Wednesday, July 1, 2009

A Recipe for Future Therapy

I have four rules when it comes to naming children:

1. It must be immediately obvious how the name is pronounced when you look at the spelling.
2. Most people should be able to spell the name correctly without having to ask how it is spelled.
3. The name should easily translate to the child's future adulthood. Naming your December-born baby "Jingle" may seem cute when she is born, but it will not be cute when she is a college graduate trying to land a serious job in the corporate world.
4. The name should make it immediately obvious whether the child is a boy or a girl.

I realize that not everyone feels the need to comply to my baby-naming rules, and I recognize that while I am ultra-traditional when it comes to bestowing a lifelong label on an infant, some people are into the trendy and cutesy and weirdly spelled names. But at least most people aren't as bad as this Swedish couple, who decided not only to refer to their child by a non-gender-specific name, they decided not to refer to it as being a specific gender at all. So two-year-old "Pop" is not a him or a her, wears dresses and "masculine" pants and alternates between girly and manly haircuts. Only a few close relatives (i.e., those who have changed the child's diaper) know whether Pop is actually a boy or a girl.

You see, Pop's parents, in an attempt to be the most "progressively" stupid people on the face of the planet, want their child to "grow up more freely and avoid being forced into a specific gender mould from the outset." Says Pop's mother, "It's cruel to bring a child into the world with a blue or pink stamp on their forehead."

Um, lady, what about that blue or pink stamp a little farther south, if you know what I mean?

Whether this poor child's parents like it or not, he/she is a boy or a girl, as evidenced by his accompanying parts. No amount of silly secrecy or gender-neutral clothing is going to change that. The idea that gender is an artificial result of socialization is just ridiculous, and frankly, dangerous. Obviously genetics and hormones play a role as to whether your child will have the typical male/female likes and dislikes (and it's not a bad thing if your little boy likes barbies or your little girl is into monster trucks - let them play with things they enjoy), but the fact is that God created everyone before they were born as either male or female. Gender is not a choose-your-own adventure thing, and these parents are going to irreversibly damage their child by confusing him/her about his identity and purpose in life.

But, at least this child will have a companion in his lonely and confusing life. Pop's parents are due to have another child soon, and intend to be just as idiotic when it comes to their new arrival.

These poor children. Who is going to pay for their therapy bills?

4 comments:

amy said...

Bonnie,

Here's a blog post I'm sure you'll enjoy- all about crazy names and the damage it can do to innocent children.


http://theapronstage.com/2009/06/30/gwyneth-i-don%E2%80%99t-care-how-much-you-love-your-computerthat-fruit-it%E2%80%99s-still-a-bad-baby-name/

Sara said...

Oh for crying out loud, really, that is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

And this is coming from the mother of a toddler (female) equally obsessed with baby dolls, shoes, purses, construction equipment, trucks, airplanes and helicopters (and lawnmowers). I'm happy to indulge her play whims ... but never would I consider denying her all the wonderful things about growing up as a future woman (and I'm not talking princess dresses - I'm still praying she never hits that stage).

Megan B said...

LOL, where do you FIND this stuff?!!

Someone's parents need a "pop" in the face.

Catherine said...

DISTURBING!!! Honestly!? Why can't we ban these numbskulls from having more children?