When it comes to supporting his son's unconventional wardrobe, Nils Pickert talks the talk and walks the walk.
The German dad explains in Emma magazine that he wears women's clothes (including nail polish) to help his 5-year-old son feel good about going out in dresses and skirts.
... Pickert is not the only parent to speak up for a child whose dress preferences stand out from the norm. American mom Cheryl Kilodavis, who wrote a picture book called "My Princess Boy" about her son Dyson, went on The Today Show in January 2011 to discuss the importance of accepting children for who they are -- no matter what they wear. "Sooner or later my hope is that the world will embrace the uniqueness that is really within all of us," she told Meredith Vieira.
65 Comments
Is this article actually suggesting that this 5 year old boy wants to wear dresses? Kids that young do not choose their clothing. They just wear whatever their parents put on them.
This is yet another example of how LBTG activists use children to promote an agenda.
SOA,
I totally agree with you...
His dad isnt any of the letters included in LGBT..he's just trying to make his son feel comfortable.
Son of Adam: So I didn't WANT to play Final Fantasy 6 when I was 5, right? My parents just forced me to play it. Yeah. That's why I spent a large part of my early childhood playing video games; my parents wanted it.
Surely, you jest.
Not a lot of details in this story. Kids do all sorts of unusual things. Parents need to primarily be role models, not playmates. This father is just confusing the poor boy, encouraging his unusual behavior, perhaps unintentionally.
I'm being generous here. Kids wear whatever their parents put on them. It's quite possible that Son of Adam is correct in his assumption that the father is intentionally creating gender confusion in the boy. In that case it's child abuse.
With a 'father' like that what kind of a 'son' could you expect?
Or: I heard of “the blind leading the blind” but “the child leading the parent” seems to be more up to date.
The LGBT-BIP* are hard at work.
* Bestiality, Incest, Pedophiles
(And LGBT. All these are sexuality oriented identities that have been at one time or another marginalized by the family and the society. They are all equal in their capability to rationally argue that there is nothing wrong with them. That their only handicap is the bigoted and sectarian way in which they are treated by, and presented to, the community. Of course we are talking about consenting relations here. As a dog can consent to siting, lying or fetching when told to do so; or consent to sniffing out drugs or guiding the blind. Or as a boy, consenting to a game of kickball or to an ice cream or to a massage or to the wearing of a dress; or consenting to having hormone treatments to retard his on coming puberty. They know what they want, and it would only be an eventual negative reaction from their community that would hurt them. It is the family's and the community's view of the thing and their reaction to it that is hateful and wrong and that needs to be changed. Where they individuals, the prostitution and the pornographic industry could be added to the LGBT-BIP list so that we could finally take them out of the back allies and set up their shops in our malls and front street windows where they have rightfully earned their place.
Boy, we sure were a backward civilization before the LGBT-BIP community (and their instigators) came along and kindly straitened us out by showing us the error in our ways. They know what's best...
Simple oversight Sean. All my apologies. LGBTQ
There, now is that inclusive enough for this queer man to be able to find an honorable place among his peers.
Sean and Nope, kids that young don't understand gender differences like adults do. It seems to me that this poor innocent child was influenced by his dad to wear dresses just so that his father could feel more comfortable wearing a dress in public. It is nothing more than a rationalization for his own indulgence.
Travesty. Can't believe any father would do anything to support his child, despite the weird looks the father may get for doing it. Heck, why should anyone try to make their kids feel normal, special, supported and appreciated. Take of your skirts and go to Canada.
Poor Child!! What A confusing world he well grow up in(: I suppose Mom wears the pants????
One day that child will be old enough to form his own opinions and share them with his father on how he truly feels about this.
At two years old, my daughter wanted to wear her winter boots ALL SUMMER - she loved them. So I let her, but I didn't wear my own. That was her thing. My son wanted a back pack trimmed in pink for Kindergarten. I let him have it. He loved it that year, and no one teased him. Young kids haven't assigned roles to these things yet. As noted, we are to be role models for our children.
The guy is just an idiot, this has nothing to do with gay people or marriage equality. I am gay and I would definitely discourage my son from wearing dresses. If he wants to when he is more mature..then fine..
Are you people serious.. My nephew has been picking out his own clothes since he was 2.. Kids do decide what they want to wear.. It is not always the parents choice on what the child wears...
