And while it’s likely that doll play has its own benefits, highly-sexualized dolls may teach girls to value themselves primarily for their physical appearance – not a promising recipe for intellectual development.
I like how this is just dropped in there as a "well everyone knows..." assumption when you think about it for .2 seconds and it doesn't make any sense at all.
Well, part of the rational self interest approach to collective action problems is to signal that you are taking the socially beneficial course of action, even while you take the personally favorable outcome. This is why, for example, the best way to approach voting is to not vote, but to tell people to vote for the candidate that you like and to claim to have voted.
So lying to fit in with people is cool for you?
Everybody lies to fit in with people to some degree.
I don't. Certainly not enough to make it a priority to fit in. And if you have to lie for that your still an outsider and once they know you're a liar your credibility takes a hit.
If you saw and hated a movie and then 3 of your coworkers (one of whom is your boss) were all talking about how much they lived it, then they ask what you thought, what would you say?
How is this even a real question coming from an adult?
I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
That anyone who lies about how they feel about a movie in order to fit in is a child.
And if you're in a culture where punishing someone for their likes is acceptable then your culture is becoming more and more unacceptable every day.
Also I'd still like for you to answer my question about your value of assertiveness.
Quid on
+4
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Jeedan - You are really looking at a different issue than I am talking about. In the simplest terms possible, I am saying that when you are evaluating a potential action in a collective action situation, you should compare the probability of your action actually changing the outcome by the cost of so acting. If the probability of impact is very low (i.e., any problem involved large numbers where you do not have disproportionate power to impact the result) then in most cases, the cost of acting will be greater than the expected benefit of your action, so you are better off not acting.
Now, this is kind of in line with the 'personal cost' concept. If there are toys that are primarily geared towards one sex, should the toy companies be making an effort to market them to both sexes and produce gender neutral versions?
Yes.
How do we do this? I mean, with Hasbro and the Easy Bake Oven, we had a 8th grader write them a letter, but according to the stories I read it already fell in line with changes to their product line / marketing strategy that were in the works. Which is good, and gets PR for gender neutral stuff, but what about...Barbie? Or GI Joe?
How does Mattel make a 'gender neutral' Barbie? Should they invest $Texas in creating a line that appeals to men, or dilute their brand by making all Barbies gender neutral - potentially losing sales when some new product that only attempts to market to girls drinks their milkshake?
I am all for gender neutral stuff, and I know that some boys play with Barbie, some girls play with GI Joe, and the lines aren't nearly as well defined as they are in this discussion...but what makes companies do this if it undercuts their bottom line? Regulation is one idea, but we all know that's not realistic if you look at how people get their panties in a wad over something like soda volume limits.
Parents can buy gender neutral toys - and a lot of us do - but there are some places that you just have to pick 'boy toy' or 'girl toy' with no middle ground.
Well, the middle ground is you know, not buying those products, thereby limiting your child's exposure to gendered toys and making them less profitable.
I'd doubt I'd miss out on making my kid happy just for that sort of moral stand though.
And you know... if they came out with a really positive quality barbie cartoon, and maybe tweaked the line to be a little more realistic(something I believe they've done in the past a little bit), I think they could probably sell a lot of merch to males.
We'd horribly mock them, like we do the bronies, but it would move a shitload of product.
Jeedan - You are really looking at a different issue than I am talking about. In the simplest terms possible, I am saying that when you are evaluating a potential action in a collective action situation, you should compare the probability of your action actually changing the outcome by the cost of so acting. If the probability of impact is very low (i.e., any problem involved large numbers where you do not have disproportionate power to impact the result) then in most cases, the cost of acting will be greater than the expected benefit of your action, so you are better off not acting.
Why do you value your action being the biggest factor in the outcome so much? I can understand this at work or doing something where you deserve the credit, but this isn't the proper solution to every situation. It means shit in voting. Its also foolish to isolate yourself from the world when it doesn't go your way.
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
And while it’s likely that doll play has its own benefits, highly-sexualized dolls may teach girls to value themselves primarily for their physical appearance – not a promising recipe for intellectual development.
I like how this is just dropped in there as a "well everyone knows..." assumption when you think about it for .2 seconds and it doesn't make any sense at all.
Well, part of the rational self interest approach to collective action problems is to signal that you are taking the socially beneficial course of action, even while you take the personally favorable outcome. This is why, for example, the best way to approach voting is to not vote, but to tell people to vote for the candidate that you like and to claim to have voted.
