Nature Defeats Nurture
Sunday night, while putting my elder daughter to bed, a story I read came to mind. A Swedish couple, completely beholden to feminist ideology, is raising their child without gender. See, gender is a social construct and by treating “Pop” solely as a little human and not as a little boy or a little girl, Pop will be able to avoid the pitfalls that come with the expectations of gender norms.
In an interview with newspaper Svenska Dagbladet in March, the parents were quoted saying their decision was rooted in the feminist philosophy that gender is a social construction.
“We want Pop to grow up more freely and avoid being forced into a specific gender mould from the outset,” Pop’s mother said. “It’s cruel to bring a child into the world with a blue or pink stamp on their forehead.”
The child’s parents said so long as they keep Pop’s gender a secret, he or she will be able to avoid preconceived notions of how people should be treated if male or female.
The reason this came to mind is that my elder daughter is a daddy’s girl through and through. She is my sidekick. She’s wholly comfortable doing things like wrestling with our large dogs or accompanying me to purchase meat from a local rancher. Nevertheless, even at 2 2/3 years old, she’s already definitely a girl. As a daddy’s girl, I would guess that she would mimic my behaviors. I haven’t studied much psychology and no feminist ideology, so maybe there are scores of theories as to why this is not the case. Regardless, when it comes to behavior, the elder mimics Penelope, not me.
On Sunday, as on many nights, the elder asked me to “go to sleep.” She’s not actually asking me to snooze in her toddler bed, rather she often enjoys tucking me in as part of her bedtime ritual. I lay on my stomach, she piles her favorite stuffed animals around my head, spreads her favorite blanket over me, and then rubs my back. If I had my druthers, I might just go to sleep during this routine. It’s very relaxing. Moreover, it’s a strong sign that she feels an innate need to nurture. Her actions are not part of a social construct, they are part of her DNA. Even at a young age, she displays a feminine predilection toward offering comfort.
As of publication, Pop was too young to offer any clues as to how “its” fucked up curious rearing was affecting it.
But while Pop’s parents say they have received supportive feedback from many of their peers, not everyone agrees that their chosen course of action will have a positive outcome.
“Ignoring children’s natures simply doesn’t work,” says Susan Pinker, a psychologist and newspaper columnist from Toronto, Canada, who wrote the book The Sexual Paradox, which focuses on sex differences in the workplace.
“Child-rearing should not be about providing an opportunity to prove an ideological point, but about responding to each child’s needs as an individual,” Pinker tells The Local.
“It’s unlikely that they’ll be able to keep this a secret for long. Children are curious about their own identity, and are likely to gravitate towards others of the same sex during free play time in early childhood.”
Methinks the hunches of this evil patriarchal psychologist are more accurate than Pop’s parents. Time will tell. My experience is only anecdotal and the plural of anecdote is not data, but still. My elder not only displays nurturing proclivities such as the tucking in routine or sharing her toys with her younger sister when the younger is upset, she is also already tuned in to her appearance. When it’s time to get dressed in the morning, if she does not initially approve of the selected outfit, we can often strike a bargain with her. If she stops fighting and lets us dress her as we want, she gets to look in the mirror. We dress her, take her to the mirror, and then hear this, “I look fantastic.” That does come from the nurture angle. If we play to her feminine vanity and tell her she looks fantastic, then she decides that she does indeed look fantastic. Shoes, though, are generally her choice. Sex and the City does offer kernels of truth, after all.
Our elder, and when the time quickly comes, our younger, will never know the freedom that comes with being Pat.
“I believe that the self-confidence and personality that Pop has shaped will remain for a lifetime,” said Pop’s mother.
I agree with half of that statement. The personality will most likely remain for a lifetime. That personality will not be girded by self-confidence. It will require lots of medication.
I’m not sure who said this, but it bears repeating: You need a license to fish, but anyone can have kids.
This is child abuse!
Anyone who has spent time around kids knows there are some inherent natural differences. I know a couple who tried to not buy gender specific toys. They got a toy shop table and tools for their daughter. The thing ended up being her ‘kitchen’ and stove.
Regardless, when it comes to behavior, the elder mimics Penelope, not me.
As children get older they become more and more aware of which parent they resemble and naturally begin to mimic that parent.
I’ve tried some feminist ideology out on my daughter and she has become a complete girly-girl anyway–even girlier than I think I was growing up. Example, while watching Shrek III the following conversation took place.
Scene: the princess is fighting
Me: Isn’t that girl cool?
Her: That makes no sense, Mommie. Princesses don’t fight. They are supposed to be calm and relaxed. Like this…*she then proceeds to demonstrate breathing exercises to calm yourself down*
There’s always the old story about the little boy being raised by feminists who plyed him with girls toys. Turns out at breakfast he bites his toast into the shape of a gun and starts yelling “Bang!” and shooting his mom.
I’m letting the TV (and various interconnected devices) raise my children. I can’t see how they’d possibly turn out any worse than Pop (whom I’m going to assume is a girl, because nobody tries foiling “gender constructs” with a boy – they’re usually assumed to be irreparably “ruined” by their innately “evil” male sex).
Oh brother, what kind of name is “Pop” for a boy-girl anyways? I think “Pap” might be more fitting.
Speaking of that, I wonder if many of these oddball gender relativists (and especially the extremists who decide it’s appropriate to involve their offspring in these real-life sociological experiments) really fantasize the notion of a “third sex,” one which is reproductively neutered and provides no true gender sounding board against which men and women can fine tune their natural inclinations and express them in true harmony?
I can guarantee you that the repression of one’s sexual nature can lead to no good. I don’t wish for Pop’s eventual train wreck of a failure, but if it happens, I would love to be able to be there and tell his-her parents, “You royal dumbfucks, what did you think you were doing anyways?”
One can only hope that Pop or Pap waits patiently for them to sleep and then burns the house down.
Judith Harris would argue that Pop’s parents will fail to have any effect on Pop’s personality at all, other than through its genes (or possibly by selecting its peers).
[Even if it's nature 100% and nurture 0%, Pop is still fucked. Apples don't fall far from the tree and demography is destiny.]
from the comments:
“It would seem that this approach would be detrimental to the transgender community. By saying that gender is a purely social construct aren’t you negating the idea that your body’s gender and your soul’s gender do not match? Wouldn’t it suggest that you should just expect your mental identity to match your physical one and then act any way you want?”
Yo yo gender is nurture, but homosexuality is nature’s gift.