Unfortunately this is only going to hurt the child in social situations. Kids are kids, but we need to help our children make decisions that are in their best interest. There is a time and place for his son to wear dresses. Other children will make fun of him and he will not understand why. Poor boy
I'm sorry, but my two-year-old even picks out what he wears, Son of Adam, you're being ridiculous. Open your mind and quit being so judgmental, or more like PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH.
Sorry this is child ABUSE! A child that age wears what the PARENT buys and puts on him. This is sick
Wow! Isnt it the JOB of the parent to shape the child!!? Its the tail wagging the dog here!
Shelly and Kate -
My kids wear whatever they choose, as long as I or my wife approve it. That's part of the job of raising kids: helping them make good decisions in order to function in the world in which we live. If my teenager had it her way, she would have dressed like a hooker for school; she now knows why that is not a good idea and she happily dresses more modestly.
What I have learned in my life that unrestricted desires invariably turns into evil desires. Evil desire is a force that suppress inner strength and spirit of a person to the extent that he/she no longer feels the difference between right or wrong or good and evil.
In this article, this man wearing skirt and dresses his son as a girl, is a prime example of what I think is happening around us in the world. Clearly evil is now much greater than before and increasing at a fast rate in the world. Because evil knows no bounds.
I believe Jimmy buffet wrote a song about this dude
@Kate
And kids can decide if they want to enjoy physical contact with their school teacher or their next door neighbor. Who are you to say its wrong, if your child decides that's what he wants. How dare you would make them feel as if they have a problem by saying it is not right. When in reality there is nothing wrong with it.
This is where your logical LGBT arguments have taken us.
There are good reasons that the LGBT-BIP community were, and are not, given a place front and center in the public and media square. Even if those reasons don't hold up against logical arguments. For example, there is absolutely no reason that a mother should not be allowed to teach her children how to have sexual pleasure. I mean is it really better for her children to learn such things from the farmer's snot nosed boy across the street. And there is absolutely no reason under Obama law that a family should not find sexual satisfaction amongst themselves under the security of their own roof, and so leaving the children, when at school, more concentrated on their academic pursuits, and less distracted for want of sex. There is absolutely no reason that someone cannot open a store on main street in your town with trained dogs that give sexual pleasure to their owners. And television shows integrating these realities into their program for the healthy education of the society. To say no to any of this would sincerely only be bigotry and hate under LGBT logic.
Now don't tell the liberals about such ideas, for their only response, after a thoughtful minute of silence would be, “you know what, he's right. There is nothing wrong with it.”
Sick to express (and think) such things one might say; as one might say about the open promotion and encouragement of homosexual activities from our government, our education system, our media and our commercial world. To say its okay for one of the LGBT-BIP group to have rights of visibility and promotion and not the others is only bigotry and prejudice.
I'm sorry, I got of the track kate. Let your 2 year old make the decision, he knows what he wants. And when he wants to sleep with you, don't mess his mind up by teaching him that that is not what he should be desiring.
Kate, does your two year old go to the store by himself and pay for the merchandise with his own money? No. You are the one who does that. And any "choices" he makes in the clothes you take from the rack and hold in front of him saying "would you like this one?" are completely and totally monitored by you.
You are the one being ridiculous.
My daughter used to love to walk like a horse for several years. She started when she was young, but as she got older and her body changed, it looked pretty strange and I had to discourage it for her sake. She eventually stopped. Now that she is in high school and is keenly aware of her peers she is grateful that I guided her in that direction. Kids can be brutal and parents have a responsibility to their kids to help them navigate that world without putting the added pressure of trying to teach the kid to change society. There are ways of dealing with these things at home without destroying the child's self image.
How much you want to bet that this German dad has been putting on dresses long before the birth of his son?
its called unconditional love......something people on this site is clueless about. There are children who, from the start, know they are gay. This father just wants his son to know he is fine whoever he is. What a wonderful man.
hey Moderator....why don't you allow people to post who may have a different opinion than you? This is the most biased forum I have ever been to. Hopefully, when Obama is reelected and equality comes, this site will fall away.
I couldnt read anymore this makes me sick
@good news. You are one of the problems of this world.