So lying to fit in with people is cool for you?
Everybody lies to fit in with people to some degree.
I don't. Certainly not enough to make it a priority to fit in. And if you have to lie for that your still an outsider and once they know you're a liar your credibility takes a hit.
If you saw and hated a movie and then 3 of your coworkers (one of whom is your boss) were all talking about how much they lived it, then they ask what you thought, what would you say?
How is this even a real question coming from an adult?
I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
That anyone who lies about how they feel about a movie in order to fit in is a child.
And if you're in a culture where punishing someone for their likes is acceptable then your culture is becoming more and more unacceptable every day.
Also I'd still like for you to answer my question about your value of assertiveness.
You don't have to say you liked it, but you certainly don't have to say you hated it. To be honest, always expressing your full views irrespective of what is appropriate in context seems like the act of a child to me. I really hate FO3. Some people at work played it and really loved it. When it came up, I said "I didn't play that much of it, but I'm a real fan of the originals and it was so different that it just threw me." If I had said I thought it was terrible, that would have just created an awkward situation for no reason whatsoever.
You asked for "proof" on the value. I am not familiar enough with the social science literature on this issue to so provide it. If you read the rest of the thread, then you will see a discussion of the topic and some clarifications on what the right word/concept really is, but what it comes down to is really the belief that it is harmful to be so focused on the success of a group that you don't receive the personal recognition that you should. In my own life I have seen plenty of very smart, hard working people get fired or not get to advance because they just sat and quietly did competent work when they were asked to, instead of being more active and establishing relationships/making sure that people knew what they were doing for them.
Jeedan - You are really looking at a different issue than I am talking about. In the simplest terms possible, I am saying that when you are evaluating a potential action in a collective action situation, you should compare the probability of your action actually changing the outcome by the cost of so acting. If the probability of impact is very low (i.e., any problem involved large numbers where you do not have disproportionate power to impact the result) then in most cases, the cost of acting will be greater than the expected benefit of your action, so you are better off not acting.
Congratulations, you have, in fact, described a collective action problem. This right here is the problem. If everyone followed this metric, no collective action would ever be accomplished.
"Then government regulations," you say. This is true, most of these problems should be codified in law. The problem is our laws are written by people, who still need to overcome the problem. And they don't. Look at healthcare in america.
Like, I actually understand analyzing and picking out where to self-sacrifice where it really matters. Most people do that to a pretty large extent. But I think that should always be done with the understanding that it's not ethically clear and should be carefully considered. We can't, as a society, teach all our children to only act in self-interest because then no collective action problems will ever be solved. Your whole outlook relies on there being others willing to sacrifice without knowing there's a likely reward. People only do that because they believe it is ethical. You can't foist all that off on the laws and government and expect the system to keep working.
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
You don't have to say you liked it, but you certainly don't have to say you hated it. To be honest, always expressing your full views irrespective of what is appropriate in context seems like the act of a child to me. I really hate FO3. Some people at work played it and really loved it. When it came up, I said "I didn't play that much of it, but I'm a real fan of the originals and it was so different that it just threw me." If I had said I thought it was terrible, that would have just created an awkward situation for no reason whatsoever.
I've never had any trouble with this. But I'm not in a socially conservative environment like you are.
You asked for "proof" on the value. I am not familiar enough with the social science literature on this issue to so provide it. If you read the rest of the thread, then you will see a discussion of the topic and some clarifications on what the right word/concept really is, but what it comes down to is really the belief that it is harmful to be so focused on the success of a group that you don't receive the personal recognition that you should. In my own life I have seen plenty of very smart, hard working people get fired or not get to advance because they just sat and quietly did competent work when they were asked to, instead of being more active and establishing relationships/making sure that people knew what they were doing for them.
This might have to do with your field though its possible your right they didn't adapt properly to the work environment. Social networking can be vital to succeed though I can understand people who avoid that, they're there to work not make friends. That said, in a workplace that prioritizes social networking over competency is being badly managed IMO.
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
You don't have to say you liked it, but you certainly don't have to say you hated it. To be honest, always expressing your full views irrespective of what is appropriate in context seems like the act of a child to me. I really hate FO3. Some people at work played it and really loved it. When it came up, I said "I didn't play that much of it, but I'm a real fan of the originals and it was so different that it just threw me." If I had said I thought it was terrible, that would have just created an awkward situation for no reason whatsoever.
