Badass Mom Responds To Strangers Who Mocked Her Son’s ‘Girl’ Socks

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I always talk about the attention seeking in this kind of thread - I like to be consistent.

Which is a deflection which is formed from a prejudice you clearly have on progression.  

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Which is a deflection which is formed from a prejudice you clearly have on progression.  

A prejudice against attention seeking - yes.

Tommy Monk wrote:From the op...


"...But, as she explains in the final line of the viral post, she hopes the mother in question and “anyone else that thinks it’s OK to specify gender in clothes/toys etc” sees her words and develops a more open mind.
Campbell also states in a follow-up comment that she has the same gender norm-free policy for all of her children. Of her daughter, she writes, “Sophie is living being a Tom boy some days, and others she’s all princesses..."



Isn't saying 'tom boy/princesses' being 'gender specific'...!?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

A prejudice against attention seeking - yes.

Which means you must be against yourself.. 

So thanks for derailing this thread not actually talking about the issue, but about your hate of people

Cheers  

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Which means you must be against yourself.. 

So thanks for derailing this thread not actually talking about the issue, but about your hate of people

Cheers  

I'm not on Facebook ...

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm not on Facebook ...

Eh?

You are on a forums though, where you can hide behind a persona  lol

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Eh?

You are on a forums though, where you can hide behind a persona  lol

Look, you admire attention-seeking drama queens, and I don't. You'll just have to accept that not everyone shares your opinions.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Look, you admire attention-seeking drama queens, and I don't. You'll just have to accept that not everyone shares your opinions.

So this is the real issue, you take a real issue and claim it as insignificant as to why you falsely charge attention seeking, the very thing you actually do yourself daily.

This is about neutral clothing and prejudice and bigotry, the later two you excel at.

I do except you are negative, prejudiced and bigoted Rags, where you can judge others without fear of them speaking back to you and when they do like me, you get annoyed.  

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Look, you admire attention-seeking drama queens, and I don't. You'll just have to accept that not everyone shares your opinions.

So this is the real issue, you take a real issue and claim it as insignificant as to why you falsely charge attention seeking, the very thing you actually do yourself daily.

This is about neutral clothing and prejudice and bigotry, the later two you excel at.

I do except you are negative, prejudiced and bigoted Rags, where you can judge others without fear of them speaking back to you and when they do like me, you get annoyed.  

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


So this is the real issue, you take a real issue and claim it as insignificant as to why you falsely charge attention seeking, the very thing you actually do yourself daily.

This is about neutral clothing and prejudice and bigotry, the later two you excel at.

I do except you are negative, prejudiced and bigoted Rags, where you can judge others without fear of them speaking back to you and when they do like me, you get annoyed.  

Just like the mardass woman who vented her spleen on facebook instead of going down the more normal route of actually addressing a problem face to face when it occurred.

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:


Just like the mardass woman who vented her spleen on facebook instead of going down the more normal route of actually addressing a problem face to face when it occurred.

Define normal?

You have a preconceived idea what you claim to be normal, which as already explained your suggestion could have the other mother to sod off.
Here now many people from the same nursery will be aware if the issue which brings support to her child
NMow the media has taken up her story it brings the issue of bigots who form a negative stereotype of what men wear to the fore.


Also my last post to you which you avoided


Again failing to understand what is being stated and that is around the acceptance of neutral clothing.
I mean the reality is for women clothes are generally neutral already for them as they can wear clothes the same as men, and its become very accepted, but still sadly not the case for men to have neutral clothing. You see your views prove again you fail to understand and are part of the problem with accepting neutral clothing.. Hence all the previous points I made about helping to change poor perceptions. Which judging by your views above you are resisting this change. To maintain a stereotypical perception of how men should dress. Its these very same previous perceptions on the stereotypical job for men, that denied women the rights to do many jobs in the past because of such a sexist view of women. Many people championed and helped bring about that change. Not by being a mouse just explaining to one other person, but making it as vocal as possible. 

So you are the one that need to understand that it is yourself holding views as to what this boy goes to school and that other kids will comment. Well lots of men commented and tried to make life has hard as possible, when women were employed to man jobs considered jobs only capable by men. Now look how far it has progressed to as it once was. Still not there yet, but its progressed hugely in a few decades. So remember its your views above that is creating a belief of what boys should wear. Others learn this stagnated view and the problem continues. Taking away these barriers by acceptance creates then less problems in the future, as no longer would the stereo view create a view that something was of place. Something then once funny, no longer is then funny, as they accepted for how they dress

Syl wrote:I know....but who is making the fuss??