@Son of Adam...I work with preschoolers and many times over the years we have encountered little boys who insisted on dressing up in girls clothing, tutus, princess crowns and the color pink. Maybe its just a phase or an indication of things to come. Having had 3 children of my own, I know children have their own preferences in dressing at an early age. But I think this father has taken it a bit too far. He can "allow" his child to work out his personal preferences without hopping on the band wagon. He can show his support by simply letting his son work out his preoccupation with girl's clothing without ridicule. This fascination could end tomorrow and the little boy will move on to something else.
That sperm donor needs to be arrested for child abuse!
This is a example of how the gay community are pushing their agenda on their children! This is so sickening, and remember? What you do on this earth, you have to answer to the almighty one! Pray for our children, and parents whom are corrupting their minds with this disgusting lifestyle!! It's called spiritual warfare folks!!! Better get right with our father in heaven!!
If you can't guide your child in something as simple as clothing, how in the world are you going to guide them in life? Children are born bound in foolishness. It's up to the correction of their parents to loose them from this. Man up, men. Teach your sons to be fully male. If they're "gender confused", clear it up for them. What's the matter with you?
Gently explaining gender difference in an age-appropriate way does not create scars. TEACHING your child, instead of following them, is a good thing.
Pat,
Another thing that some children this age do is eat glue and play doh. Yeah, they are non-toxic, but that doesn't mean you let them eat inappropriate things.
This is how gender identity confusion is created and homosexuality is encouraged!! Way to go Pops.
@Joy
I know I am Joy. I am one (as each one of us is) because I am alive. The
question is, being one, how can we be as little of one to the other people that
we share this world with? By showing respect through restraining and limiting
myself when in the public eye, ear and mind. Why restrain the expression of who I am in the public square? Because we emotionally (and so intimately) effect each other; but much more so, because what we do in the public square influences and shapes the outcome of our neighbors children.
The LGBT community at this time is not being respectful to the rest of the
society at large. (Explained it part in a second post below.)
They, and I, will always be a problem* to this world. But their instigators have intentionally made them into a social problem. A problem that we are now dealing with.
The BIP are not yet promoting the problem* that they are, in the public eye. But
asking them not to do so, while saturating the media, education and public
square withe LGBT visibility is not fair to them. It is marginalizing them. Either we
all try to be as little of a problem as possible to the rest of the world ; or we
don’t give a crap about others and do (and post) whatever we want in the public
eye, with a proudly arrogant, “I have the right – get over it” erroneous mentality.
Lets both grow up Joy – and do the whole world a favor.
All my best to you,
From one problem to another. And equally, from one living energy of
love to another.
* to be read – “potential problem”.
Much of this disrespect was not necessarily brought on by the LGBT. But they have been effectively used by the powers that be. For three major reasons (among others).
1) There is enormous amounts of money to be made with the marketing of “that most powerful of human energies” sex! Bringing down taboos, (healthy taboos – that is not a contradiction), allows the market place to expand and explode in this market. And the other great and desperate desire of Man - that of having children, can also be turned into a lucrative market by transferring as much as possible the business of the procreation of children over to the market place. The best way to do that is to render people incapable of having their own children to begin with. The next step will be to teach them that it is safer and with a better chance of having a child with the characteristics that you want by not conceiving the natural way. The best way to exploit this market is to deny any distinction, within the education of the next generation, between the man-man and man-woman unions. First and biggest step, confiscate the word marriage.
2) This cultural change will allow the Western world the essential cleavage that is needed for a power to thrive. A clear cleavage that has been denied the West since the end of Russian Communism. Again America and the West will be able to teach its people the fundamental superiority of their civilization and of its respect for humanity through the difference in the civilizations that accept the promotion of open homosexuality (the pinnacle of sexual liberties and human rights) and who accept sex-indifferent marriages, as compared to those countries that do not accept this view of things. A real and strong difference of two “ways of life” will again be clear and ripe for exploitation by the powers that be in the West.
3) To finally rip free of Christian laws and their limitations toward the exploitation of people and of market potential. And in no small way, to rip free of the last remaining active aspect of the Roman Empire. “The Roman Catholic church” with its far reaching, powerful and rich influence on much of the entire world (but most annoyingly, in what concerns them – the West). And so finally bring all the Roman Empire to a close. So bringing all the power up to England (The British Empire), Europe. Or better said, up to The City of London, Wall Street and friends, etc.
(And that idea, is your entertainment for the weekend.)
