#56581 Divine purpose of women

[Unit of Energy]

I would just like to throw my two cents in. I am majoring in Home and Family Living. I'm rather nervous to tell my grandmother. She was born in 1926 and basically the only option available to her was secretarial work or nursing. She went into nursing, but when her daughter, my mother, went college Grandma encouraged her to not go into a traditionally female field. In fact my mom once told me that she sometimes felt discouraged from pursuing anything remotely traditionally female. So while many things have improved over the years, the same issues of correct roles come up in families now that did years ago. And as for women's studies, learning about women's issues and histories is quite important, and provides new insights into why things happened the way they did. I'm not suggesting that we re-write history to include women, but to be honest they were there and influenced much of the world even before "feminism" started. I say "feminism" because in our culture (Conservative LDS) shuns the extreme attitudes that came with the feminism movement of the sixties and seventies. What most people do seem to realize is that feminism has enriched all of our lives in some form. Mother's left widowed can provide for their families. Fathers can escape emotionally abusive wives. We acknowledge abuse instead of blaming the victim. I'm not saying that everything that came from it is good, and even the things that have allowed for these good things to happen have allowed not good things to happen as well. But these are some of the results of feminism.

[NerdGirl]

Shortly after my brother was born, when I was 3 years old, my mom decided that she was going to quit her job as a microbiology professor to stay at home and raise her kids. She says that a lot of people made her feel really guilty about that decision, and that she was made to feel like she wasn't contributing anything to society as a stay-at-home mom. It seems like there's a vocal minority in the feminist movement who think that women have to work and shouldn't choose to do anything with their lives that resembles a "traditional gender role". Those people drive me crazy, because I thought the whole point of the women's movement was to give women choices, not to tell them what to do.

Regarding women in science careers, I think I agree with Damasta that it's not primarily sexism that keeps women out of these careers. (Side note: I know BYU tried unsuccessfully for years to get a female physics professor, and they finally have a couple now. BYU actually has an unusually high percentage of female physics students.) But I think it's the lifestyle and the politics of academia that make people leave. The numbers of people in general get smaller and smaller as you go through grad school, then all the other stuff that comes after grad school. And men leave academia too, but I see a higher percentage of women leaving than men. I think the problem is that academia is fundamentally broken and some things need to seriously change if they want women and men to stop leaving, but for whatever reason more men than women (at least in science fields) seem willing to stick around and put up with it. There certainly is sexism, but that's not what makes women leave. It's the lifestyle. It's why I'm leaving. If I wanted to become a professor (which I thought I did before I started my Ph.D.), I'd probably have to spend the next 6 or so years after I graduate being a postdoc, possibly moving every year for a new job, and not making much more than I'm making now. Then if I was really lucky, I would get a tenure-track position, where I would spend the next 6 years trying to publish as many papers as I could and not doing much else and feeling guilty when I so much as ate lunch away from my desk, let alone trying to do anything social. Then I might get tenure, but more likely I wouldn't because I'm an astronomer, not a physicist, and the department might have decided my job was unnecessary given the economic conditions at the time.

If I did happen to meet someone and get married while doing all of that, and I did happen to have some kids, I wouldn't ever get to see them! And if I stayed single, I wouldn't ever get to see my friends, or travel, or do things that I'm interested in. So I'm leaving my science career and applying to medical school after I finish my Ph.D. It's certainly not because the men in my field are sexist. I just want to be able to enjoy my life! Seriously, I know some young professors whose wives and girlfriends live in different countries because they're both academics and they never see each other. I don't want a life like that. I still want to do some astronomy research, but I can do that on my own.

And yet when I tell some women about my career change plans, they've actually said to me things like, "Well, there are already tons of female doctors but not a lot of female scientists, so you really should just try to become a professor." Um, what? I should base my career choice on whether or not there are "enough" women in that career? No thank you.

Also: Welcome cheesecake ice cream! It sounds like you have an interesting perspective to add to this discussion.

And one more thing: This is an interesting article about the pink vs blue issue:
http://people.howstuffworks.com/gender-color.htm

[vorpal blade]

I strongly dislike Dr. Laura. She is a woman who misunderstands the history of women. She believes that if there were mistakes in the past, it’s all better now, and that’s baloney.

No, she doesn't think that.

