I searched her on YouChoobe, watched about 20 minutes of a routine looking for offensiveness.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uly0gZny2IY Not much there, except for a comment about a man who's favorite Spice Girl was Baby. Why can't a man's favorite Spice Girl be Baby? Is it any weirder than a man having a favorite Spice Girl at all? j/k
She has a few decent bits there.
I wonder who it is that she said tells her that female comedians can't talk about anything related to their possession of a vagina? Why not? I chuckled at the papsmear one. I didn't hear anything about sex workers yet, unfortunately.
She told a joke that got groans, and commented that it was too subtle. I think I got it, but it's not that funny.
(paraphrasing)"An overdose on homeopathic medicine is drowning."
Because homeopathic medicine is water, right?

A bit more info on the incident at Goldsmiths, which happened last February:

Information regarding cancelled comedy event

An SU spokesperson said:

“The Goldsmiths comedy society is a small volunteer led group. They made this decision independently from the Union and we support their right to decide who plays their gigs.

Goldsmiths Students’ Union is a diverse and politically active organisation where you’ll find a variety of people and opinions. We’re proud of this reputation and saddened that a decision taken in good faith has been taken out of a great deal of context."


The Comedy Society President said:

“Despite many complaints from students about the content of Kate’s act in the past we were planning to go ahead with the gig until Kate told me 24 hours before that there was likely to be a picket with lots of students and non students outside the venue. I couldn’t verify this. Up to this point we had only sold 8 tickets so I decided to pull the plug.”


Goldsmiths Feminist Society said:

"Goldsmiths Feminist Society did not no platform Kate Smurthwaite and had nothing to do with the decision to cancel the show."

http://www.goldsmithssu.org/news/articl ... edy-event/

Half of Canadian universities fail at free speech: report

Universities are supposed to be safe places to debate controversial ideas but school administrators and students leaders would sometimes prefer instead to enforce their own points of view, even if it means silencing others.

A newcomer to the free speech debate is “men’s issues” after the University of Toronto Students’ Union and the Ryerson Students’ Union both outlawed men’s issues awareness clubs this year. The UTSU claimed such groups “harass women.” The RSU called one a “hate group.” The University of Toronto’s administration, however, was the only one to receive an “A” for its policies, which helped maintain relative calm when a men’s issues group hosted an anti-feminist lecture.

Among the universities to get an “F” was Queen’s, whose administration made national news after they sanctioned tearing down a paper “free speech wall” because it contained “offensive content.” It turns out that wall was sponsored by JCCF so don’t be surprised if it’s tacked up once more.

http://www.macleans.ca/education/uniandcollege/half-of-canadian-universities-fail-at-free-speech-report/

More horseshit soup please?

Ryerson Students’ Union blocks men’s issues group
Whatever happened to debate?

The Ryerson Students’ Union (RSU) takes issue with a men’s issues club. If it were not so serious, it would be laughable. An organization that collects hundreds of thousands of dollars in mandatory levies from Ryerson students is afraid of three students—two of them women—starting a men’s issues group.

Despite the constant rhetoric about diversity, equity and inclusion, the RSU cannot tolerate ideologies that run counter to its own. The irony of this patronizing attitude towards campus freedom is hard to miss. It’s as if the spirit of closed-minded religious dogma has jumped into bed with modern political correctness to prevent blasphemy against RSU ideological orthodoxy.

The principle is this: if you challenge official narrative, you don’t have the right to speak. But this is supposed to be a university—a place where we learn and debate in an open environment; where those we disagree with are challenged, not with censorship, but with other ideas. To agree to disagree and to respectfully debate—this is true tolerance.