Hey NOM,
Just wondering what this article has to do with "protecting marriage?" You keep saying that your purpose is to protect traditional marriage and that you don't hate gay people. Yet you post trash like this which has zero to do with your own mission. Unless of course your mission is actually to attack gay people. And you wonder why people call you a hate group.
Jamie, SSM is built on the pie-in-the-sky dogma that gender doesn't matter. What does that look like? Should we all just accept it because it sounds nice? The reality is gender does matter.
The 1st part to post 38: (disrespect)
LGBT lack of respect because:
1) Nearly all the children who are “not born that way” can be taught to find pleasure, habits and tastes that way (that which their parents might not want for them).
2) Homosexuality is before all else, about sex; the most awesomely powerful energy within the human-being. Lets show it a little respect in the public square, for our sake and more so for the sake of our children. Lightly wielding the subject of LGBT through the public square as though innocent toward the effects it will have on others, is simply not being sincere. Granted the heterosexual has been disrespectful with the use of his sexuality through the media for far too long; with the lame excuse of ignoring the problem by holding the unconscious thought of, “well, at least when my child is through that storm he will find himself in an opposite sex union, profitable to his future family and children, and also to the prospects of my own future biological grandparenthood.
3) And most importantly insisting that we teach our children that man-man is the same as man-woman by denying a word to signal out the human species in its completed form with all its independent possibilities and complexities, which was beforehand known as marriage. Before this word was disrespectfully stolen away from all of us. Refusing a unique name to the man-woman union is disrespectful to humanity. Rightfully naming this unique thing is of itself not limiting to, judgmental of, anyone or anything else. Not naming it is judging it as not unique (nor as valuable for its uniqueness), which is a lie. And it is limiting in our children's minds, the clarity to name what they might want to be when they grow up; and so handicapping their developmental on the subject.
A buddy of mine tells the story of when he was 5 years old and had his fingernails painted by his mom, because his sisters were having theirs painted. Proud of his manicure, he showed them to his dad who asked him if he was a girl, because only girls get their nails painted.
His dad's reaction straightened my friend right out, though it reduced him to tears. He claims that that was a defining moment for him, being raised in a house full of girls. He is thankful that his dad was in the house, there to help him make smart choices.
A boy saved from a potential diversion into homosexuality.
@Jamie
Only speaking for one, and not for NOM.
What does the opposite-sex union have to do with same-sex union? One has nothing to do with the other. But Same-sex unions latch onto Oposit-sex unions and demand to be called the same thing.
The LGBT and the gay movement today are entirely linked to the fight for gay "marriage”. You can't talk about one without evoking the other. And it is the gays who want it that way.
As for this article it was taken from the “HuffPost – Gay Voices” as a story that is encouraging to the LGBT community and for their fight for equality (which in context cannot but evoke marriage equality). So you tell us why its relevant. It would indeed be interesting to know.
But you are completely right, the subject of marriage has nothing to do with the subject of Gays or transvestites or the LGBT group. Because the subject of marriage is a subject about opposite-sex unions. But you see, when one is not careful, things that have nothing to do with another have a way of making themselves part of the other. I think NOM (and America) is simply no longer behind the times, as the LGBT fighting for gay-marriage loves its opponents to be.
What's wrong with letting this child make some of his own clothing choices, skirts or not? Odds are he'll grow out of this; and if he doesn't, so what? "That sperm donor needs to be arrested for child abuse"? It's obvious this man loves his son, unlike some sperm donors who think that belittling, bullying, or even beating their children is good parenting. Teaching your kids that they are bad or worthless because they don't measure up to your "standards"; or teaching them hatred and ignorance is way more wrong than what this man is doing. Maybe the "parents" who engage in that sort of heinous behavior need to be arrested for child abuse.
Actually, if you search out the WHOLE article. It DOES say that the child picks out his own clothes. He doesn't like "boy" clothes. You know what? That's just fine with me.
I say let the boy express himself how he chooses.
Some of you guys actually make me pretty sick. Do you realize what you are saying? You are saying this human being, I name the child that term because obviously none of you are, can not be himself or herself or something in between. You are saying that you think you can raise a child better. You are saying that you would corrupt this beautiful child with hatred and intolerance. You are saying that the father is to blame for something nobody had control over. There is no way to blame someone for being transgender. Take the cactus out of your asses and look again. Tell me what exactly, using empirical data, is wrong with that. In case you do not know what empirical means, because some of you are so stupid that I lost IQ points simply knowing you exist, it means something you can find using your five senses. Tell me, in exact detail why this is wrong. Amaze me.
