This conversation started in the “Is no always a no?” thread and Mububban quite rightly pointed out that it is more appropriately moved to its own thread in debates. The issue up for debate is: Does so-called “girlie” behaviour or interest in doing “girlie” things demean people and make them less equal to those who are “manly”. For purposes of the debate we’ll stick to commonly accepted stereotypes for “girlie” and “manly” stuff. Here’s the original conversation: That statement undoubtedly has some truth to it and I think that's really sad. Whether they realize it or not, so many people seem to believe that anything "feminine" is worthy of disdain: The underlying message I get from this: if you do or think of things that are "girlie" you don't deserve to think of yourself as equal to boys/men. The underlying messages I get from this: 1. Only women who behave like men are worthy of love/respect. 2. Girls can be less than boys. The underlying message I get from this: If you like “girlie” stuff, that’s not good and girls should be discouraged from pursuing those interests. Things that are traditionally considered to be boy-things (like superheroes) are better/superior. I might also go on to infer that boys are better than girls by extension. Whether those messages were delivered intentionally or not, imagine being a young child growing up and hearing them all the time. It wouldn't exactly give me confidence in myself if I'd been born a girl who enjoyed dressing up in princess costumes to play tea party with my dolls. Granted, not all girls like to do that kind of stuff, but there’s nothing wrong with the ones who do. Also: God forbid if you were born a boy and you liked so called “girlie” stuff. Those messages would have me believing that I was defective or something. Though I don't think this is anywhere near as large a problem now as it was in previous generations (especially here in North America), there is still an undercurrent of it around. The suggestion that women can't be equal to men unless they act/dress/talk or have the same interests as men do is to imply that they have to become (or pretend to become) someone they are not. That's a dangerous thing to teach a child in my opinion. Discouraging anyone from being the way that they are doesn't do anything for their self esteem or convince them that they are equal to everyone else. It also perpetuates the problem when the next generation learns that attitude from their parents. This kind of problem doesn't only apply to traditional gender equality; it applies to LGBT individuals as well. I think we need to teach our kids that it's just fine to be who they are, whether they be boys or girls. As a species, we're remarkably intolerant of each other's differences and that's no big surprise with attitudes like this out there. If we can't even accept ourselves, how can we feel that anyone else is acceptable either? I can already guess the question that’s coming next : So SJ, you’ll allow your daughter to go out dressed as a “whore” then when she’s old enough? I personally measure all things against the moral concept that if an action or decision is going to hurt somebody, it’s wrong. Dressing for the purpose of soliciting sexual favours from random men is a risky activity that can result in significant harm to self. I think I made my views on that pretty clear in the other thread: As a parent, it’s my job to protect my children from themselves when I must. I didn’ t let them play with sharp things as babies so I sure won’t be allowing my daughter to be standing on any street corners wearing next to nothing while she’s under my care either. There are too many men in the world who have views that would make that an unsafe activity. If however she wants to wear pink frilly clothes, buy dozens of shoes with the money she earns from a part-time job, play live zombie paintball, shave her head, or dye her hair black, purple and green to express herself: go for it. None of those things are going to hurt her or anyone else.