[vorpal blade]

dr. laura thinks women should just shut up and take whatever we're given, which is funny because she has directly benefited from women like betty friedan and gloria steinam and all female activists who insisted that women were just as capable and intelligent as men and deserved entry to the same colleges and majors.

Not at all. I listen to Dr. Laura whenever I get a chance, and if there is anything she is really strong about it is that women should speak up and take initiative and get what they want out of life. You couldn't be more wrong about Dr. Laura.

[vorpal blade]

Good points as usual, NerdGirl.

I have had four daughters go to BYU. It has been their experience that all (or almost all) the women professors there try to talk the smart young women out of wanting to get married and have a family. "No! You don't want to waste your life staying home! You don't want to give into male domination!" I'm disturbed that such nonsense is taught at BYU.

I've known a number of female engineers. Almost all of them didn't have their heart in it. But they had this crusade, this quest to prove that women are just as capable and smart as men. How sad. We men already knew that. But they waste their lives fighting a bogey man that doesn't exist, finding sexism where it doesn't exist, climbing the ladder of career and education against a wall only to find out when they reach the top that their ladder was leaning against the wrong wall. They are smart, but they have been used as pawns in a cultural war.

[Imogen]

Good points as usual, NerdGirl.

I have had four daughters go to BYU. It has been their experience that all (or almost all) the women professors there try to talk the smart young women out of wanting to get married and have a family. "No! You don't want to waste your life staying home! You don't want to give into male domination!" I'm disturbed that such nonsense is taught at BYU.

I've known a number of female engineers. Almost all of them didn't have their heart in it. But they had this crusade, this quest to prove that women are just as capable and smart as men. How sad. We men already knew that. But they waste their lives fighting a bogey man that doesn't exist, finding sexism where it doesn't exist, climbing the ladder of career and education against a wall only to find out when they reach the top that their ladder was leaning against the wrong wall. They are smart, but they have been used as pawns in a cultural war.

IT DOES EXIST!! just because you've never experienced it, doesn't mean it's not there. i'm not going to get into all of my personal experiences with sexism, but being a woman in the south, there are MORE than enough to give you the idea. i've experienced from "why should a girl go to college" to "why would you want to get married and have dumb babies?" but please, don't tell me that these women were pawns. honestly, their need to feel like they should climb the career and academic ladder and prove people wrong can be contributed to sexism.

@Nerdgirl it seems the vocal minority is always who people listen to because they shout the loudest (ex: terrorists, bill graham, fred phelps, glenn beck). but they're not the majority. but i think objecting to feminism because of the movement's ideals from the 60s and 70s is little silly. feminism, as all things, has evolved quite a bit since then.

sexism, classism, racism, and all their ilk are deeply embedded in our perceptions. i think the sentiment the original questioner was trying to express was an idea that if people think ALL a woman is good for is to be a wife/mother/exalt men, than the expectation will be that she can and should do nothing else. and that's a wrong expectation.YOU may not expect that, but i'm sure there are people at BYU who do. and, unfortunately, those people are probably the most vocal and that can wear on a person.

[Unit of Energy]

Some women are misguided, but not all. And maybe it's my major, but my professors, male or female, have never encouraged me not to stay home. Although my peers have at some points. And my young women leaders years ago tried to talk me out of pursuing an interior design career. Which if they realized how male dominated it has been in the past and even now is they may have been more on board with it. I would venture that just as many men feel pressure to climb the career and academic ladder as women do, because it is expected of them. Right now I know a young man majoring in accounting because that's what will allow him to have a family and be a good father. I don't think that this is a bad decision by any means, but it is a pressure that exists and is exerting force on him because he is a man in our LDS culture. And that is sexism. I'll admit that I am very grateful for the BYU environment in my chosen major, because no one minds that I want to get married, have children and stay at home. But that is not all I want to do. I want to be able to teach my children and financially support them should I need to. I tell people my major and the first response I get is without fail, "Are you that desperate to get married?". They don't question what I plan on doing with it (work in interior design and or decorating), they don't even ask what you can do with it. They just assume that I want to get married fast and be done dealing with the real world. And I'm sorry Vorpal, but that is sexism. It doesn't really bother me that much as I've learned to just roll with the punches and the people who actually care about me think what I'm doing fits me. But sometimes I feel like everyone looks down at me because I've chosen to study Home and Family. I'm not even planning on teaching like all the other stereotypical BYU co-eds, therefore I'm not living up to my potential.