Intellectual maturity is demonstrated by listening and debating. Resorting to fear mongering and politicking to silence differing opinions is ignorant.

http://www.macleans.ca/education/uniandcollege/ryerson-students-union-censors-mens-issues-group/

proudfootz wrote:
I thought the shows were cancelled due to poor attendance

First it was because of the restriction on her free speech then it was because of low ticket sales. Now it is
possible the two are connected but without knowing why the sales were so low one cannot say. It was also
casually mentioned to her on This Morning where she just as casually dismissed it. So one is none the wiser

Emmeline wrote:A bit more info on the incident at Goldsmiths, which happened last February:

Information regarding cancelled comedy event

An SU spokesperson said:

“The Goldsmiths comedy society is a small volunteer led group. They made this decision independently from the Union and we support their right to decide who plays their gigs.

Goldsmiths Students’ Union is a diverse and politically active organisation where you’ll find a variety of people and opinions. We’re proud of this reputation and saddened that a decision taken in good faith has been taken out of a great deal of context."


The Comedy Society President said:

“Despite many complaints from students about the content of Kate’s act in the past we were planning to go ahead with the gig until Kate told me 24 hours before that there was likely to be a picket with lots of students and non students outside the venue. I couldn’t verify this. Up to this point we had only sold 8 tickets so I decided to pull the plug.”


Goldsmiths Feminist Society said:

"Goldsmiths Feminist Society did not no platform Kate Smurthwaite and had nothing to do with the decision to cancel the show."

http://www.goldsmithssu.org/news/articl ... edy-event/

So it looks like it was Kate's idea to try and blame her poor ticket sales on a non-existent picket?

Another fantasy tempest in an imaginary teapot.

These Student Unions banning men's issue groups - are the union leadership elected by the students?

Doubtdispelled wrote:
But I do have to admit that I still haven't forgotten your amazing and gob-smacking insistence that your male and female children will only get toys which you consider appropriate to their sex/gender for Christmas, no matter what their preferences are or what they ask for.

Yes that’s my view, I’m don’t recall saying the red-bolded bit, but feel free to quote from one of my posts if my memory is in error on that point ‘cause I simply don’t remember saying that part.

Having said that however, giving toys appropriate to a child’s sex won’t cause this:


And to be quite frank: I don’t care what others do. My wife and I will raise our children as we see fit, not the way others (might/would) demand and tell us how we should raise them. We’ll be paying for them and supporting them for 18+ years and if others want a say in how we should raise them, then let those interfering people pay to raise them. They obviously won’t so my wife and I have the final say.

Others are free to raise their children gender-neutral, and they have my blessings since it’s none of my business, but it is my business when they try to tell my wife and me how to raise our children.

My wife and I were at Toys R Us just a little over a week ago to buy birthday gifts for twins, a boy and a girl. The boy section was blue and the girl section was pink. Selecting the right section was a breeze since all of the toys were grouped together by colour and section. They had a neutral area where the toys were apropos for either sex.

We bought Thomas the Train for the boy and a Barbie doll for the girl. They’re both 5-years-old. Incidentally, the kids the toys we bought them!

While looking at the huge selection of Thomas trains the only people we saw in that area were dads and their son(s) or mom/dad and their son(s).

The scene was the same when we went to the other side of the wall (the girls section) and were looking for a doll.

We’ve gone many times over the past few years to buy toys (at that store and others) and I’ve yet to see a boy looking at dolls or a girl looking at trains, dump trucks etc.

Emmeline wrote:These Student Unions banning men's issue groups - are the union leadership elected by the students?

I suppose we'd need more information to have a basis for discussion: which Student Unions, which 'men's issue' groups, etc.

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Doubtdispelled wrote:
But I do have to admit that I still haven't forgotten your amazing and gob-smacking insistence that your male and female children will only get toys which you consider appropriate to their sex/gender for Christmas, no matter what their preferences are or what they ask for.

Yes that’s my view, I’m don’t recall saying the red-bolded bit, but feel free to quote from one of my posts if my memory is in error on that point ‘cause I simply don’t remember saying that part.

It's implied by the bolded bit.

The scene was the same when we went to the other side of the wall (the girls section) and were looking for a doll.

We’ve gone many times over the past few years to buy toys (at that store and others) and I’ve yet to see a boy looking at dolls or a girl looking at trains, dump trucks etc.

