It would be nice to return to the times of gender-neutral clothing, and perhaps keep it that way until the child expresses a preference. After all, genitals don't determine gender, they determine sex.
Side point, but I'd be careful about assuming historical children's clothing implies more gender-neutrality. It aligned with a different conception of gender and childhood, but still a very particular idea of gender roles.
To admittedly simplify something that varied by time/place and was fairly complex, here's one take: all children wore "feminine" clothing at a young age, and were primarily cared for by women (mother or, for wealthier families, female nannies). Boys started wearing more "masculine" elements of clothing as they grew older, eventually "graduating" to trousers (sometimes via an intermediate period of shorts), which often coincided with social movement to the company of the male side of the household and the boy being considered a "young man". There are still some pretty strong normative gender roles there, with "feminine" clothing still associated with non-manliness, just organized along a somewhat different pattern and timeline.
I don't expect offering children a preference is a particularly useful thing to do. In all except a tiny minority of cases (where the person has some form of mental illness, or possibly genetic abnormalities) gender and sex are equivalent. The abnormal cases are generally going to become apparent through behaviour anyway, and can be dealt with then.
That gender discussion is so weird. It seems people who are concerned about being forced into a role because of their gender go to great lengths and mental acrobatics to define some kind of new genders. So they struggle and struggle to actually define new roles they can be confined to.
Wouldn't it be easier to simply not worry about gender at all and simply use your sex in any way you please?
I have trouble understanding what she (he?) is complaining about. People offering to walk her home? The only real pan point I see is the neighbor complaining - hardly something that should ruin a whole life?
Going from being perceived as strong, independent and able to take care of yourself, to something dainty and fragile and unable to take of yourself?
Going from being able to do what you want to being put in a box - both for him and her (him forced to not express his emotions) -- both being forced by society to "behave properly" as a boy/girl?
About the "being perceived as fragile" thing: women are not being offered a walk home because they are fragile, but because they are more valuable than men. Men are in fact more endangered on the street than women, but nobody cares. Does she/he really prefer a life in which nobody cares about her well being?
Also, is it disputed that on average women are physically less strong than men? And even if they were the same on average, suppose the women is pregnant (you can't always know) - should a pregnant woman get into kung fu fights with street thugs? What I mean is: this is not just perception, just reality.
For the second part I also don't have a lot of patience. Just ignore the neighbor and do what you want? You can always find somebody who disagrees with whatever you do, so that can't be a criterion.
Anyone walking home alone is vulnerable to attack by multiple attackers -- sex has nothing to do with it.
Are you saying that you fear for the life of all your friends when they walk home alone, but you only care about your female friends enough to walk them home -- or are you guessing about other people's intentions?
Anyway, clearly the song doesn't speak to you -- which is fine. It speaks to me, and I'd thought I'd share. Sorry if you didn't get anything from it.
As I explained, indeed it is not the risk of an attack, it is the (biological) value of women that led to this culture of protecting them. Men are much more expendable than women - number of women available is the main limiting factor in creating more humans.
Of course I fear for the life of my friends, but only men are expected to risk their life to protect the life of women. It's kind of funny that feminists (or genderists? Or what?) envy men for that "privilege".
Yes clearly I am not the target group for that song, which seems to be about people where friends don't fear for their male friends. Or what is it's point? I am not "guessing at other people's intentions", I interpret the song which clearly seems to state that only women get offered company for going home.
In any case I also feel that "my friends want to make sure I get home safely" as a complaint is firmly in "first world problems" territory.
I very much doubt that the biological value has anything to do with it (as in the "absolute", evolutionary biological value). I think society evolve much too fast for that to be a lingering vestige from when that would actually matter in an evolutionary sense.
The complaint isn't about "my friends wanting to make sure I get home safely", it's about "my friends thinking I'm unable to make sane judgements, and take care of myself -- unlike when I was a child and was afforded equal consideration to my male peers".
You doubt that the fact that a woman has to be pregnant for 9 months to have a baby (risking her life, too) whereas a man just needs to spill sperm for 10 seconds has any impact on society today? Well you only see what you want to see, is all I can say to that...
As for the complaint about caring friends, that seems to be all in the interpretation and is one good example of why I reject feminism: it seems to be all about negative thinking and feeling like a victim. You COULD think "hey it's nice that my friends worry about me" but instead you think "ugh, my friends think I am helpless and irresponsible". That's just a negative, miserable, useless attitude, sorry.
I didn't say I didn't think it had any impact on society. I said I doubted it had an impact on "it"; "it" being how young adult males and females are perceived in society today with a view to self-reliance and independence.
Well you kind of turned the issue around - why is offering to go home with somebody a challenge to their self-reliance and independence? I would have thought it is about safety and common sense. In the worst case it gives you one more option (go home with a companion), which would make you effectively more independent?