I would love to know why a father helping his son feel good about himself and accepting him for who he is is a bad thing?
Also, I am certain that many who have commented here against NOM have done so using exceedingly colorful adjectives and imagery. I disagree with your mandate as well, but all I will give you is my pity because you cannot see what a failure you are as human beings.
Wow - some of you have NEVER had kids have you? Pathetic!! My Autistic son, at age THREE would remove every ball from his jumpy toy except yellow ones, and always wanted to wear yellow and/or red. My absolute 2 least favourite colours. He would go shopping with me & point out the clothes he liked at age 5, and at 10 I let him get his hair cut how HE wanted it. Kids at that age ARE smart enough to know what they like, so quit trying to dumb them down to YOUR I.Q. level, please.
As for everyone bashing a group that the father isn't part of - ever hear the song 'homophobic & probably gay'? Studies proved that 85% of self-proclaimed "straight" men were turned on by gay male pornos, meaning, they were in the closet. If you're a homophobe, there's an 85% chance that your worst fears are real - 85% chance that you ARE gay! *eye rolls* get over it.
Having read the comments on this article, I am sickened by a fair few of the people here. I am transgender, Male to Female, and I have known my gender identity since my earliest memories. It is people like you who kept me from living an enjoyable live through my teenage years, I had to keep myself hidden so you people wouldn't make single me out for your bigotry and hate. Not anymore. Come at me, guys. Bring it, please. Rather than directing your hate at this father simply trying to make his son comfortable with what he wants to wear, direct all that hate at me. Unless you're afraid of people actually being able to respond to you, of course.
http://www.facebook.com/Kitten.Tigra
@ Ken L. Since my answer is, it is not a bad thing, I can't help you with your question.
But now a days, if someone was truly loving and concerned for the healthy psychological development of children, the question should probably read as; “I would love to know why a father helping his son feel good about herself and accept herself for who she is is a bad thing?” I wonder if your question might not be showing some remaining prejudices you might be holding.
I'm not the only person who finds the idea of a good father in a skirt arousing, am I?
@Heather
Your remarks about 5 and 10 year old being smart enough to know what they want go to confirming my arguments above toward the legitimacy of BIP activities and the need to bring them out into the public square with encouragement, promotion and militancy as with the LGBT.
As for your 85 percent, I think that is a low number. (In that the people who where not effected by it could learn to be effected, especially if opened to the idea at a young age; and get them salivating every time the bell rings.) But I wouldn't characterize those people as you do. For they are pure 100 percent heterosexual. So powerful is their heterosexuality that it can pour over into all kinds of sexual activities (whether that itself is good or bad is another subject). And I'm not talking about those “born that way”, but all the others. By the way your remarks go to confirming my arguments above toward the market place watering at the mouth with these yet untapped market potentials once the legal and social taboos on the subject are brought down.
Time for “eye rolling” is long gone. (But I know that people here are from all different ages and that discovering things with rolling eyes all along ones life is part of life.) But these are very serious subjects and it is our children who are in the visor. Hence our concern and our presence at NOM. What does the word 'marriage' have to do with all that, you might ask. The word marriage is extremely important, and related to sex and sexuality. And if we are forced to live in a community where everything under the sun is permissible, it is than even more important to be able to express what we want and don't want for our children (without superseding their own wishes and independence). The capacity to say directly or indirectly, simply with the proper use of the word in our daily talk and conversation, that 'we want you to be married when you grow up', and so expressing the union to the opposite sexes and all that is possible because of that union (including life itself). Expressing all that with one word is Power – power and independence (from them) which 'they' don't want us to have. They want all the power for themselves, to do with us as they like.
Giving over the control of the sexual energy of our children to the State and commercial world to do with as they will and to lead our children where they like (much more effective then trying to lead them with candy); by allowing them to completely separate sex from marriage (marriage here meaning the opposite-sex union) as well as from procreation therein – which is most thoroughly done by making the word marriage to mean a sex-irrelevant union, is not acceptable to us. It is violently unjust.