I've never had any trouble with this. But I'm not in a socially conservative environment like you are.
You asked for "proof" on the value. I am not familiar enough with the social science literature on this issue to so provide it. If you read the rest of the thread, then you will see a discussion of the topic and some clarifications on what the right word/concept really is, but what it comes down to is really the belief that it is harmful to be so focused on the success of a group that you don't receive the personal recognition that you should. In my own life I have seen plenty of very smart, hard working people get fired or not get to advance because they just sat and quietly did competent work when they were asked to, instead of being more active and establishing relationships/making sure that people knew what they were doing for them.
This might have to do with your field though its possible your right they didn't adapt properly to the work environment. Social networking can be vital to succeed though I can understand people who avoid that, they're there to work not make friends. That said, in a workplace that prioritizes social networking over competency is being badly managed IMO.
Everyone is competent though. That isn't enough. You need to be viewed as valuable and well regarded, and both of those things require you to be active in self promotion, at least in my field.
You don't have to say you liked it, but you certainly don't have to say you hated it. To be honest, always expressing your full views irrespective of what is appropriate in context seems like the act of a child to me. I really hate FO3. Some people at work played it and really loved it. When it came up, I said "I didn't play that much of it, but I'm a real fan of the originals and it was so different that it just threw me." If I had said I thought it was terrible, that would have just created an awkward situation for no reason whatsoever.
I've never had any trouble with this. But I'm not in a socially conservative environment like you are.
You asked for "proof" on the value. I am not familiar enough with the social science literature on this issue to so provide it. If you read the rest of the thread, then you will see a discussion of the topic and some clarifications on what the right word/concept really is, but what it comes down to is really the belief that it is harmful to be so focused on the success of a group that you don't receive the personal recognition that you should. In my own life I have seen plenty of very smart, hard working people get fired or not get to advance because they just sat and quietly did competent work when they were asked to, instead of being more active and establishing relationships/making sure that people knew what they were doing for them.
This might have to do with your field though its possible your right they didn't adapt properly to the work environment. Social networking can be vital to succeed though I can understand people who avoid that, they're there to work not make friends. That said, in a workplace that prioritizes social networking over competency is being badly managed IMO.
Everyone is competent though. That isn't enough. You need to be viewed as valuable and well regarded, and both of those things require you to be active in self promotion, at least in my field.
In that case they need to be taught that earlier in their education for that field and aided by mentors in workplaces to guide them. Otherwise by the time they understand what's going on it's too late.
Harry Dresden on
+2
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
You don't have to say you liked it, but you certainly don't have to say you hated it. To be honest, always expressing your full views irrespective of what is appropriate in context seems like the act of a child to me. I really hate FO3. Some people at work played it and really loved it. When it came up, I said "I didn't play that much of it, but I'm a real fan of the originals and it was so different that it just threw me." If I had said I thought it was terrible, that would have just created an awkward situation for no reason whatsoever.
I've never had any trouble with this. But I'm not in a socially conservative environment like you are.
You asked for "proof" on the value. I am not familiar enough with the social science literature on this issue to so provide it. If you read the rest of the thread, then you will see a discussion of the topic and some clarifications on what the right word/concept really is, but what it comes down to is really the belief that it is harmful to be so focused on the success of a group that you don't receive the personal recognition that you should. In my own life I have seen plenty of very smart, hard working people get fired or not get to advance because they just sat and quietly did competent work when they were asked to, instead of being more active and establishing relationships/making sure that people knew what they were doing for them.
This might have to do with your field though its possible your right they didn't adapt properly to the work environment. Social networking can be vital to succeed though I can understand people who avoid that, they're there to work not make friends. That said, in a workplace that prioritizes social networking over competency is being badly managed IMO.
Everyone is competent though. That isn't enough. You need to be viewed as valuable and well regarded, and both of those things require you to be active in self promotion, at least in my field.
In that case they need to be taught that earlier in their education for that field and aided by mentors in workplaces to guide them. Otherwise by the time they understand what's going on it's too late.
Almost like these are skills that we should be nurturing on a life long basis. . .
Incidentally, almost everyone that fits the description I mentioned have been women or very quiet, reserved men.
It's almost as if a lot of cultures disadvantage women and disparage their efforts by making their contributions seem lacking, not because they're not competent, but because the overall structure of the workplace is designed to promote the masculine...
