Boys wear blue and girls wear pink. Right? Think again.

Are the knights in pink and red girls?

Are the knights in pink and red girls?

Who decided what colours define our sexual identity? In past centuries pink and red were percieved as strong aggressive colours and were favoured by the military types. I just read a short article (in Finnish, so I wont link it here) by a psychologist, who wondered how very young children are subjected to building of sexual identity. To me it seems somewhat perverse, that we even try to impose sexual identity to someone under 1m tall. Children are not and should not be percieved as sexual entities by adults. Correct?

When ever gender is raised as an issue, there allways are people who claim that since we have two distinct biological sexes, their social roles should also be distinctly different. That people who do not act according to what ever the society and cultural heritage expects from their physical gender are somehow “confused about their sexual identity”. It is my personal experience, as an indipendent observer, not a professional in this field, that people who are “confused of their sexual identty” are infact people who have had the most rigorous fitting into a box of one particular and limited vision of a gender. And when I speak about people who are “confused”, I am not talking about transgender people, but people who do the strangest stuff, because they think their gender demands them to.

For example, let us take “honour murders”. A Finnish enterpeneuer father, who has suffered a bankropsy feels his gender role as the provider for the family as such a burden, that when he is no longer able to, he kills his wife, and little children. One could say, that he is simply acting out of manic self centered world view, in wich he thinks his honour is more valuable, than his very own children. However, we may ask how he got this world view? Howcome, this tragedy is a repeating phenomenon in our society? Mothers also kill their children, but because of completely different reasons. To me the bankrupt father is the product of his cultural indoctrination to certain kind of view of manhood. Not a very healthy one, I expect you would agree. His extreme actions are just the peak of an iceberg. That is what comes out in the yellow press, but other symptoms of the same psychological indoctrination problem are the numerous and instead of listing them, I ask you what problems, crisis and symptoms gender roles imposed on us cause? There are many things in our society that cause harm, but are defended just for the sake of cultural tradition. Well, I think it is time to recognize the harm, and abandon harmfull and unethical practices.

As a nother example I could offer you the alcoholics who have ended to their current miserable position, because they themselves percieved to have lost their honour in some way or a nother.  Who ever was a young man or a woman and thought to themselves, that when I grow up I become a derelict? No one. Honour is a valuable thing and a person should hold on to it, but it is typical that the culture imposes different honour concepts to different genders. How are those in any way relevant to our respective re-productive organs? Why is it that in so many cultures a woman loses her honour and virtue, if she is raped? If our physical difference is in, that it is easier for a man to rape a woman, how should it result in, that it is the woman who should lose her honour in the act?

All the pictures of Jesus depict him as a long haired fellow, wich kind of suits his role as a hippie sort of character from our modern perspective, as what he told to people (not just to apostoles, but everyone) was to abandon their jobs, property and give all of their money to the poor. All of it. But apostole Paul, who never met him, writes in the Bible, that it is unnatural for a man to have long hair. Are these beloved pieces of art arguing against the divine word of the creator of the universe? Have the Christians for centuries not percieved the son of their god not to be a man at all? That his gender was not an issue, or that he had none? Or is it simply, that they have not read their holy book and noticed the awkward contradiction between traditional art and the Roman cultural heritage of apostole Paul? Perhaps the latter is the most likeliest explanation, since I have never met a Christian who had given all their property to the poor as Jesus told them to do.  Paul himself is traditionally depicted as balding guy, so perhaps he had a personal thing going on in this, but that would mean that the Bible was infact written by some dudes in the antiquity and the divine inspiration was as much influental to the finished product as most hollywood films are loyal to the books by wich they were inspired by…

I personally think, that if you cannot define from an adult man wether he is a man or a woman by other means than the length of his/her hair you should not try to make that guess. You simply are not mature enough to come to any physical terms of sexuality of any other person. If you can not define what gender a child is by other means than by the colour of the overalls, why should you?