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


Define normal?

You have a preconceived idea what you claim to be normal, which as already explained your suggestion could have the other mother to sod off.
Here now many people from the same nursery will be aware if the issue which brings support to her child
NMow the media has taken up her story it brings the issue of bigots who form a negative stereotype of what men wear to the fore.


Also my last post to you which you avoided


Again failing to understand what is being stated and that is around the acceptance of neutral clothing.
I mean the reality is for women clothes are generally neutral already for them as they can wear clothes the same as men, and its become very accepted, but still sadly not the case for men to have neutral clothing. You see your views prove again you fail to understand and are part of the problem with accepting neutral clothing.. Hence all the previous points I made about helping to change poor perceptions. Which judging by your views above you are resisting this change. To maintain a stereotypical perception of how men should dress. Its these very same previous perceptions on the stereotypical job for men, that denied women the rights to do many jobs in the past because of such a sexist view of women. Many people championed and helped bring about that change. Not by being a mouse just explaining to one other person, but making it as vocal as possible. 

So you are the one that need to understand that it is yourself holding views as to what this boy goes to school and that other kids will comment. Well lots of men commented and tried to make life has hard as possible, when women were employed to man jobs considered jobs only capable by men. Now look how far it has progressed to as it once was. Still not there yet, but its progressed hugely in a few decades. So remember its your views above that is creating a belief of what boys should wear. Others learn this stagnated view and the problem continues. Taking away these barriers by acceptance creates then less problems in the future, as no longer would the stereo view create a view that something was of place. Something then once funny, no longer is then funny, as they accepted for how they dress

In this instance I would define normal as rational and logical.
Define normal then rationally and with logic, as the above is not a definition of normal
Coming over all Norma Desmond on Facebook is not the most rational or logical way to treat this (very minor) incident.
Its not irrational at all to a social issue which effects children. That is a rational thing to do by bringing to more peoples attention, so that more people can help combat a prejudice. So again you state something without a rational reasoned or logical view point
ONE....the woman who it concerns likely wont even see it...TWO, Norma's son cant read it......so who does it help apart from herself?
Again the above fails to see that this was witten for a much wider audiance to gain more support in tackling a social issue, you view as stated countless times already can easily fall at the first hurdle by just talking to the other mother, where your objective would be to not only ensure other parents at the nursery spoke to their children but also highlight this for other children who suffer. Things work best where others have also dealt with such bigotry and you then pool more people together who have had similar situations

Where did I advise anyone to tell anyone to 'Sod off'?
I never said you but if she spoke to the other mother and that mother told her to sod off, what then is she left to do using your stance, then physically fight her? Hence there is no reason or logic to the stance you offered

Addressing the problem when it happened in a calm and reasonable manner would have firstly enabled Norma to point out the fact that her son had picked the socks himself and laughing at him via his socks was cruel.
Secondly it would have shown her son that she was backing his choice of sockwear up.
OMG so you are saying that a on picking his own socks is wrong because it has lovehearts on them, thus making as stated you are the issue with your negative stance denying the freedom of choice by the child to decide. His mother did the right thing because 3 year old children should not have a care in the world as to what they wear unless others teach them otherwise. So whoever laughed at him was taught such poor stereotypical views on men boys dressing.

Lastly...this matter is trivial and has absolutely nothing to do with cross dressing.....or as you so quaintly put it 'neutral clothing'.........when a thread or a topic actually concerns this instead of a 3 year olds choice of socks THEN it will be addressed.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:I know....but who is making the fuss??

Two people - the woman on FB and Didge.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Two people - the woman on FB and Didge.

oh look its two women who hides their persona bitch and judge a mother when she cannot answer them back

That speaks volumes about how gutless you both are lol

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


oh look its two women who hides their persona bitch and judge a mother when she cannot answer them back

That speaks volumes about how gutless you both are lol

She can answer us on Facebook - as long as it's public. I'm sure it is - she doesn't sound like the sort of person to say anything privately.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Two people - the woman on FB and Didge.

oh look its two women who hides their persona bitch and judge a mother when she cannot answer them back

That speaks volumes about how gutless you both are lol

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

She can answer us on Facebook - as long as it's public. I'm sure it is - she doesn't sound like the sort of person to say anything privately.

The above makes zero sense.

People speak openly as you do daily on this forum, so you are not speaking privately are you.

So your point was an utter contradiction unless you place yourself as the same

Doh

Does anyone really care about this? I'm more worried about finding 2 socks that match

Raggamuffin wrote:I liked one of the comments from the Daily Mail.