+3
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
It's almost as if a lot of cultures disadvantage women and disparage their efforts by making their contributions seem lacking, not because they're not competent, but because the overall structure of the workplace is designed to promote the masculine...
And now we're back to why I said I think its better to be a tomboy than a tomgirl. . .
You don't have to say you liked it, but you certainly don't have to say you hated it. To be honest, always expressing your full views irrespective of what is appropriate in context seems like the act of a child to me. I really hate FO3. Some people at work played it and really loved it. When it came up, I said "I didn't play that much of it, but I'm a real fan of the originals and it was so different that it just threw me." If I had said I thought it was terrible, that would have just created an awkward situation for no reason whatsoever.
I've never had any trouble with this. But I'm not in a socially conservative environment like you are.
You asked for "proof" on the value. I am not familiar enough with the social science literature on this issue to so provide it. If you read the rest of the thread, then you will see a discussion of the topic and some clarifications on what the right word/concept really is, but what it comes down to is really the belief that it is harmful to be so focused on the success of a group that you don't receive the personal recognition that you should. In my own life I have seen plenty of very smart, hard working people get fired or not get to advance because they just sat and quietly did competent work when they were asked to, instead of being more active and establishing relationships/making sure that people knew what they were doing for them.
This might have to do with your field though its possible your right they didn't adapt properly to the work environment. Social networking can be vital to succeed though I can understand people who avoid that, they're there to work not make friends. That said, in a workplace that prioritizes social networking over competency is being badly managed IMO.
Everyone is competent though. That isn't enough. You need to be viewed as valuable and well regarded, and both of those things require you to be active in self promotion, at least in my field.
In that case they need to be taught that earlier in their education for that field and aided by mentors in workplaces to guide them. Otherwise by the time they understand what's going on it's too late.
Almost like these are skills that we should be nurturing on a life long basis. . .
I agree those abilities should be given more attention in schools, but jobs training should focus on those as well. Its in their employers best interests to get a well-rounded worker, not one whose abilities are narrowly confined especially when not everyone has access to the same education or learn the same way.
It's almost as if a lot of cultures disadvantage women and disparage their efforts by making their contributions seem lacking, not because they're not competent, but because the overall structure of the workplace is designed to promote the masculine...
And now we're back to why I said I think its better to be a tomboy than a tomgirl. . .
No we're just back to collective action problems. It's easier to work around sexism than to fix it.
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
It's almost as if a lot of cultures disadvantage women and disparage their efforts by making their contributions seem lacking, not because they're not competent, but because the overall structure of the workplace is designed to promote the masculine...
And now we're back to why I said I think its better to be a tomboy than a tomgirl. . .
Of course it is. Being a man is still an advantage in western society.
You don't have to say you liked it, but you certainly don't have to say you hated it. To be honest, always expressing your full views irrespective of what is appropriate in context seems like the act of a child to me. I really hate FO3. Some people at work played it and really loved it. When it came up, I said "I didn't play that much of it, but I'm a real fan of the originals and it was so different that it just threw me." If I had said I thought it was terrible, that would have just created an awkward situation for no reason whatsoever.
Being tactful and lying aren't the same thing. At all.
You asked for "proof" on the value. I am not familiar enough with the social science literature on this issue to so provide it. If you read the rest of the thread, then you will see a discussion of the topic and some clarifications on what the right word/concept really is, but what it comes down to is really the belief that it is harmful to be so focused on the success of a group that you don't receive the personal recognition that you should. In my own life I have seen plenty of very smart, hard working people get fired or not get to advance because they just sat and quietly did competent work when they were asked to, instead of being more active and establishing relationships/making sure that people knew what they were doing for them.
Which has literally nothing to do with this claim:
If you let girls do boy stuff because that's socially acceptable but don't let boys do girl stuff because that might not be, you are saying girls stuff is inferior to boys'.
So the best thing is to let kids do everything.
They kind of are though, in that they emphasize traits that are less associated with success in America. I actually do think there is a difference between a tomboy and a "tomgirl" in America. That said, you definitely need to be careful not to say girls things are worse than boys.
You claim one is inferior to the other. You've done nothing to demonstrate this.
Now, this is kind of in line with the 'personal cost' concept. If there are toys that are primarily geared towards one sex, should the toy companies be making an effort to market them to both sexes and produce gender neutral versions?
Yes.