Another of the many practical uses of a word as marriage which names the man-woman union would be that a church could say without prejudice, or legal conflict, that they only preform marriages (meaning man-woman unions). And in so using this societily accepted word would not show the society anything that might be perceived as disrespect (and used against them), when in reality there is no disrespect. They simply only do marriages (which is an opposite-sex union). If you want to get cautelaged (same-sex union) you need to do that somewhere else, not because its bad, but simply because this different thing is not preformed at this church.
But this takes us far from your subject Heather, or so it would seem...
Good day to you,
P.S. I didn't notice anyone here “bashing” the group that you mention.
First off, here is the original article. The above version was edited to leave out the part where the child prefers to wear skirts. Anyone who believes their child doesn't have any preference in clothing (or gender, or sexuality) at a young age, you are blind to what your kids are actually experiencing.
http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/dad-protects-son-bullies-wearing-skirt-guess-works-153600107.html
I could only bring myself to read the first few comments... so many of you are so off base that I can't read any more. I am a social worker, and I can tell you for a fact that this is NOT child abuse. Do you know what is? Using your child to push your hate-filled agendas. Teaching your child to hate those who are different. And God forbid any of you have gay or transgendered children, they will have to oppress it and hate themselves until they are finally free of you. And what will you say when they tell you? Will you hate your own children?
Also, equating LGBTQ persons with BIP..... I can't even begin to imagine what you think is going on in the lives of LGCTQ people. Being a pedophile has ZERO to do with sexual orientation, there are just as many straight pedophiles as gay pedophiles, actually I'm fairly certain there are many more straight pedophiles. A man trying to help his son fit in by wearing a skirt...... this you equate to being a PEDOPHILE?! And a man loving a man, or a woman loving a woman, how does that equate being a pedophile? Clearly you seem to know much more about this than me, I only studied and did multiple training sessions about child abuse and sexual deviance for years for my job in order to help children, but why don't you enlighten me since you seem to know so very much? Please, what are your credentials, where do you get your information? I have a bachelor in psychology, a bachelor in social work, multiple job trainings and years of work in child protection and at a homeless shelter, and I am currently doing a Masters in social work.
I am sorry for all the hate in this post. You must be very unhappy people. I would write more if I felt I could change your minds. Someday perhaps your child will when he or she comes out of the closet or tells you that they were born as the wrong gender. Perhaps then you will begin to understand, or not.
If this 5 year old boy "chooses" to wear dresses, why does his dad need to wear dresses himself to help his son feel comfortable about it? Could it be that if his father continued to wear pants, that his son would want to wear pants too? If so, why would that be a bad thing?
It seems to me that this 5 year boy's clothing is more due to his father's influence than what his child wants.
I hope he allows his son to wear a bra and panties too! Slap a maxipad and some lipstick on him too so he feels "complete!"
I agree with OvercameSSA. I'm not going to let my daughter dress like a hooker because she feels like it.
@Sylvan,
Its wrong (for me) because the only reason we know about this story is because it is being used, through its publicity, toward the stealing away of the word that once named the man-woman union.
Empirical data shows that there is something different between an opposite-sex union and a same-sex union. Naming these two things differentially is not over stressing the average IQ, its simply exercising it.
And this exercising can start in Kindergarten when the student's teacher points out to the class during picture-book time that, “no Betty, this couple is not married, they are cautelaged.” Which would prompt Mike to ask, for the benefit of the others in his class as well, “what's the difference?”
__________
There is nothing wrong with a father dressing like a woman with his son. Nothing at all. But how and why it is done plays into it.
And as far as this man goes, he is making, and he is trying to make, a political and social statement of it (rather than simply a loving, personal and educational moment between him and his growing child). He is not trying to teach his child something, he is trying to teach the world something. (The radical liberal and extremely influential university professors on the subject are not even doing enough, so he says.) Considering the circumstances of the issue and the differing view points: his little lesson to the world comes across to many of us as arrogant and mean. And it also comes across as if he is “using” the child as a tool for his own interests, rather than being a tool for his child's interests.
(That are some reasons why for me, in this case, it is wrong... or not right.)
In the times that we are in, during the biggest cultural war the West might have ever seen. His actions are clearly, an act of war. (So your “there is nothing wrong with it” might be our “that's not right”. It depends which side of the gun you're on.) You are admittedly smart enough to understand that his actions, deliberately calculated to impact all of western society might get a little reaction out of some people. Otherwise it wouldn't be a war, but a walk in the park.