Does anyone really care about this? I'm more worried about finding 2 socks that match

Didge wrote:Anyway like I say I have things to do and all you have had to offer is nothing on the actual issue, but to bitch about the mother.

Its a deflection as well, but this is the daily norm from you rags


All the best

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


The above makes zero sense.

People speak openly as you do daily on this forum, so you are not speaking privately are you.

So your point was an utter contradiction unless you place yourself as the same

Doh

You said she can't answer back. She can if she reads what we've said on here.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You said she can't answer back. She can if she reads what we've said on here.

Yeah comes I am sure she looks in twice daily rags


Holy crap on a cracker

Goodnight and next time debate the topics instead of using the topic to bitch about people

Laters

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:





Yeah comes I am sure she looks in twice daily rags


Holy crap on a cracker

Goodnight and next time debate the topics instead of using the topic to bitch about people

Laters

Well I can't tell her on Facebook - I'm not on there.

Didge wrote:I see Sly by name and Sly by nature avoids my answers 

Night Sly

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well I can't tell her on Facebook - I'm not on there.

You could join, as then you would really be able to tell her what you mean or continue to remain gutless and slag her off behind her back..
Which if your forte

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:I see Sly by name and Sly by nature avoids my answers 

Night Sly

Hurry up or you will miss your 9.30 date with yourself.

Didge wrote:Anyway as you two have spoilt this thread there is little point continue to fuel to women who have nothing better to do than butch behind a person's back and not say things to their face.

Night cowards  

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


You could join, as then you would really be able to tell her what you mean or continue to remain gutless and slag her off behind her back..
Which if your forte

I don't feel the need to join just to tell some attention-seeking idiot that they're an attention-seeking idiot.

Besides, she was slagging off the other woman behind her back.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:Anyway as you two have spoilt this thread there is little point continue to fuel to women who have nothing better to do than butch behind a person's back and not say things to their face.

Night cowards  

Was that a genuine typo?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't feel the need to join just to tell some attention-seeking idiot that they're an attention-seeking idiot.

Besides, she was slagging off the other woman behind her back.

Which proves you are gutless and feel empowered to slag people off when they cannot defend themselves

Inferiority complex lol

Now I am going to leave you cowards to continue bitching

have fun making yourselves feel special at the expense of others

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Which proves you are gutless and feel empowered to slag people off when they cannot defend themselves

Inferiority complex lol

Now I am going to leave you cowards to continue bitching

have fun making yourselves feel special at the expense of others

So then Didge, you think it's fine for this attention seeker to slag off another woman on facebook, but it's not OK for Syl and I to criticise her on a public forum?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Was that a genuine typo?

I actually picture you as quite butch ha ha ha  Yes the u and the i are next to each other.

Now you can have your last word

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So then Didge, you think it's fine for this attention seeker to slag off another woman on facebook, but it's not OK for Syl and I to criticise her on a public forum?

What harmful things did she say about the other mother?

You and sly are just bitching about her, because you are negative about people full stop

This mother spoke out on a real issue, something you have never ever dealt with


Whoopsy

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


I actually picture you as quite butch ha ha ha  Yes the u and the i are next to each other.

Now you can have your last word

I do hope you're not being "gender specific" Didge. That would be very unPC.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I do hope you're not being "gender specific" Didge. That would be very unPC.

Nothing wrong with being butch fore a girl, some men and women are into that thing rags

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:



What harmful things did she say about the other mother?

You and sly are just bitching about her, because you are negative about people full stop

This mother spoke out on a real issue, something you have never ever dealt with


Whoopsy

A real issue like socks?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Was that a genuine typo?

I actually picture you as quite butch ha ha ha  Yes the u and the i are next to each other.

Now you can have your last word

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Nothing wrong with being butch fore a girl, some men and women are into that thing rags

I'm sure they are, princess.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

A real issue like socks?

Well that just shows how stupid you are




The issue is not socks, but neutral clothing, prejudice and male sterotypical views of the clothes people perceive they should wear

You know normally religious bigots

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


I actually picture you as quite butch ha ha ha  Yes the u and the i are next to each other.

Now you can have your last word

Compared to you she probably is.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Well that just shows how stupid you are




The issue is not socks, but neutral clothing, prejudice and male sterotypical views of the clothes people perceive they should wear

You know normally religious bigots

It's about a pair of socks Didge. Only you could make a global crisis out of it.

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


I actually picture you as quite butch ha ha ha  Yes the u and the i are next to each other.

Now you can have your last word

Compared to you she probably is.