How do we do this? I mean, with Hasbro and the Easy Bake Oven, we had a 8th grader write them a letter, but according to the stories I read it already fell in line with changes to their product line / marketing strategy that were in the works. Which is good, and gets PR for gender neutral stuff, but what about...Barbie? Or GI Joe?
How does Mattel make a 'gender neutral' Barbie? Should they invest $Texas in creating a line that appeals to men, or dilute their brand by making all Barbies gender neutral - potentially losing sales when some new product that only attempts to market to girls drinks their milkshake?
I am all for gender neutral stuff, and I know that some boys play with Barbie, some girls play with GI Joe, and the lines aren't nearly as well defined as they are in this discussion...but what makes companies do this if it undercuts their bottom line? Regulation is one idea, but we all know that's not realistic if you look at how people get their panties in a wad over something like soda volume limits.
Parents can buy gender neutral toys - and a lot of us do - but there are some places that you just have to pick 'boy toy' or 'girl toy' with no middle ground.
I think you're making a bit of a false choice here. Think about it in the context of women and video games. More men than women play "traditional" video games. But there are women who want to or do play video games who feel like games don't want them because of lack of representation in games, or the marketing of games, or the messages in games themselves. Because "traditional" games are "for" men.
Barbie doesn't need to be made "gender neutral" in the way you're implying any more than Call of Duty needs to be moved to an office setting because women couldn't serve in combat until recently. All that's needed is to make the Barbie line not feel like it's actively pushing out boys who might want to play with Barbie. They could add additional male dolls to the line (female dolls: Barbie, Barbie's friend, Barbie's little sister, Barbie's baby ....friend (I was honestly never clear on whose baby it was supposed to be), Hawaiian Barbie, black Barbie, etc etc. Male dolls: Ken.). More clothes for the dudes. Show both boys and girls playing with them in your ads.
These are all things that are good for any kids that want to play with Barbie. (I know if there were more guys than just Ken, I would have definitely wanted a couple of them, because it was difficult to act out all my mom's soap opera plots with just one guy who only could wear either a suit or swim trunks.)
It'd also be great if not every single one of Barbie's accessories was pink but it's part of the brand I guess so that probably won't happen.
Actively pushing people away from your brand is dumb dumb dumb and it hurts the people who you are marketing towards. An example: the Avatar: the Last Airbender toys. The main character of the show is a boy, the show was targeted at boys, but the characters on the show were split pretty close to 50/50 male/female. All of the toys they put out were for male characters. (Even now the only female action figure you can buy for the show is actually based off of the horrible M Night Shyamalan movie. *sad trombone*) There's no way for the boys that would be getting the action figures to act out their favorite scenes from the show because half of the characters aren't there. And this was for the most popular show on Nickelodeon.
The sequel show (Korra), which is similarly popular, has no action figures at all. It has a female lead character.
You don't have to say you liked it, but you certainly don't have to say you hated it. To be honest, always expressing your full views irrespective of what is appropriate in context seems like the act of a child to me. I really hate FO3. Some people at work played it and really loved it. When it came up, I said "I didn't play that much of it, but I'm a real fan of the originals and it was so different that it just threw me." If I had said I thought it was terrible, that would have just created an awkward situation for no reason whatsoever.
Being tactful and lying aren't the same thing. At all.
You asked for "proof" on the value. I am not familiar enough with the social science literature on this issue to so provide it. If you read the rest of the thread, then you will see a discussion of the topic and some clarifications on what the right word/concept really is, but what it comes down to is really the belief that it is harmful to be so focused on the success of a group that you don't receive the personal recognition that you should. In my own life I have seen plenty of very smart, hard working people get fired or not get to advance because they just sat and quietly did competent work when they were asked to, instead of being more active and establishing relationships/making sure that people knew what they were doing for them.
Which has literally nothing to do with this claim:
If you let girls do boy stuff because that's socially acceptable but don't let boys do girl stuff because that might not be, you are saying girls stuff is inferior to boys'.
So the best thing is to let kids do everything.
They kind of are though, in that they emphasize traits that are less associated with success in America. I actually do think there is a difference between a tomboy and a "tomgirl" in America. That said, you definitely need to be careful not to say girls things are worse than boys.
You claim one is inferior to the other. You've done nothing to demonstrate this.
I am saying that the emphasis on group success (traditional "girl" play) over personal success and direct leadership (traditional "boy" play) can result in people going into the workforce with an attitude which is not conducive to success. I thought I was clear about that.