Ah, the appeal to personal anecdote and therefore personal ignorance fallacy. How novel.

My sister and I played with dollhouses as a kid. My Star War guys had bedrooms and stuff.
I still get a feeling of nostalgia when I see one now.
We also played with slot cars, diecast cars, baseball bats, etc.

Skinny Puppy wrote:
We’ve gone many times over the past few years to buy toys (at that store and others) and I’ve yet to see a boy looking at dolls or a girl looking at trains, dump trucks etc.

Since we're on personal anecdotes, here's another one. When I was a child I loved playing with dolls and I also loved playing with trains & Meccano. My male cousins had the two latter things and although I kept asking if I could have them too, nobody gave them to me because they were considered boys' toys. When my children were young, the main toy shop still had trains & Meccano- type toys in the 'boys' section' but at least I bought my daughter construction toys, which she loved, along with her dolls. My son also loved them but he liked playing with Sylvanian Families too, which were in the girls' section. They both played with trucks & cars & shared a small train set, both making scenery & bridges etc for it. Maybe you could consider the possibility that both boys & girls often enjoy toys from the 'other side' if they're only given the opportunity.

proudfootz wrote:

Emmeline wrote:These Student Unions banning men's issue groups - are the union leadership elected by the students?

I suppose we'd need more information to have a basis for discussion: which Student Unions, which 'men's issue' groups, etc.

Skinny just posted one and I wondered if that Union has elected leaders, in which case if the student body find their decisions objectionable, presumably they could vote them out?

Perhaps the Ryerson Students' Union knows something about this 'men's issue' group that isn't in the article.

In fact, the link looks like an opinion piece with no effort to understand or explain the decision.

It would appear the members of the Board are elected by the students.

http://rsuonline.ca/About-Us/Constating-Document

[ETA: to fix typo - change from ME's issue to MEN's issue]

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Doubtdispelled wrote:
But I do have to admit that I still haven't forgotten your amazing and gob-smacking insistence that your male and female children will only get toys which you consider appropriate to their sex/gender for Christmas, no matter what their preferences are or what they ask for.

Yes that’s my view, I’m don’t recall saying the red-bolded bit, but feel free to quote from one of my posts if my memory is in error on that point ‘cause I simply don’t remember saying that part.

It's implied by the bolded bit.

The scene was the same when we went to the other side of the wall (the girls section) and were looking for a doll.

We’ve gone many times over the past few years to buy toys (at that store and others) and I’ve yet to see a boy looking at dolls or a girl looking at trains, dump trucks etc.

Ah, the appeal to personal anecdote and therefore personal ignorance fallacy. How novel.

Okay Thomas Eshuis, I’m typing this at a snail’s pace so that the words will be digestible in very easy-to-manage, bite-sized pieces.

Of course it’s a personal anecdote, what the fuck did you think it was... a re-write of the Gettysburg Address?

Skinny Puppy wrote:
We’ve gone many times over the past few years to buy toys (at that store and others) and I’ve yet to see a boy looking at dolls or a girl looking at trains, dump trucks etc.

Note the part where I said: I’ve yet to see

Not that this city, this country, the world, the known universe, the possible multi-verses have yet to see, but what I’VE PERSONALLY seen. How the fuck hard was that to figure out that I was speaking from my own (and my wife’s) personal experiences. I was NOT projecting my experiences to the known (fuck me ) universe.

Fuck me! Like fuck me! If necessary I’ll publish “Baby’s First Dictionary of Big Boy Words” in this thread if it’ll help anyone. Of course I’m not saying that anyone would actually need it, but it’s better to be safe than sorry.

Not understanding my easy-to-read and easily understandable posts... how novel, how fucking novel!

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Doubtdispelled wrote:
But I do have to admit that I still haven't forgotten your amazing and gob-smacking insistence that your male and female children will only get toys which you consider appropriate to their sex/gender for Christmas, no matter what their preferences are or what they ask for.

Yes that’s my view, I’m don’t recall saying the red-bolded bit, but feel free to quote from one of my posts if my memory is in error on that point ‘cause I simply don’t remember saying that part.

