Is it weird my son wants to do BBB as a princess?

[nytimez]

I think it might be the dagger that has folks questioning whether she's a girl at all...



I'm not convinced by the "" tacked onto the end here.

Something about this post just doesn't feel "" to me.

*checks over shoulder to make sure there isn't a kid in a dress holding a dagger standing behind me*

OK, something else about that image: I'm pretty sure the "tree" that's right behind the boy is parsley... and the "tree" behind that one is thyme. These aren't people at all, but some kind of tiny imps or possibly demons. My guess is they have captured the squirrel under some kind of shrinking spell for some kind of ritual, as evidenced by the chain and dagger.

But to what purpose?

This will haunt me.

 

[Jey12]

Hey- If you don't like MY OPINION, then MOVE ON to the next one until you find one that you DO like. I subscribe to the DIS boards as well as you do, and since the question was asked by the OP, I responded with MY PERSONAL OPINION.

As did I.

 

[lshaw]

I think it might be the dagger that has folks questioning whether she's a girl at all...



I'm not convinced by the "" tacked onto the end here.

Something about this post just doesn't feel "" to me.


*checks over shoulder to make sure there isn't a kid in a dress holding a dagger standing behind me*

Oh, it's for sure, I'm leaving for a TEN NIGHT stay in Disney exactly 57 days from now!! Life is GOOD!!

 

[Magpie]

I'm having SO much fun googling pictures of little boys in dresses!

Here's one from 1871.

We know he's a boy, because his name is on the back of the card. He's little Michael Cahne Seymour.

Isn't he darling?

 

[KellyNY]

If you go back a hundred fifty years. There wasn't the same kind of panic over, "you can't put a boy in a dress, it'll make him gay!"

Historically, young boys wore dresses from simple practicality - makes toilet training easier, takes longer to outgrow, etc... "Breeching" was a right of passage, from non-gendered child to man. Then there was a general sentimentalization of children in the 19th century that meant that boys and girls not only were dressed the same, but also had the same hair cuts, and by and large were referred to as "infants" until they were about six.

This is a picture of a young lad in Boston, 1755-1760. That may be his younger sister with him... or it could be his younger brother. No one knows for sure.

I think, as we've become more tolerant of differences in adult sexuality, we've also become more paranoid about our children. We plaster sports decals all over our boys' clothes and call them "tough". We dress up our baby girls in fluff and teach them to parade across stages to be judged on their femininity. We worry about our sons being teased, if we buy them a play kitchen, or let their hair grow too long. We teach our children "pink is for girls", forgetting that prior to World War I, pink was for boys.

We've taken many steps forward, but we've also take several back.

You are right about kids wearing same robes, not really dresses till age of 6 in middle ages but picture you choose is not the right one. If you take a look on both outfits you will see a difference in designs specific for male outfits worn that time, the only difference is the length. Same with hair, not the same at all. Anyway, it was a norm back then for convenience reasons and a boy in a rope did not represent a girl and a man with make up, laces and wigs was just a man following regular dress code and it was also a norm to challenge each other to fight with swords, guns, whatever they used those days but we do not live in a same time anymore and we do follow rules of today, not long ago.

 

[lshaw]

As did I.

Oh goodness, did I hit a nerve this morning? You are the one who singled MY post out first for comment. However, I hope you have a great day all the same!!

 

[t_catt11]

Since you asked - I don't find it odd that your young son would want to dress as a princess. What I would find odd is if you let your son do so.

I have to agree with this post 100%.

I do understand the "he's at Disney, what does it matter?" train of thought. I likewise understand the "kids don't care, why should adults?" train of thought.

Note that DS4 and DS2 both play with a baby doll that we purchased to help DS4 understand a little about having a new baby in the house - and I'm perfectly fine with that. Our little boys like to grab mommy's blush brush and put some on when she puts on her makeup. Meh, no big deal. In short, I don't have some sort of homophobic agenda, here.

But the thing is, a boy in a princess dress, out in public, will almost certainly be made fun of - or at least pointed out multiple times. To me, it's your job as a parent to help guide a child to make the correct choices, even overruling the child if he insists on bad choices. If he chooses to eat nothing but candy, is it not your duty to say no to that?