You don't have to say you liked it, but you certainly don't have to say you hated it. To be honest, always expressing your full views irrespective of what is appropriate in context seems like the act of a child to me. I really hate FO3. Some people at work played it and really loved it. When it came up, I said "I didn't play that much of it, but I'm a real fan of the originals and it was so different that it just threw me." If I had said I thought it was terrible, that would have just created an awkward situation for no reason whatsoever.
Being tactful and lying aren't the same thing. At all.
You asked for "proof" on the value. I am not familiar enough with the social science literature on this issue to so provide it. If you read the rest of the thread, then you will see a discussion of the topic and some clarifications on what the right word/concept really is, but what it comes down to is really the belief that it is harmful to be so focused on the success of a group that you don't receive the personal recognition that you should. In my own life I have seen plenty of very smart, hard working people get fired or not get to advance because they just sat and quietly did competent work when they were asked to, instead of being more active and establishing relationships/making sure that people knew what they were doing for them.
Which has literally nothing to do with this claim:
If you let girls do boy stuff because that's socially acceptable but don't let boys do girl stuff because that might not be, you are saying girls stuff is inferior to boys'.
So the best thing is to let kids do everything.
They kind of are though, in that they emphasize traits that are less associated with success in America. I actually do think there is a difference between a tomboy and a "tomgirl" in America. That said, you definitely need to be careful not to say girls things are worse than boys.
You claim one is inferior to the other. You've done nothing to demonstrate this.
I am saying that the emphasis on group success (traditional "girl" play) over personal success and direct leadership (traditional "boy" play) can result in people going into the workforce with an attitude which is not conducive to success. I thought I was clear about that.
Yes focusing too much in any one area can be bad.
That is not what inferior means.
+3
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
You don't have to say you liked it, but you certainly don't have to say you hated it. To be honest, always expressing your full views irrespective of what is appropriate in context seems like the act of a child to me. I really hate FO3. Some people at work played it and really loved it. When it came up, I said "I didn't play that much of it, but I'm a real fan of the originals and it was so different that it just threw me." If I had said I thought it was terrible, that would have just created an awkward situation for no reason whatsoever.
Being tactful and lying aren't the same thing. At all.
You asked for "proof" on the value. I am not familiar enough with the social science literature on this issue to so provide it. If you read the rest of the thread, then you will see a discussion of the topic and some clarifications on what the right word/concept really is, but what it comes down to is really the belief that it is harmful to be so focused on the success of a group that you don't receive the personal recognition that you should. In my own life I have seen plenty of very smart, hard working people get fired or not get to advance because they just sat and quietly did competent work when they were asked to, instead of being more active and establishing relationships/making sure that people knew what they were doing for them.
Which has literally nothing to do with this claim:
If you let girls do boy stuff because that's socially acceptable but don't let boys do girl stuff because that might not be, you are saying girls stuff is inferior to boys'.
So the best thing is to let kids do everything.
They kind of are though, in that they emphasize traits that are less associated with success in America. I actually do think there is a difference between a tomboy and a "tomgirl" in America. That said, you definitely need to be careful not to say girls things are worse than boys.
You claim one is inferior to the other. You've done nothing to demonstrate this.
I am saying that the emphasis on group success (traditional "girl" play) over personal success and direct leadership (traditional "boy" play) can result in people going into the workforce with an attitude which is not conducive to success. I thought I was clear about that.
Yes focusing too much in any one area can be bad.
That is not what inferior means.
I'm not speaking objectively, but pragmatically. All I am saying is that boy's play seems to be better in training for success in American business culture.
You don't have to say you liked it, but you certainly don't have to say you hated it. To be honest, always expressing your full views irrespective of what is appropriate in context seems like the act of a child to me. I really hate FO3. Some people at work played it and really loved it. When it came up, I said "I didn't play that much of it, but I'm a real fan of the originals and it was so different that it just threw me." If I had said I thought it was terrible, that would have just created an awkward situation for no reason whatsoever.
Being tactful and lying aren't the same thing. At all.
You asked for "proof" on the value. I am not familiar enough with the social science literature on this issue to so provide it. If you read the rest of the thread, then you will see a discussion of the topic and some clarifications on what the right word/concept really is, but what it comes down to is really the belief that it is harmful to be so focused on the success of a group that you don't receive the personal recognition that you should. In my own life I have seen plenty of very smart, hard working people get fired or not get to advance because they just sat and quietly did competent work when they were asked to, instead of being more active and establishing relationships/making sure that people knew what they were doing for them.