It's implied by the bolded bit.

The scene was the same when we went to the other side of the wall (the girls section) and were looking for a doll.

We’ve gone many times over the past few years to buy toys (at that store and others) and I’ve yet to see a boy looking at dolls or a girl looking at trains, dump trucks etc.

Ah, the appeal to personal anecdote and therefore personal ignorance fallacy. How novel.

Okay Thomas Eshuis, I’m typing this at a snail’s pace so that the words will be digestible in very easy-to-manage, bite-sized pieces.

Stuff the patronising bullshit Skinny Puppy.

Skinny Puppy wrote:Of course it’s a personal anecdote, what the fuck did you think it was... a re-write of the Gettysburg Address?

The point is not that it's a personal anecdote per se, it's that it's a fallacious basis to argue boys always like the same things and girls always like the same things.

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:
We’ve gone many times over the past few years to buy toys (at that store and others) and I’ve yet to see a boy looking at dolls or a girl looking at trains, dump trucks etc.

Note the part where I said: I’ve yet to see

Note the part where I pointed out that this is an appeal to personal ignorance fallacy.

Skinny Puppy wrote:Not that this city, this country, the world, the known universe, the possible multi-verses have yet to see, but what I’VE PERSONALLY seen. How the fuck hard was that to figure out that I was speaking from my own (and my wife’s) personal experiences. I was NOT projecting my experiences to the known (fuck me ) universe.

No, you were implying that boys and girls always like specific things, based on your personal experience.

Skinny Puppy wrote:Fuck me! Like fuck me!

Sorry to disappoint you, but you're not my type.

Skinny Puppy wrote: If necessary I’ll publish “Baby’s First Dictionary of Big Boy Words” in this thread if it’ll help anyone. Of course I’m not saying that anyone would actually need it, but it’s better to be safe than sorry.

Again stuff the patronising bullshit.
If you don't want the fallacies in your reasoning pointed out, don't employ them. Don't blame your failures on other people.

Skinny Puppy wrote:Not understanding my easy-to-read and easily understandable posts... how novel, how fucking novel!

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Yes that’s my view, I’m don’t recall saying the red-bolded bit, but feel free to quote from one of my posts if my memory is in error on that point ‘cause I simply don’t remember saying that part.

It's implied by the bolded bit.

The scene was the same when we went to the other side of the wall (the girls section) and were looking for a doll.

We’ve gone many times over the past few years to buy toys (at that store and others) and I’ve yet to see a boy looking at dolls or a girl looking at trains, dump trucks etc.

Ah, the appeal to personal anecdote and therefore personal ignorance fallacy. How novel.

Okay Thomas Eshuis, I’m typing this at a snail’s pace so that the words will be digestible in very easy-to-manage, bite-sized pieces.

Stuff the patronising bullshit Skinny Puppy.

Skinny Puppy wrote:Of course it’s a personal anecdote, what the fuck did you think it was... a re-write of the Gettysburg Address?

The point is not that it's a personal anecdote per se, it's that it's a fallacious basis to argue boys always like the same things and girls always like the same things.

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:
We’ve gone many times over the past few years to buy toys (at that store and others) and I’ve yet to see a boy looking at dolls or a girl looking at trains, dump trucks etc.

Note the part where I said: I’ve yet to see

Note the part where I pointed out that this is an appeal to personal ignorance fallacy.

Skinny Puppy wrote:Not that this city, this country, the world, the known universe, the possible multi-verses have yet to see, but what I’VE PERSONALLY seen. How the fuck hard was that to figure out that I was speaking from my own (and my wife’s) personal experiences. I was NOT projecting my experiences to the known (fuck me ) universe.

No, you were implying that boys and girls always like specific things, based on your personal experience.

Skinny Puppy wrote:Fuck me! Like fuck me!

Sorry to disappoint you, but you're not my type.

