titus' lipstick, however, he realized that I was right all along (as usual) and told Titus to stop. He did stop but he continued to lick my arm and smell me. I guess I have that girl scent that drives him wild. I started using a new kind of lotion that I thought might repel him. Apparently not.

I could understand the connection better if he were a gay dog but since he's straight, I just don't get it. My only conclusion is that since I'm a straight girl, Titus really likes me. He's around the gay men so much, he just can't contain himself when I'm around.

Hmmm...I hang around gay men constantly but I don't start humping them whenever I feel like it. I mean, that'd just be weird.

It's not the end, it just makes the fight that much harder and much more worthwhile

There a host of reasons the people I know have left the Mormon church. My reasons were different; I just didn't believe it. That, and a piece of paper they have says my daughter and I are not a real family.

I have a hard time disliking the Church because my family and many good friends and collegues are members. But things like this really hurt me and I can't forgive them for this belief.

I don't usually quote whole articles here but I felt this was too much to not talk about. The link to the article is here.

The LDS Church has joined a national religious coalition to push an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would define marriage as between a man and a woman.

LDS Apostle Russell M. Nelson joined 50 prominent Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox and Jewish leaders in signing a petition explaining why they see a need for such a constitutional amendment.

"We are convinced that this is the only measure that will adequately protect marriage from those who would circumvent the legislative process and force a redefinition of it on the whole of our society," reads the petition released to the public on Monday. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a statement acknowledging its involvement with the Religious Coalition for Marriage, but spokesman Dale Bills declined any further comment and said Nelson was granting no interviews.

The petition isn't the first attempt to amend the Constitution in regard to marriage.

A similar effort failed in 2004, but it did generate significant opposition to same-sex marriage that helped bring many conservative voters to the polls in some pivotal states in 2004. That same year, Utah amended its own constitution to define marriage as the legal union between a man and a woman - a move the LDS Church endorsed. The church has issued two previous statements in support of a constitutional amendment on marriage, and its position is clearly laid out in the 1994 document, "The Family: A Proclamation to the World."

Valerie Larabee, executive director of the Gay and Lesbian Community Center of Utah, said she was disappointed but not surprised by this new drive to amend the U.S. Constitution.

"The Constitution is a very empowering document," Larabee said Monday. "This is the first time it would be used to take away rights, rather than extend them."
The U.S. has many bigger problems to face than how to define marriage, she said. "It's time to stop discriminating against [gays and lesbians] for something they have no control over."

Since the passage of Utah's marriage amendment, many gays and lesbians have gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid discrimination in the workplace and protect their families, Larabee said. "If Utah voters truly knew the impact of Amendment 3, they'd be disgusted."

This new effort is nothing more than "political pandering and an electoral distraction," said Scott McCoy, an openly gay state senator who helped organize opposition to Utah's marriage amendment.

Congress is not likely to pass a constitutional amendment, nor should it, McCoy said. "Domestic relations law has never been a federal issue, not for 200 years."
Proponents of a traditional marriage definition say a constitutional amendment would immediately shut down all legal challenges to it across the nation.

Currently, there are court cases in Washington, California, Iowa, New York, Connecticut, New Jersey and Maryland, said Monte Stewart, executive director of the Marriage Law Foundation in Orem.

"They are demanding that the court redefine marriage as the union of any two people," Stewart said. "It would end all the pending court cases and would give the U.S. a uniform definition of marriage."

Both the organizers and gay rights groups said what was striking about this new petition drive was the direct involvement by high-ranking Roman Catholic officials, including 16 bishops. Although the church has long opposed same-sex unions, and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops had previously endorsed the idea of a constitutional amendment banning such unions, evangelical Protestants generally led the charge when the amendment was debated in 2004.

The petition drive was organized in part by Robert P. George of Princeton, a Catholic scholar with close ties to evangelical Protestant groups. Aides to three Republican senators - Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader; Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania; and Sam Brownback of Kansas - were also involved, organizers said.

Organizers said the petition had brought together cardinals from both the left and right sides of the United States bishops' conference, including the liberal Cardinal Roger M. Mahony of Los Angeles and the conservative Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, as well as Cardinals Edward M. Egan of New York, Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington, William H. Keeler of Baltimore and Sean Patrick O'Malley of Boston.

The prominent conservative Protestant figures included leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination, as well as the president of conservative Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and a handful of Episcopal bishops.

Matt Daniels, founder of the Alliance for Marriage, an umbrella group that supports the proposed amendment, said the religious leaders represented "huge numbers" of people. His group has set up a Web site, http://www.religiouscoalitionformarriage.org, which includes the petition, pew handouts and suggested notes for sermons.

One boy, one girl

This is a previous post from my other blog. I apologize to those of you who have already read it. I feel that it fits better with this blog. Enjoy...

I was asked yesterday in a job interview what my greatest accomplishment was. My answer was a little cheesy and I only half-heartedly believed it.

Until yesterday afternoon.

My answer was, "My kid. And watching her learn and grow and become a better person." Now, when I said this, I was really only trying to sound deep and meaningful. I didn't really believe it.

Then, we went swimming. And we started talking about girls and boys.

Now, last week, she got on this kick that Jesse and Brian are brothers. Her reasoning: "Because they live together." When I told that they were not brothers, she said, "OK, they are cousins then." Still no, I said.

But yesterday, she had a breakthrough. I'm not sure how we got on the subject. I think Scott and I were talking about Nathan or something. She kept saying that it was "disgusting for two boys and two girls" to be together. I kept asking her why she thought so. Her answer: "I don't know."

Scott and I kept pressing into her that it's ok for 2 boys to love each other and be boyfriends. "What about 2 girls?" she inquired. That's ok too, I assured her, as is a boy and a girl.

Then I called Scott gay (which he is!). She asked what "gay" meant. I told her that it was 2 boys or 2 girls that are boyfriends or girlfriends. "EW!" she exclaimed. No, it's not, I told her, again. Scott and I proceeded to explain everything all over again. I ended the conversation with, "It's ok for 2 boys to be boyfriends, right? That means gay. And gay is okay, right?"

"YES!" she cried in exasperation (mostly because I kept saying it).

Then she said, "Well mom, if 2 girls like each other then you are gay too! You have friends who are girls so they are your girlfriends!" She later told Nathan and Brady, "My mom is gay!"

Oi vey!

Now, I still have some progress to make, I know. I do have 5 years of my mother's teachings to erase. But she finally understood that it's ok for 2 boys to be boyfriends. She realized that these men, who she loves dearly, love each other and that's normal.

I feel like I accomplished something great with her. She understands and accepts, at the young age of 6, what millions of other people feel is immoral and wrong. To her, there is nothing wrong with my gay boyfriends. To her, they are good people; ones she looks up to and has fun with. She has no judgments against them because of their sexual orientation. To her, they are: Jesse--the fun one (and favorite), Brian--the smart one, Scott--the skinny one, Brady--the one who swims, Adam--the weird one (which he is) and Shawn--the other one. They are my friends. And hers. She constantly begs for one of them to come over or for us to go visit them. Sometimes, she'd rather hang out with them instead of her own little friends.

One boy and one boy is ok.

I'm happy they are in our lives (mostly the first 3 on my list above). They have made both of us better people.

But one boy, and one girl boy, two hearts beating wildly.
To put it mildly, it was love at first sight.
He smiled, she he smiled, and they knew right away
that this was the day they'd waited for all their lives.
And for a moment the whole world
revolved around one boy and one girl boy.
"One Boy, One Girl Boy" Colin Raye