Which has literally nothing to do with this claim:
If you let girls do boy stuff because that's socially acceptable but don't let boys do girl stuff because that might not be, you are saying girls stuff is inferior to boys'.
So the best thing is to let kids do everything.
They kind of are though, in that they emphasize traits that are less associated with success in America. I actually do think there is a difference between a tomboy and a "tomgirl" in America. That said, you definitely need to be careful not to say girls things are worse than boys.
You claim one is inferior to the other. You've done nothing to demonstrate this.
I am saying that the emphasis on group success (traditional "girl" play) over personal success and direct leadership (traditional "boy" play) can result in people going into the workforce with an attitude which is not conducive to success. I thought I was clear about that.
Yes focusing too much in any one area can be bad.
That is not what inferior means.
I'm not speaking objectively, but pragmatically. All I am saying is that boy's play seems to be better in training for success in American business culture.
And there's a pretty solid argument that it's long past time for American business culture to be given the Ol Yeller treatment.
You don't have to say you liked it, but you certainly don't have to say you hated it. To be honest, always expressing your full views irrespective of what is appropriate in context seems like the act of a child to me. I really hate FO3. Some people at work played it and really loved it. When it came up, I said "I didn't play that much of it, but I'm a real fan of the originals and it was so different that it just threw me." If I had said I thought it was terrible, that would have just created an awkward situation for no reason whatsoever.
Being tactful and lying aren't the same thing. At all.
You asked for "proof" on the value. I am not familiar enough with the social science literature on this issue to so provide it. If you read the rest of the thread, then you will see a discussion of the topic and some clarifications on what the right word/concept really is, but what it comes down to is really the belief that it is harmful to be so focused on the success of a group that you don't receive the personal recognition that you should. In my own life I have seen plenty of very smart, hard working people get fired or not get to advance because they just sat and quietly did competent work when they were asked to, instead of being more active and establishing relationships/making sure that people knew what they were doing for them.
Which has literally nothing to do with this claim:
If you let girls do boy stuff because that's socially acceptable but don't let boys do girl stuff because that might not be, you are saying girls stuff is inferior to boys'.
So the best thing is to let kids do everything.
They kind of are though, in that they emphasize traits that are less associated with success in America. I actually do think there is a difference between a tomboy and a "tomgirl" in America. That said, you definitely need to be careful not to say girls things are worse than boys.
You claim one is inferior to the other. You've done nothing to demonstrate this.
I am saying that the emphasis on group success (traditional "girl" play) over personal success and direct leadership (traditional "boy" play) can result in people going into the workforce with an attitude which is not conducive to success. I thought I was clear about that.
Yes focusing too much in any one area can be bad.
That is not what inferior means.
I'm not speaking objectively, but pragmatically. All I am saying is that boy's play seems to be better in training for success in American business culture.
American business culture is complete garbage.
There are a myriad of way to be successful without feeding in to that bullshit.
+2
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I believe boys and girls should be able to play with whatever toys they choose. That said, I am reluctant to advocate for major changes to Barbie or Rainbow Brite or other iconic girls' toylines to make them more boy-friendly. Because as much as the pink aisle has ended up being the Pink Ghetto for girls, it's also been the Pink Sanctuary. What I mean by this is . . . Barbie, Polly Pocket, etc, are toys that girls are able to define as their own. Those toylines scream, "HEY! WE'RE FOR GIRLS!"
I don't think there's anything wrong with a little boy liking a Barbie in a lacey dress because, hey, I think lacey dresses are awesome, so why shouldn't a little boy think they're awesome? But I have been watching the recent fandom of My Little Pony (shorthand: 30 year old girls toy franchise, new show is really good, new show brought in a surprising number of adult fans including men) and a looooot of what I see is guys trying to redefine My Little Pony as being "not girly (anymore)" . . . in order to assuage mixed feelings about liking something "for girls", I guess? (Ridiculous, because the new show is just as girly as any other incarnation.) I don't know, but it's made me wonder if "gender neutrality" of Barbie or such would really be more like "boys take over and redefine the toyline, and then the marketers (mostly men) focus on the boys."
Maybe little boys would react differently than adult men who have been told since birth that they will get Pink Herpes if they take one step into the pink aisle, though.