[habiba]

There's also plenty of the opposite side of such nonsense, Vorpal. When I started looking at maybe doing graduate school I met with a "counselor" who patronizingly advised me that maybe I should reconsider my priorities and be looking more at finding my eternal companion than at furthering my education. Later when I had an absolutely unquestionable answer from the Lord about what school I should be at, I got a lot of concerned advice from certain male professors that I was moving somewhere with a very small LDS population and by the time I would graduate and maybe move somewhere where there were more LDS men, it would be too late for me. One straight up said, "You're such a beautiful girl and it would be a shame for it to go to waste." He meant it as a compliment, but it was quite insulting. It was really refreshing to come to a non-LDS school where they couldn't care less what sex you are. I've actually gotten real career advice for once.

I think that women's divine role is frequently misunderstood in the church in a sexist way. It's definitely a cultural problem and not a doctrinal one. I can understand why some women fight back so hard. It can be really frustrating. I'm not that way in general, but I definitely feel that way sometimes. In high school I was in an AP math class with one other girl. We had a test and she and I got the two highest scores and threw off the curve a bit. We got ganged up on by a group of guys from church that didn't think it was right that we should be throwing off the curve for them when we were going to "end up barefoot and pregnant anyway". You'd better believe that she and I banded together and did everything we could to out perform them all at everything. I understand now that they were just stupid and jealous and had their fragile teenage egos damaged, but at the time it was both devastating and incredibly motivating. I was also publicly censured at the youth testimony meeting by MANY of my peers of both genders for being honest about being 18 and not having getting married and having babies ASAP as my greatest desire. I've been on the receiving end of it too many times to believe that it's not a problem.

It's taken me a long time to reconcile knowing through a lot of personal revelation that I have divine assignments in the secular world with the constant Young Women/Relief Society emphasis on motherhood, motherhood, motherhood. But at some point everyone has to realize that regardless of gender/sex, we each have a unique path and we should be more concerned with doing what makes us and Lord happy than with how people react to it. Being oppressed in a sexist way is just as bad as being so obsessed with being liberated that you lose sight of what's important and are angry and belligerent all the time. There's a lot to be said for confidently and peacefully following your own path, whatever it may be. It's sure a lot more effective than burning bras.

[Marduk]

I think sexism towards women absolutely still exists, and in some respects is more prevalent in LDS society. I have no problem with courses like women's studies discussing women's contributions in history, current disparities, and other issues facing women. I do have a problem that nothing exists like this for men. I don't think it is like a majority/minority thing. When we force a male child to take blue, and a female child to take pink, because "boys should like blue, and girls should like pink" we are doing a disservice to both children, and it needs to be recognized as such. The same holds true when we tell a woman her role is in the house, and a father his role is to work.

(On a slight tangent, talking about Dr. Laura, one of the few occasions that I actually listened to her, a listener asked her if children should love their parents. She said they should respect them, but they were not expected to love their parents. With that, I stopped even the occasional listening to her show.)

It is now the case in the U.S. that there are more female freshmen enrolling in college than male. High school dropout rates are higher for males, young boys labeled as "disciplinary problems" is exponentially higher than their female classmates, and our prison inmates (as has been discussed) are overwhelmingly male. Whatever we are doing, we are failing our boys. We talk about the harm we do when we tell girls they aren't as good at science or math as boys ad nauseum. But when do we talk about the harm we are doing when we tell our sons that boys don't cry? That it is wrong to show emotion? Then they bottle it up inside, and lash out in violence, which we punish, but accept, since "boys will be boys." We expect violence and acting out from our boys, hence we get it.

I think it is very indicative of the state of our society that we are perfectly willing to accept women's studies being taught in most colleges around the country, but we would laugh at the idea of a course that discusses the gender constructs we force on males.

[NerdGirl]

@Nerdgirl it seems the vocal minority is always who people listen to because they shout the loudest (ex: terrorists, bill graham, fred phelps, glenn beck). but they're not the majority. but i think objecting to feminism because of the movement's ideals from the 60s and 70s is little silly. feminism, as all things, has evolved quite a bit since then.

I actually don't object to feminism (and I consider myself a feminist and have been involved in feminist causes since I was a teenager). I just object to people telling women that they shouldn't choose to stay home with their children. To me that's not much different than telling women that their only choice is to stay home with their kids.