Aside from the extreme utopian views that "we are all the same, man... gender roles are just invented by society anyway... fight the power, man!", the fact is that gender roles do exist in our society. Boys don't wear dresses in public. Women do not run around topless in public. Discussion on the fairness of these restrictions belongs in a classroom or an internet message board.

If he gets the BBB makeover in the Cinderella dress, you'll take pictures. 99.9% of boys will be mortified by these pictures later on (probably sooner than you'd believe), and most of them will resent a mother who allowed them to make the choice. I disagree with the posters who take the "your son will only remember that you have always supported him" nonsense - what he will remember is that you allowed him to make an embarassing choice.

Children need boundaries, and it's up to the parent to provide these.

No, I'm not saying that you will scar your son for life if he wears the dress; it probably won't be that huge of a deal. If you tell him no, he'll be mad at you for a bit. He'll get over it quickly - he's four. If you let him, he may well have his day ruined by the comments of others - and this hurt will linger much longer than the hurt of you saying no. If you let him, he will almost certainly be embarassed later, and may resent you for it - I can guarantee that these feelings will last longer, as they will come from an older child.

I know that many are advocating this as some sort of social protest, but I don't see the real benefit aside from being able to show how very open minded you really are.


</soapbox>

 

[mimmi]

I haven't read the whole thread beacause I'm pretty sure some answers would aggravate me, so here's what I think:
I would let him wear whatever makes him happy.
When my daughter went to kindergarten there was a boy who wore dresses for an entire months, so what.
None of the other kids were nasty, and the parents just thought it was funny how consistent his choice of clothes was.
After reading a lot threads here, I came to the conclusion that raising a kid where I live is totally different from raising kids in your country, but I would still hope that no adult in his right mind would make nasty comments about a kid.
So, I would allow it without hesitation.

 

[thomas998]

A part of being a good parent is knowing your child and protecting them from unnecessary pain...

While there are a lot of people that wouldn't care whether he dresses like Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty, the reality is that he would get stares and there would be comments...

So the part that no one on this board can answer is whether he would laugh off things like that or if he would be truly hurt and feel so embarrassed that he would want to crawl into a hole... Only you can know how he would likely react... So only you can decide if he needs to be put into a situation where he will be stared at and pointed at and maybe even laughed at.... don't assume that because the overwhelming response of encouragement you get on this board is a good indication of the people that will be in the park... I can guarantee that you will have all ages of kids in the park and kids unlike adults are much more likely to stare, laugh, point and tease than adults are.

If it were my kids I would tell them it wasn't a good idea because I know how sensitive they are... but that is my kids.. maybe your son has skin as thick as concrete... you have to decide that.... but whatever you do, don't take picture of him or tell all your relatives you can be sure that he wont want this fact known when he is older.

 

[mesaboy2]

I've heard this before, but it doesn't quite work for me. Because that would mean that while I'm tolerating Jews and being cool with them having their own religion, I would also have to tolerate Nazis, and be cool with their point of view, too.

I think it's perfectly all right to be intolerant of bigotry. There are some things that, as a tolerant, peaceful, person, you just can't tolerate.

You make a good argument, but it boils down to thoughts versus actions to me. We are free to think as we will, as long as those thoughts do not violate the freedoms of others.

Should we be intolerant of bigoted actions? Absolutely, I'm sure we completely agree there. Intolerant of bigoted thoughts? That's a little tougher. Isn't it our thoughts that the OP solicited?

I guess we'll just disagree. My is genuine.

And I appreciate nytimez's efforts to keep it light.

 

[Magpie]

You are right about kids wearing same robes, not really dresses till age of 6 in middle ages but picture you choose is not the right one. If you take a look on both outfits you will see a difference in designs specific for male outfits worn that time, the only difference is the length. Same with hair, not the same at all. Anyway, it was a norm back then for convenience reasons and a boy in a rope did not represent a girl and a man with make up, laces and wigs was just a man following regular dress code and it was also a norm to challenge each other to fight with swords, guns, whatever they used those days but we do not live in a same time anymore and we do follow rules of today, not long ago.