Skinny Puppy wrote: If necessary I’ll publish “Baby’s First Dictionary of Big Boy Words” in this thread if it’ll help anyone. Of course I’m not saying that anyone would actually need it, but it’s better to be safe than sorry.

Again stuff the patronising bullshit.
If you don't want the fallacies in your reasoning pointed out, don't employ them. Don't blame your failures on other people.

Skinny Puppy wrote:Not understanding my easy-to-read and easily understandable posts... how novel, how fucking novel!

You don’t like patronizing bullshit?

Then it’s easy to stop.

• Read my posts

• Don’t read into them things that simply aren’t there

• Don’t use terms like ‘personal ignorance fallacy’ ‘cause it isn’t ignorance, I spelled out, plainly and clearly, that I was speaking ONLY from personal experience

• Stop misinterpreting my posts

Oh, and by the way, I just read some others’ personal anecdotal experiences above... where’s your condemnation of them?

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Doubtdispelled wrote:
But I do have to admit that I still haven't forgotten your amazing and gob-smacking insistence that your male and female children will only get toys which you consider appropriate to their sex/gender for Christmas, no matter what their preferences are or what they ask for.

Yes that’s my view, I’m don’t recall saying the red-bolded bit, but feel free to quote from one of my posts if my memory is in error on that point ‘cause I simply don’t remember saying that part.

I have to ask, since I don't think it's clear from what you've said here: if one of your children asks for a toy that you deem to be inappropriate for their sex/gender, would you not get it for them based on that?

And to be quite frank: I don’t care what others do. My wife and I will raise our children as we see fit, not the way others (might/would) demand and tell us how we should raise them. We’ll be paying for them and supporting them for 18+ years and if others want a say in how we should raise them, then let those interfering people pay to raise them. They obviously won’t so my wife and I have the final say.

Others are free to raise their children gender-neutral, and they have my blessings since it’s none of my business, but it is my business when they try to tell my wife and me how to raise our children.

For me, you'd need to go to certain extremes to have a case for telling other parents how to raise their children, but I'm sure I could think of situations where you'd agree it's appropriate. It's also an interesting stance for you to hold, since weren't you raised in a brainwashed religious home? Apologies if I got this wrong, I don't remember your story exactly.

My wife and I were at Toys R Us just a little over a week ago to buy birthday gifts for twins, a boy and a girl. The boy section was blue and the girl section was pink. Selecting the right section was a breeze since all of the toys were grouped together by colour and section. They had a neutral area where the toys were apropos for either sex.

We bought Thomas the Train for the boy and a Barbie doll for the girl. They’re both 5-years-old. Incidentally, the kids the toys we bought them!

While looking at the huge selection of Thomas trains the only people we saw in that area were dads and their son(s) or mom/dad and their son(s).

The scene was the same when we went to the other side of the wall (the girls section) and were looking for a doll.

We’ve gone many times over the past few years to buy toys (at that store and others) and I’ve yet to see a boy looking at dolls or a girl looking at trains, dump trucks etc.

What's your point here? It demonstrably happens, even if you don't see it.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Doubtdispelled wrote:
But I do have to admit that I still haven't forgotten your amazing and gob-smacking insistence that your male and female children will only get toys which you consider appropriate to their sex/gender for Christmas, no matter what their preferences are or what they ask for.

Yes that’s my view, I’m don’t recall saying the red-bolded bit, but feel free to quote from one of my posts if my memory is in error on that point ‘cause I simply don’t remember saying that part.

I have to ask, since I don't think it's clear from what you've said here: if one of your children asks for a toy that you deem to be inappropriate for their sex/gender, would you not get it for them based on that?

And to be quite frank: I don’t care what others do. My wife and I will raise our children as we see fit, not the way others (might/would) demand and tell us how we should raise them. We’ll be paying for them and supporting them for 18+ years and if others want a say in how we should raise them, then let those interfering people pay to raise them. They obviously won’t so my wife and I have the final say.

Others are free to raise their children gender-neutral, and they have my blessings since it’s none of my business, but it is my business when they try to tell my wife and me how to raise our children.

