Tags
One day when I was in the second grade (late 1970s) my teacher read the class a story about a baby whose parents simply called it baby “X.” They would not tell anyone the baby’s gender, nor would they allow the baby to wear gender specific clothing, or to play with gender specific toys. The moral of the story, as far as I could grasp, was that baby “X’s” parents thought being an “X” was better than being a baby boy or a baby girl.
I don’t know what prompted the teacher to read the story, but I can remember even then being very puzzled by it. What did baby “X” think, I wondered? Why would baby “X’s” parents do such a thing? And mostly I felt sorry for baby “X” and his or her not being able to be a boy or a girl.
Maybe the point was that baby “X” was a person, and that being a person was better than being male or female? Does being male or female take away from one’s being a person? Does giving girls trucks and boys dolls or scolding boys for liking trucks or girls for liking dolls (if indeed they are drawn to these toys themselves, not “told” they like these toys) really “solve” anything? Will playing with dolls make a girl incapable? Will playing with trucks make a boy insensitive?
The “genderless” movement continued for many years, and can still be found here and there. Years after hearing the tale of baby “X” the story came back to me when watching the popular “Pat” character in Saturday Night Live skits. It was as if baby “X” was all grown up, living out the supposedly better “genderless” existence, to the confusion of everyone.
In short, I get what the genderless movement was about, but I think it reinforces the stigmas it is trying to overcome rather than eradicates them. It implies being a male or a female (depending on one’s point of view) is better or worse than being a “neither” or a “both.”
I disagree. I think women are wonderful. I think men are wonderful. I think children are wonderful. And I think everyone should let them simply be who they themselves are, rather than try to tell them who or what to be. Let baby “X” figure it out. After all, it’s baby “X’s” life, right?
Notes From a Red Pill Girl 
Feminism is wholly on the side of nuture in the nature vs. nurure argument. Hard to understand why when it flies in the face of direct observation. It does seem to be at the foundation of their ideology. I have heard it said that they are in rebellion against God and nature.
Good points Fuzzie. I don’t think feminism “intended” to cause harm, or that my teacher read that story to harm us. I think those things were (mostly) well intended and that people thought and still think they are doing “the right thing” by supporting the FI. But like the story of the lady who swallowed the fly, then the bird, then the cat… I think feminism while intended to help women, in turn it has caused another set of unforeseen issues for both men and women that people aren’t discussing, if that makes sense? Some involved may indeed hate men, or women, or both, but I think for the most part the harm (confusion, broken homes, divorce, men acting like women, women acting like men, etc) is unintended and was never the goal. Still, when you are the one suffering the harm (like you or me) it’s hard to see how any of this is “helping” and I for one wish people would stop “helping” so much and start admitting that feminism has both a good and a bad side, for men and women. And how to deal with the unforeseen stuff without losing the good stuff, if that’s possible?
@ Fuzzie and also I agree, the “nature” part of this is often left out. I believe men and women are distinctly different in all kinds of ways, and those natures affect how we think and see the world and each other. I would like to see that part worked into all this as well! “If men are naturally thus and women are naturally thus then…” Instead of thinking “It’s all nurture and so that means it’s ‘learned’ and we can deny those differences or try to eliminate them.” Heck, I think those differences are what makes it interesting! And what make it work!
(And page views tripled today, yippie!)
I think these harebrained schemes were intended in part to help the “outcasts”. A lot of “reformers” don’t fit in with the world as it is, so they try to change the world.
There have always been tomboys and such, but there weren’t the norm, they were outliers. But in an effort to normalize folks on the fringe, they’ve succeeded in turning normal people into outcasts. It’s no longer okay for a girl to play with dolls or a boy to like trucks because they makes Sam and Billy feel weird. Besides, you can’t say that girls like playing with dolls because Sam’s into fort building.
But you can’t make nothing normal, and what’s actually normal is no longer okay. Therefore, we must all take the lead from those of us who are least like what most of us naturally are.
And you can guess where that leads.
Page views tripled? You’re on a roll! YAY!
Redpillgirlnotes,
Here’s another red pill woman blog. She’s married.
http://verusconditio.wordpress.com/2014/04/28/why-feminism-is-good/
More than tripled actually, now 5 times any day before! Exciting!
I don’t think they’re coming here for the videos but, let’s not disappoint.
The typical street level feminists does not intend to cause harm but they are merely useful idiots
Those who came up with feminism, drive its agenda etc do indeed to cause harm. This is true of the entire progressive movement
Pingback: Are Men and Women Different? | notesfromaredpillgirl
Pingback: What We Can Learn From 50 Shades of Grey | Notes From a Red Pill Girl
Pingback: Men and Women: Two Halves of a Whole? | Notes From a Red Pill Girl
Pingback: Thoughts on Gender Benders | Notes From a Red Pill Girl