I've definitely experienced sexism in my life, but there's much less of it in university science departments than most people think there is (despite what it would appear given episodes like this: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articl ... draw_fire/ ). And I have experienced sexist attitudes when people find out what I'm doing in my life, but never from my professors. I'm the only female Ph.D. student in my department (and for a while I was the only female grad student period), and the messages I hear from the people in charge aren't "why the heck are you doing this when you should be making babies and leaving this to us boys?" It's more like "how can we get and keep more of you in our department?" The trouble with focusing on sexism as the primary reason why women don't stay in science is that it ignores the much more insidious problems in academia.

I'm leaving academia because I feel like it sucks all the life out of me and gives me so little in return. And I know plenty of men and women who have left for the same reasons. I'm very interested in the research I'm doing, and I would like to continue working on it for the rest of my life. I don't need to be part of a department to do my research, and I can probably do it a lot better without having to worry about whether or not it fits into someone else's agenda. And if ever do get to have children, I can a take a few years off to be with them full-time when they're young without having to worry that it will destroy my career.

Marduk: re more girls than boys going to college: This is a bit of a digression, but I've often wondered if that's why some girls get to BYU and all of a sudden start to wonder if they should believe crazy things about how there will be way more women than men in the Celestial Kingdom and we'll all be forced into polygamy. Because there are certainly more women than men at BYU. But then if you come to places like my non-student YSA branch, you'll find about twice as many men as women - because a lot of the young women from this area leave to go to college.

When my brother was going to college (he's taking time off to support his family now), he was majoring in elementary education. And he experienced way more sexism trying to do that than I ever did as a woman in physics. I've heard that part of the problem with educating young boys is that there are so few male teachers for that age group, and when boys don't have any male role models in school, they can sometimes get the message that learning is a "girl thing". And yet when a man picks elementary ed as his career, all of a sudden it's socially acceptable for people to make jokes about his sexual orientation. Same thing with male nurses - when someone actually encounters a male nurse, it's usually a newsworthy event. It's like people understand that they at least have to pretend to be okay with women in non-traditional careers, but the same isn't yet true for men in non-traditional careers. I think that's a serious problem that needs to be addressed before we can say that we have equality of career opportunities for the sexes.

And I'm still fascinated by how the pink/blue thing used to be reversed (read page 2 of the how stuff works article I linked earlier).

[Imogen]

and nerdgirl, kids today are so ingrained with "blue=boy, pink=girl" they can't even fathom that it was reversed.

when i was taking my pedagogy classes, it talked about how teachers are more likely to see boys' behavior as problem behavior and girls are more likely to be excused for similar behaviors. and that is also thanks to sexism. i think you're absolutely right that telling boys not to show emotion is what can lead to them being more violent. i also think it's a shame that men who want to go into nursing or elementary education are teased and harassed. it just goes to show that not only are people immature, but sexism applies to both sexes and can be damaging to both. a lot of focus is put on how women are affected because there has been a history of women being oppressed and their achievements ignored. we shouldn't need special classes for any group, but the fact is we usually learn about white men in history classes, and not so much about people of color or women (unless they are super famous, like MLK).

i also think it's interesting how education, particularly history, has become politicized. the texas state board of education just had a meeting, and a representative walked about be the board refused to include learning about the hispanic contribution to the state's existence in social studies. most people on the board of education on conservative. they're even removing thomas jefferson from a list of people who inspired revolutions! the man wrote the constitution.

i guess what i'm trying to get at is that sexism is so institutionalized that when someone goes outside our ideas of what is acceptable, we must ridicule them. like questioning a man or woman's sexuality because of their interests or career path. look at tv. it comfortable to watch shows like sex and the city because the women follow or expectations. they engage in heterosexual relationships, and they like to shop and talk about clothes and men. but once a woman goes outside that, she is "butch."

[TheAnswerIs42]

I'm not sure whether I really want to enter this . . . verbose debate here, but I do want to toss in my two cents. See, I'm on the opposite side a bit. A few of you talked about women being shunned for wanting a career, but I felt the opposite. My parents had 5 boys, all jocks, and me- the nerd. From my early school years more was expected out of me. They wanted me to go to an ivy league school and major in engeneering,a and were slightly dissapointed when I went to BYU and fell madly in love with math teaching. Then they were sad when I didn't continue for a Master's, but went straight into teaching.