For me, you'd need to go to certain extremes to have a case for telling other parents how to raise their children, but I'm sure I could think of situations where you'd agree it's appropriate. It's also an interesting stance for you to hold, since weren't you raised in a brainwashed religious home? Apologies if I got this wrong, I don't remember your story exactly.

My wife and I were at Toys R Us just a little over a week ago to buy birthday gifts for twins, a boy and a girl. The boy section was blue and the girl section was pink. Selecting the right section was a breeze since all of the toys were grouped together by colour and section. They had a neutral area where the toys were apropos for either sex.

We bought Thomas the Train for the boy and a Barbie doll for the girl. They’re both 5-years-old. Incidentally, the kids the toys we bought them!

While looking at the huge selection of Thomas trains the only people we saw in that area were dads and their son(s) or mom/dad and their son(s).

The scene was the same when we went to the other side of the wall (the girls section) and were looking for a doll.

We’ve gone many times over the past few years to buy toys (at that store and others) and I’ve yet to see a boy looking at dolls or a girl looking at trains, dump trucks etc.

What's your point here? It demonstrably happens, even if you don't see it.

I’ll address your (excellent) points later as I have to go out right now.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Doubtdispelled wrote:
But I do have to admit that I still haven't forgotten your amazing and gob-smacking insistence that your male and female children will only get toys which you consider appropriate to their sex/gender for Christmas, no matter what their preferences are or what they ask for.

Yes that’s my view, I’m don’t recall saying the red-bolded bit, but feel free to quote from one of my posts if my memory is in error on that point ‘cause I simply don’t remember saying that part.

1 I have to ask, since I don't think it's clear from what you've said here: if one of your children asks for a toy that you deem to be inappropriate for their sex/gender, would you not get it for them based on that?

And to be quite frank: I don’t care what others do. My wife and I will raise our children as we see fit, not the way others (might/would) demand and tell us how we should raise them. We’ll be paying for them and supporting them for 18+ years and if others want a say in how we should raise them, then let those interfering people pay to raise them. They obviously won’t so my wife and I have the final say.

Others are free to raise their children gender-neutral, and they have my blessings since it’s none of my business, but it is my business when they try to tell my wife and me how to raise our children.

2 For me, you'd need to go to certain extremes to have a case for telling other parents how to raise their children, but I'm sure I could think of situations where you'd agree it's appropriate. It's also an interesting stance for you to hold, since weren't you raised in a brainwashed religious home? Apologies if I got this wrong, I don't remember your story exactly.

My wife and I were at Toys R Us just a little over a week ago to buy birthday gifts for twins, a boy and a girl. The boy section was blue and the girl section was pink. Selecting the right section was a breeze since all of the toys were grouped together by colour and section. They had a neutral area where the toys were apropos for either sex.

We bought Thomas the Train for the boy and a Barbie doll for the girl. They’re both 5-years-old. Incidentally, the kids the toys we bought them!

While looking at the huge selection of Thomas trains the only people we saw in that area were dads and their son(s) or mom/dad and their son(s).

The scene was the same when we went to the other side of the wall (the girls section) and were looking for a doll.

We’ve gone many times over the past few years to buy toys (at that store and others) and I’ve yet to see a boy looking at dolls or a girl looking at trains, dump trucks etc.

3 What's your point here? It demonstrably happens, even if you don't see it.

To save quotes-within-quotes-within... I’ll use numbers.

1 That’s a hypothetical question and those types of questions are difficult at the best of times to answer. What one replies to a HQ isn’t always what one does in reality.

In addition, the passage of time can easily alter one’s (projected) actions as one learns and grows and changes their opinions as they grow older.

However, just from what we’ve experienced, all of the kids (relatives) that we buy for have never asked for anything that deviates from the boy/girl expectations. Sometimes they ask for gender neutral things, like some of the excellent Crayola sets and so on. In addition to relatives’ kids, all of the friends of my wife and I also ask for the typical boy/girl toys. My wife and I have yet to see an exception. While granted, it’s only within the sphere of our experiences, we have a lot of relatives between the two of us and lots of friends, both from work, quite a few neighbours’ kids, and from our activities, I’m on a diving team as an example.

