posted April 10, 2012 09:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by VenusDiSirius:
Look at those squares from Saturn and Nep!! Well,mommy gave them room...

---

posted April 10, 2012 09:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doux Rêve:
Definitely a *lot* of confusion, that's all I can say.

The Moon is well-aspected so his feminine side will be/is integrated.

---

posted April 10, 2012 09:20 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by inthemisosoup:
Now I have to rethink this a little and I'm too tired ATM. I will post tomorrow.

---

posted April 10, 2012 10:13 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lonake:
Can you explain 'gave them room' re:the aspects mentioned?

---

Gave them room to maneuver.
Kid's has been born with Sat sq Venus (challenged feminine archtype) Sat sq Jupiter (energy of extremists) and Nep sq Sun (confusion regarding identity) and his mother chose for him to grow up without realising his gender? By defying nature? Talkin about conditioning for planetary influences!

posted April 10, 2012 10:17 PM            

Thanks for your thoughtful post. I have to agree that it hardly makes sense to try and demonstrate that gender "doesn't matter" by creating a situation where it's almost all that matters...where it eclipses virtually every other area in which a child might get attention.

One issue that I see playing out in these gender debates, without much commentary, is materialism. There is usually a strong link between gender issues and how they play out with one's purchases and material life.

For example, my third son loves pink and dolls. He is three. Now...if I were very wealthy and very motivated to challenge gender assumptions, I might materially indulge his every feminine whim. I've seen other parents do this kind of thing.

Whereas I just say, "Hey I like pink, too," and when he cuddles a doll, I say, "That's sweet!" these parents would:

1) Tear down his cowboy bedroom decorations and replace them with princesses
2) Buy him a lot of dolls, a lot of girl equipment, making a real investment in his femininity
3) Assume it's wrong to "force" masculine toys on him
4) Take him to a psychiatrist to discuss any possible trans-gender leanings

Not only do I think all of that is going WAY overboard, I simply don't have the money for it!

On the other hand, nor do I:

1) Lecture my son that he can't like pink
2) Hide his dolls
3) Tremble in fear that he might turn out gay

This is what I mean by letting things unfold naturally without too much meddling.

I assume my child will be emotionally healthy so long as he has love, a stable home environment, healthy food, a good education, clean clothes and fun experiences. Just the basics.

posted April 10, 2012 10:42 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by VenusDiSirius:
Gave them room to maneuver.
Kid's has been born with Sat sq Venus (challenged feminine archtype) Sat sq Jupiter (energy of extremists) and Nep sq Sun (confusion regarding identity) and his mother chose for him to grow up without realising his gender? By defying nature? Talkin about conditioning for planetary influences!

For example,Saturn/Venus peeps may have challenges in love life,but they are also Saturn people who are wiser than their age,and while often they have bad times,they push on,because it is Saturn thing to do - be better with time. But,having shy and insecure teen years,for example,is normal bad situation,compared to I-don't-really-care-about-my-sex bad situation. This is a very singular case,and I think things can go very wrong. Of course,singular cases,like anything in life,goes both ways - good and bad. But,this isn't a healthy way,and I can't say it could turn out ok. And with those aspects in mind,yes,I feel mother made irreparable damage.
This isn't even a case of not knowing [b]who he is,but what he is. Sun can't work with that .Saturn can't work with that. Not to mention Nep,cuz everything can work for Nep = which in turn can make things only worse and utterly incomprehensible (I am aware how harsh this sounds)[/B]

---

posted April 11, 2012 01:59 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by VenusDiSirius:
Talkin about conditioning for planetary influences!

---

posted April 12, 2012 06:51 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by FireMoon:
I guess I can see both sides of the argument here. My guess is that the mom (or dad) have struggled with their own identity/gender issues. But I guess I just want to say, what if this child was actually a girl? Would people still be reacting so negatively? If not, why is it considered so much worse or wrong (or traumatizing in this case) for a boy to be raised embracing female gender roles (and potentially turn out more "feminine") than for a girl to be or turn out more masculine? Maybe it was wrong for the parents to draw so much media attention to this child, but if it had been for a "good cause" the reactions probably wouldn't be as harsh. It could have been gone about a different way, but maybe this really is a topic that's worth bringing attention to in our society...

This is just my opinion, don't mean to offend anyone

---

The only time I had a doll to play with in my childhood was one I bought myself with my pocket money. My dad gifted me an air pistol when I was 7.

You have raised a very intriguing point here, FireMoon.

Girls behaving as Masculine are considered strong or tomboyish; boys are sissies, wusses, wimps and gay. Double Standards indeed.

posted April 12, 2012 06:59 AM              

quote:

---

Girls behaving as Masculine are considered strong or tomboyish;

---

posted April 12, 2012 09:29 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Capriquarius:
[QUOTE]Girls behaving as Masculine are considered strong or tomboyish;

---

posted April 12, 2012 09:59 AM            

quote:

---

Nah, it's called "butch" and considered unattractive by normal folks.

---

posted April 12, 2012 04:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Capriquarius:
[QUOTE]Girls behaving as Masculine are considered strong or tomboyish;

---

Really?

That's a very narrow viewpoint. Have you seen media's definition of a strong woman? The kind they show in movies? Kicks @ss, takes names, loves the hero and leaves him be, is callous, makes witty remarks and is for all intents and purposes Han Solo with a vag.? Yeah that one

posted April 12, 2012 05:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Capriquarius:
[QUOTE]Girls behaving as Masculine are considered strong or tomboyish;

---

Interests and appearances are two different things, and they don’t always match up, that’s kind of the point.

You might assume that a girl interested in hunting for example is “butch and unattractive”, but as FrozenQueen pointed out, what about the medias portrayal of a very *feminine* woman (maybe dressed in lingerie) holding a pistol….. Sexy right?

We grow up from the time we are young children around these gender roles, so we consider them “normal” or natural, but I don’t think there’s anything innate to all females that makes them enjoy dressing up in pink tutus, or learning to style barbies hair, or watching Disney movies where the main character is almost always a beautiful damsel in distress, waiting for her prince charming to come and save her from all her problems since she’s incapable of having the necessary agency to do so in her own life.

I don’t think the mom was trying to tell her son what to be interested in, or how to act, I think it was the opposite. I think she was simply trying to expose him to both (artificially constructed) gender roles, and allowing him decide for himself which he is interested in and wants to embrace. Yes, she could have done this on her own without the media attention, but that would have kind of defeated the purpose. If her son is going to suffer later in life because of this, then it is society that’s imposing these guidelines and judgments as to how men and women should appear, since she obviously did not. I think she was doing this in hopes that it would spark this very conversation, because this isn’t an issue to be discussed behind closed doors, it’s an issue maintained and reproduced in our society that we are all a part of. Things that aren’t brought up publically don’t tend to change on their own.

Women who try to bring this topic up publically often face a lot of ridicule, or are accused of being man hating “feminists”. This is not the case. Gender roles aren’t just about the poor victimized women in our society. Both genders are guilty of perpetuating gender roles, and they can be just as damaging to men. It’s a complex issue, but I think it’s worth discussing with an open mind…