Except that he MIGHT be standing with his little brother. The differences in clothing design are more reflective of their ages, rather than gender.

Rules change. And in remarkably little time!

For example... In the early seventies, young children still sometimes played naked in the fountains in Central Park in NYC. By the mid-seventies not only had that stopped, but they'd also started instituting rules at the beaches saying ALL children had to be in bathing suits. My mother was hugely offended. She thought sticking a bathing suit on a toddler was needlessly sexualizing them.

Now a naked child anywhere in public makes people freak out.

Your family's rule might be "no little boys in princess dresses", but (as should be obvious from the responses here) it's not actually "The Rule" for all of today's society, and other families may choose to do differently.

 

[Planogirl]

I don't like the idea of a four year old being used to protest society rules. I prefer for a rebel to at least be aware of what those rules are.

That picture of the boy and girl is strange! I don't see it as a good reflection of what was once normal unless people really did give their girls knives. Maybe they did have squirrels as pets though?

 

[Jey12]

Just an FYI Dr. Spock's son did not commit suicide. All of his children are still alive.

 

[Jacie]

My husband's response- (He's at work)

[9:31:35 AM] Ray O: hmm... i think i would have a hard time letting him walk around the park as a princess. not becuase i really dont want him to but i agree at 4 people will make fun
[9:31:55 AM] Ray O: especially for $150 lol
[9:37:41 AM] Ray O: it's our job to make sure he is making the best choices until he can for himself. now when he is old enough to be conscious of that decision that is a different issue
[9:37:53 AM] Ray O: but at 4 i think it would be a no
[9:39:01 AM] Ray O: kids are mean enough when they are young... no sense exposing him to it when he doesnt understand

 

[t_catt11]

Just an FYI Dr. Spock's son did not commit suicide. All of his children are still alive.

You know, as soon as I posted that, I decided that I should have Snopsed it first. And worse, that was really an unnecessary strawman - my argument is valid without it.

Post edited, thank you.

 

[stargazertechie]

I don't like the idea of a four year old being used to protest society rules. I prefer for a rebel to at least be aware of what those rules are.

But a child isn't being used. He ASKED to be Cinderella. It was his choice. It's not like his mom shoved him in a dress and said "now you're going to wear this"

 

[Phatoomch]

TBH after keeping up with this thread I am thinking that something trivial (yes, really its trivial - we are talking about a 4yr old not a 14yr old) has been turned into a huge issue by us and now the OP is probably even more confused about what to do.

OP - don't listen to us, go with your gut instinct as a parent

 

[t_catt11]

But a child isn't being used. He ASKED to be Cinderella. It was his choice. It's not like his mom shoved him in a dress and said "now you're going to wear this"

You are correct. He did indeed ask - and mom was cognizant enough of the issue to ask for advice, so good on her.

Thing is, parents need to look out for the best interests of their children. I see far too much chance for this to end poorly in the short run, to say nothing of the future embarassment the child may feel later on.

 

[KellyNY]

Your family's rule might be "no little boys in princess dresses", but (as should be obvious from the responses here) it's not actually "The Rule" for all of today's society, and other families may choose to do differently.

And by any means they can do it, as I said before it is normal development for kids to role play but can they shield their kids from looks and comments in a public place when we do not live in 17th century anymore and it is not generally appropriate to dress boys like girls is another question. Bottom line, if OP herself questioning it, otherwise she would not ask, can she expect people not to react.

BTW, a younger child is a girl, again just by simple looking on the difference in outfit design, she is just not named but it does not mean it is a boy. Their outfits very different.

 

[Magpie]

That picture of the boy and girl is strange! I don't see it as a good reflection of what was once normal unless people really did give their girls knives. Maybe they did have squirrels as pets though?

It cracks me up that everyone's assuming that's a picture of a boy and a girl! Sure says a lot about how we view gender, doesn't it?

According to what I read, they don't know the gender of the younger child, and (hilarious as it would be to have a knife), the child is actually holding a coral teething ring.

Frankly, teething rings made of coral terrify me a LOT more than knives. Can you imagine what that'd feel like on tender gums?

(I'd love to have a pet squirrel...)