But you know what? I'm still in love with teaching Algebra. I have been a housewife for four years, and no matter how much my YW lessons made it seem like some magical switch would be pulled and I would love my children so much that I would never want to be anywhere else, I DON"T LIKE being a housewife. At all. I don't like cleaning the house, I don't like toddler games 24/7, and every single day I miss my career. What I have noticed is that the mormon culture (not religion) is very anti- working moms. Or even just moms that don't want to have 10 kids and stay at home with them, cherishing every moment.

Why can't people accept that everyone is different? In today's broad horizons of division of labor, why is it assumed that every woman in our church will love toddlers? I love math. I read my old college textbooks for fun over my breakfast. I tutor students out of my house, since that's the only thing I can do with kids at home. And I look forward to going back to work as soon as I get my last kid in school.

[Damasta]

This is an interesting article about the pink vs blue issue: http://people.howstuffworks.com/gender-color.htm

That was an interesting article, NerdGirl. Thanks. I found this one interesting, too.

It's like people understand that they at least have to pretend to be okay with women in non-traditional careers, but the same isn't yet true for men in non-traditional careers.

i also think it's a shame that men who want to go into nursing or elementary education are teased and harassed.

Unfortunately I often react this way. When I hear about men who are majoring in MFHD (for non-BYU readers, that's Marriage, Family, and Human Development) or CLS (clinical lab science—you may not think so, but the majority of CLS majors are female) my initial reaction is to think of them as pansies (though I'll never actually vocalize it). But it's not exactly because of sexism. It's because I tend to think of those majors (along with Elementary Education and English) as the "marriage majors". What I mean by that is that a large number of women whose primary interest is in getting married choose those majors (in my experience). So, in my mind, those majors are associated with silly, loud (often ditzy) "husband hunters". So when I hear about a man choosing one of those majors—even though it's actually a legitimate career choice—I judge him by association. I know I shouldn't do that, so I'm glad we're having this discussion. And just to be fair, I think of Construction Management and Physical Education as the majors for "wife hunting" goofballs.

they're even removing thomas jefferson from a list of people who inspired revolutions! the man wrote the constitution.

Actually, it was the Declaration of Independence. Just sayin'.

[bismark]

I don't have much to add outside of sharing this article I read recently: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 25,00.html

It is interesting.

[Imogen]

my bad, either way, thomas jefferson is important.

[vorpal blade]

You know, I've been married for almost 37 years, and I do listen to my wife. I have four grown daughters, and I know quite a bit about what these women experience in terms of sexism and prejudice. I'm am not saying that sexism doesn't exist. I know it does exist.

I believe that there are a number of people in the world who want you to believe that there is much more sexism than there really is. They want you to believe that if women are earning less, on average, in a particular profession then it must be because the men are not treating women fairly and harbor feelings which unjustly hold women back. I believe that these sexist views are a lot less common than you might think, and there are usually other, real reasons for the disparity.

I believe that there are more real differences between men and women then is often acknowledged. These differences don't make men superior and they don't make women superior. They are just different. And they are not just culturally created.

I think it is wrong to push a young woman to prove she is just as capable as a man in a given profession, when this is not what that particular young woman wants to do with her life. It might help the pusher to say, "See, women are just as good as men," but it doesn't lead to happiness. If the young woman wants to stay at home and be a wife and mother she should not be made to feel guilty, as if she is letting her sex down, as though she has a responsibility to prove sexism is wrong. She should not be made to feel that her contributions to society are any less, no matter how intelligent and capable she is, if she wants to stay at home. And as I have read in my children's textbooks, and as I have heard tell of what their teachers say, there is a steady stream of propaganda that it is the duty of a smart and capable woman to get out into the workplace and not settle for being "just" a wife and mother. I think that propaganda is wrong.

I also think that some women are more comfortable in the workplace than at home. They should not be made to feel that they are inferior women for that, either.

I think "sexism" has become a convenient political tool to make cultural changes. Therefore people must be taught to see sexism where it doesn't exist. If I chose to hold a door open for a woman it doesn't mean that I think she is inferior to me, that she isn't strong enough to open it for herself, that I feel I must dominate her and show her that she is the lowly woman and I the man, that I am asserting my class distinction, or other nonsense. I'm just being courteous.

