I thought it was appropriate to share as my 1100th post here at the feminist librarian.
Stay cool, everyone, and spend some time this weekend loving your favorite things as hard as you can.
"as if the world weren't full enough of history without inventing more." ~ granny weatherwax, wyrd sisters.
| the TV is to the left of these shelves |
![]() |
| via |
“I picked up Dyson from gymnastics and some parents spoke about his pink butterfly backpack,” she recalls. “A mother: ‘What a shame that mom buys girls’ stuff for her son.’ A father: ‘I’d never allow my boy to be anything but a boy.’ Then the son asked Dyson, ‘Where did you get that backpack? I like butterflies.’ As Dyson answered, the father grabbed his boy [away]. Kids are not the problem.”You can read the full article over at Bitch Media. In our rush to explain children's behavior with theories of gender or innate evopsych proclivities ("human beings are just naturally selfish creatures") we forget that from the moment they are born children are steeped in a dense network of relationships in which human behaviors are modeled for them. It's a wonder, really, that despite adults cueing children so relentlessly that pink butterflies are for girls there are kids with a strong enough sense of self to disregard those messages and simply express an delight at something they like.
I hope it’s clear that the acceptance she’s felt from her peers is much more important than the specific pronoun they use. Yes, language matters, but I know I greatly prefer the support I get from a friend who genuinely accepts me as myself, even if they’re not up on all the lingo, to someone who talks the talk but doesn’t ultimately treat my identity as valid.So I just wanted to take a moment this Friday to give a shout-out to the wee ones of this world who are refusing to cater to adult anxieties and instead continue to interact with their friends (and, hopefully, relative strangers too!) with kindness, generosity, interest, and enthusiasm. It's people like you who give me hope for the future of this planet -- no matter how young in years you may be.



So this morning, when -- tired and distracted by the back-from-research-trip "to do" list -- I left my wallet at the Coolidge Corner post office on my way to work, and didn't realize I had abandon it until about fifteen minutes (and a mile's walk) later, I was prepared for the worst. I was already starting to make a mental list of the places I was going to have to phone as soon as possible to make sure our bank accounts weren't drained through the ATM machine. In treating the history of the concept of childhood, social scientists have emphasized the differences between [the pre-industrial] status of children . . . where they are regarded simply as small or inadequate versions of their parents, totally subject to traditional or otherwise arbitrary parental authority . . . [and on the other hand] the modern, industrial, middle-class view of children [in which] children are increasingly treated as members of a distinctive social category, their social participation . . . increasingly limited to age-homogeneous groups.
. . .
The prevalent view of children at The Ranch (and other communes like it) fits neither of these models exactly. Rather than being members of an autonomous category of "children" or being inadequate versions of their parents, legitimately subject to their arbitrary authority, children and young people (or "small persons," as they are sometimes deliberately, perhaps preciously, called) are primarily regarded as "persons," members of the communal family, just like anyone else -- not necessarily less wise, perhaps less competent, but recognized primarily, as my colleague Bruce Hackett put it, "by lowering one's line of vision rather than one's level of discourse."
So I don't think the Obama administration is the Second Coming of Jesus Christ or anything, but I have to say the tension that has existed for the last eight years somewhere down near my uterus un-knotted a just wee small bit when I saw the juxtaposition of these two pictures.