My wife and I live in a young family area. I’d guess that 70-80% of the people around here are under 30-35 and most have kids. Because we have a dog (Brandy) I’ve meet tons of them and we’re on a first name basis. Some of the kids even buy Brandy a Xmas gift (usually a bone) and some of them make their own gifts for Brandy. My wife periodically takes a few of the girls (roughly 6-8-years-old) to the Mac’s store and buys them a Slurpee, with their parents’ permission of course, and the girls generally ask if they can bring a doll with them. It’s not a long walk, but the girls like to take a doll with them and show their dolls to my wife.

We have a play area out back with slides, sandbox etc. In all of the time we’ve been here and with all of the kids that frequent the play area... the toys are typical, without exception. The boys bring their trucks (as one example) and the girls bring their dolls and their doll carriages.

Basically we have zero experience with boys or girls asking for the opposite sexes’ toys. And as I wrote earlier, I’ve yet to see it even in a store.

So what would I do if my son asked for a doll? I honestly can’t answer that since I’d have to be faced with it before I’d know (definitively) what course of action I’d take. In addition it’s a two-pronged question. How I’d buy for others’ kids and how I’d buy for my own would not necessarily be one and the same. I certainly will not make any apologies (I know you didn’t mention that, but I am) for wanting to buy my son boy-type toys or my daughter girl-type toys. My wife and I will do what we think is best, we don’t simply go with the flow regarding what others believe we should do or what’s currently in fashion. In addition, my wife has an equal say in what we do and buy and as it stands right now she’s in full agreement with me.

One important point that I do want to make.

While it’s fine to be a trail-blazer, it’s not fine when one does it with their kids. I’ll explain.

For kids, and even up to their teenage years, friends are about the most important thing to them. They are also under incredible peer pressure to conform. That’s certainly not new and it was the same when I was a boy. If a parent wants to have their son go to school in a dress because they feel that it’s the right thing to do, the boy is the one that will suffer, not them. Peer pressure will cause the boy to be ridiculed and laughed at to the point of being cruel. If a friend sides with him then the friend faces ostracization too. Whether it’s right or wrong is irrelevant, it’s simply a fact of life.

Looking at a broader issue, we all conform to society’s expectations, at least to a reasonable degree. It has to be that way in order for a society to function. There are laws of course, but beyond the laws there are: perhaps best stated; unwritten rules of polite behaviour that we follow. Being independent of society simply isn’t an option unless one doesn’t rely on society to survive.

2 Yes I was raised as a foam-at-the-mouth Pentecostal. I didn’t break free until I was around 21, and even then, it took me a few more years to totally be free from my indoctrination. There are cases where I'd intervene such as child abuse and so on; however, as far as how parents want to raise their kids (legally) it wouldn’t be my place or my business to tell them.

3 My point is as I touched upon above... in my area, sphere, call it what one wants, the accepted standard is boy toys for boys, girl toys for girls. Regardless of other places or countries that do it, it simply isn’t done here. Once again, the kids that are subjected to dressing or playing with the opposite sexes toys/clothes are the ones that will suffer, not the parents, however well-meaning they might be. If I want to wear a dress and go to a shopping mall, that’s my prerogative since I’ll be the one facing whatever ramifications come from doing that. If I send my son out to play or to school in a dress then he pays for it, not me. If my son takes a doll out and meets his friends who are playing guns, who will suffer the humiliation?

Like it or lump it we all play the game. Just one more example. I mentioned that I’m on a diving team. We all wear light-blue Speedos to distinguish us from the other guys. At the pool no one even takes notice since it’s what everyone expects a diver to wear. However, if I leave the pool and go to a shopping centre, then I will stand out like a sore thumb and possibly be asked to leave the premises. It’s not illegal; it’s simply not acceptable in that venue. Regardless of one’s personal preferences or ideals, we all have to bow to what society expects of us.