Most men, but I realize not all, believe in giving equal pay for equal value, that everyone should be given a fair opportunity to compete in any occupation he or she wants to pursue, that we not prejudge an individual on the basis of sex, and that we should not look down on anyone on the basis of sex. What I find objectionable is the assumption that if I am a man then I can't understand women or what they experience, and I can't be expected to treat women fairly and justly. Men are not the enemy of women.

[vorpal blade]

(On a slight tangent, talking about Dr. Laura, one of the few occasions that I actually listened to her, a listener asked her if children should love their parents. She said they should respect them, but they were not expected to love their parents. With that, I stopped even the occasional listening to her show.)

I think you must have misheard her. She does believe that parents are not there to be buddies with the children. She believes that a parent has a responsibility to teach the children and discipline them. Sometimes children are going to be upset with their parents because their parents are not going to let them have everything they want. Children are too young to run the household, and parents need to make hard decisions. Sometimes the children are going to feel like they don't love their parents so much because the parents don't let them do as they please. If it comes down to having your children love you because you always do everything they say, or respect you, it is better that they respect you. When they are old they will love you for that. I know Dr. Laura believes that children should love their parents.

I believe it is akin to the scripture saying that mercy cannot rob justice. So she is just preaching a gospel principle, when you hear what she was really saying.

[Damasta]

I don't have much to add outside of sharing this article I read recently: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 25,00.html

There is also some good information and some good resources in the Wikipedia article on the income gender gap.

my bad, either way, thomas jefferson is important.

No worries. And yes, yes he is.

[cheesecake ice cream]

Everyone: Being a stay at home mom is fantastic. So is balancing career and family.

Vorpal: That sentence was unfair. I assumed things because she is conservative. I don’t listen to her because I don’t like her. To me, it’s sexist to force women to be stay-at-home moms if they don’t want to be. I can only guess what her opinions on that are. I think that a lot of people are racist and sexist, including myself back in high school. I know that it’s offensive to use those words, so maybe “choicist” is better.

Habiba: Amen!

NerdGirl: Thanks! That’s definitely true for you too. Some liberals do take a different form of authoritarianism. I dislike it too.

Maternal obligations have some influence. The only question is, how much? And to what extent are these obligations based in arbitrary vs. practical gender roles? Female behavior could be very different if family responsibilities were understood differently.

Marduk: I hate male gender roles, and not also focusing on men is a problem. I would like to see a much more individualistic society overall. Maybe that would help.

Damasta and Vorpal: Some gender roles serve practical purposes based on innate differences, but some are arbitrary and based on false perceptions. It is difficult to tell which is true. You can’t tell without testing it, which many conservatives oppose. Why don’t we try alternative lifestyles in a small area and see what happens? In various areas, differences between men and women don’t exist, at least nowhere near the extent that tradition said, and we’ve proved it by trying it in society, yet gender roles persisted for a long time. We didn’t educate women for thousands of years because rich, white, Christian men held all the power absent universal suffrage, universal education, separation of church and state, and other economic rights. Are women not the intellectual equals of men? Or did they have no interest in being educated or having control over their lives? Some women choose tradition, but some are coerced by tradition. I don’t think that women are lesser at managing family finances either, yet often that is the man’s exclusive responsibility. I don’t get why women do that. They surrender all their power when they don’t help manage family finances.

I support the freedom to live life on your own terms, not majority culture. Don’t restrict my freedom unless it is to protect someone else’s rights. Let the free market determine the value of female labor. Unless women are told that it’s ok to act like men if they want, the value of female labor is distorted.

I appreciate and agree with your fervor for research methods, but are the claims made by scientists completely useless unless you’ve read the primary sources for everything? That would take an entire lifetime. It took 4 years to read all my psych books.

[krebscout]

Wait, so...are you guys going to put your little boys in pink dresses?

Sure boys=blue/girls=pink (and all that goes along with that) may be a totally arbitrary construct of society...but it still exists. Don't we have to play by at least some of the rules for the sake of our little ones' social lives?

And some of the boys=blue/girls=pink stuff is just useful. Babies come out looking ambiguous. If just for the sake strangers who ask, "How old is he?" or "What's her name?" it's handy to have your baby dressed in the expected color.

Baby Voldy still gets called a girl when he's wearing blue, though.