P.S. Your statement, “...something nobody had control over” might need a little looking into.
(And lets keep the poor desert plants out of the discussion please.)
@ SocialWorker
From what I can tell the article first came from Emma a German feminist magazine. - which says a lot! But I think we've said enough here...
@SocialWorker
From what I can tell the article first came from Emma a German feminist magazine. - which says a lot! But I think enough's been said.
And of course, we all know that the main stream media NEVER embellishes stories or misleads people in their reporting in order to promote a political and/or social agenda. (Sarcasm)
Make no mistake, no matter how you interpret this story, the fact of the matter is that the "choices" children that young make are 99% influenced by their parents or whoever is raising them.
@Sylvan (This one would not go through yesterday Sylvan, so I'm trying again with modifications.),
Its wrong (for me) because the only reason we know about this story is because it is being used, through its publicity, toward the stealing away of the word that once named the man-woman union.
Empirical data shows that there is something different between an opposite-sex union and a same-sex union. Naming these two things differentially is not over stressing the average IQ, its simply exercising it.
And this exercising can start in Kindergarten when the student's teacher points out to the class during picture-book time that, “no Betty, this couple is not married, they are cautelaged.” Which would prompt Mike to ask, for the benefit of the others in his class as well, “what's the difference?”
__________
There is nothing wrong with a father dressing like a woman with his son. Nothing at all. But how and why it is done plays into it.
And as far as this man goes, he is making, and he is trying to make, a political and social statement of it (rather than simply a loving, personal and educational moment between him and his growing child). He is not trying to teach his child something, he is trying to teach the world something. (The radical liberal and extremely influential university professors on the subject are not even doing enough as far as he is concerned.) Considering the circumstances of the issue and the differing view points: his little lesson to the world comes across to many of us as arrogant and mean. And it also comes across as if he is “using” the child as a tool for his own interests, rather than being a tool for his child's interests.
(These are some reasons why for me, in this case, it is wrong... or not right. It is not what he is telling his child that so concerns me – but what he and the media are pretending to teach me and my child.)
P.S. Your statement, “...something nobody had control over” might need a little looking into.
(And lets keep the poor desert plants out of the discussion please.)
Studies proved that 85% of self-proclaimed "straight" men were turned on by gay male pornos, meaning, they were in the closet. If you're a homophobe, there's an 85% chance that your worst fears are real - 85% chance that you ARE gay! *eye rolls* get over it.
Reminds me of a joke I heard recently. ' They say that if your'e a homophope and scared of gay people, that deep down inside you are really gay. That concerns me, because I'm really afraid of dogs.'
Fascinating that one of the opposition's common insults toward us is to call us "gay."
But, seriously, if your child starts drinking from the toilet, you should also drink from the toilet in order to show your support toward them.
Look, kids do weird things growing up. I know I've done some questionable things for a young boy and have been made fun of because of it.
I assume that this is something the kid will grow out of. However, the same can't be said for the father.
Re: "American mom Cheryl Kilodavis, [...] went on The Today Show [...] to discuss the importance of accepting children for who they are".
The problem is, that's not what's going on here.
"Who" a boy is, is a boy.
Kids get the wardrobes that their parents buy for them. These parents deserve to be punished for what they're doing to their children.
#63
The way I see it is like this... If my son wants to grow up to be a car thief, then I want him to be the best damn car thief he can be. Although I will try and guide him to the pitfalls of a life like that, and ask him to choose a more legal and honest profession. And specifically, when he is an adult engaging in the car thievery life style, I will ask him not to come around me anymore, because I have made the choice to not be involved in car thievery.
So it would definitely be wrong for my 5 year old to announce to me that he wants to be a car thief when he grows up, and I reciprocated by buying him a lock picking set.
The belies the consequnces of my child choosing a life of stealing cars. Or will this website censor me for pointing out the politically incorrect consequences for people who choose a life of car thievery(like huffpo does?)???
What is the assumption the father makes when he too dons a skirt?
That sex and gender are not neutral, apparently, even at the earliest years of the human being's development.
Contrary to the controversial theories of queer studies, gender is not a social construct. It is not a costume. It is not illustrated by a grown man crossdressing with his very young son. But it is sex and that's freighted with societal significance not so easily obscured.
But what compels a father to even try to obscure it? There is a social pathology here and it begins with the father, not the son.