Summary: I support kids being able to play with whatever they choose, but am reluctant to suggest that classic girls toylines undergo any major changes to achieve this. (I agree that Ken could get more attention, though. Sidenote, I'll bet a lot of kids wanted a Ken doll after Toy Story 3 came out.) To me, the solution is not to make everything "gender neutral", but to make it clear that "girly" is not a dirty word and shouldn't be an insult, any more than "manly" is. To accept the little boy who likes Barbie, just like people generally accept the girl who likes Transformers.
LadyM on
+2
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I believe boys and girls should be able to play with whatever toys they choose. That said, I am reluctant to advocate for major changes to Barbie or Rainbow Brite or other iconic girls' toylines to make them more boy-friendly. Because as much as the pink aisle has ended up being the Pink Ghetto for girls, it's also been the Pink Sanctuary. What I mean by this is . . . Barbie, Polly Pocket, etc, are toys that girls are able to define as their own. Those toylines scream, "HEY! WE'RE FOR GIRLS!"
I don't think there's anything wrong with a little boy liking a Barbie in a lacey dress because, hey, I think lacey dresses are awesome, so why shouldn't a little boy think they're awesome? But I have been watching the recent fandom of My Little Pony (shorthand: 30 year old girls toy franchise, new show is really good, new show brought in a surprising number of adult fans including men) and a looooot of what I see is guys trying to redefine My Little Pony as being "not girly (anymore)" . . . in order to assuage mixed feelings about liking something "for girls", I guess? (Ridiculous, because the new show is just as girly as any other incarnation.) I don't know, but it's made me wonder if "gender neutrality" of Barbie or such would really be more like "boys take over and redefine the toyline, and then the marketers (mostly men) focus on the boys."
Maybe little boys would react differently than adult men who have been told since birth that they will get Pink Herpes if they take one step into the pink aisle, though.
Summary: I support kids being able to play with whatever they choose, but am reluctant to suggest that classic girls toylines undergo any major changes to achieve this. (I agree that Ken could get more attention, though. Sidenote, I'll bet a lot of kids wanted a Ken doll after Toy Story 3 came out.) To me, the solution is not to make everything "gender neutral", but to make it clear that "girly" is not a dirty word and shouldn't be an insult, any more than "manly" is. To accept the little boy who likes Barbie, just like people generally accept the girl who likes Transformers.
The thing with My Little Pony is, I believe, because we've gotten so intense about gender roles that people think touching something for girls will give them Pink Herpes. So in much the same way people say "no homo", as though being gay were both bad and something that happened when you made a joke, people say "nah, this isn't for girls" in an attempt to keep their status as, well, men, intact.
At least that's my read on it. I think you're absolutely right, and that what we should really be trying to do in particular instances like this is make it so that being girly isn't seen as some hex that touching pink things puts on you.
Pink Herpes. I wonder what would happen if a parent told their son they could have any toy from the pink aisle but only from the pink aisle. Would the son pick something fun like Barbie's RC white convertible or would he want nothing at all?
You don't have to say you liked it, but you certainly don't have to say you hated it. To be honest, always expressing your full views irrespective of what is appropriate in context seems like the act of a child to me. I really hate FO3. Some people at work played it and really loved it. When it came up, I said "I didn't play that much of it, but I'm a real fan of the originals and it was so different that it just threw me." If I had said I thought it was terrible, that would have just created an awkward situation for no reason whatsoever.
Being tactful and lying aren't the same thing. At all.
You asked for "proof" on the value. I am not familiar enough with the social science literature on this issue to so provide it. If you read the rest of the thread, then you will see a discussion of the topic and some clarifications on what the right word/concept really is, but what it comes down to is really the belief that it is harmful to be so focused on the success of a group that you don't receive the personal recognition that you should. In my own life I have seen plenty of very smart, hard working people get fired or not get to advance because they just sat and quietly did competent work when they were asked to, instead of being more active and establishing relationships/making sure that people knew what they were doing for them.
Which has literally nothing to do with this claim:
If you let girls do boy stuff because that's socially acceptable but don't let boys do girl stuff because that might not be, you are saying girls stuff is inferior to boys'.
So the best thing is to let kids do everything.
They kind of are though, in that they emphasize traits that are less associated with success in America. I actually do think there is a difference between a tomboy and a "tomgirl" in America. That said, you definitely need to be careful not to say girls things are worse than boys.
You claim one is inferior to the other. You've done nothing to demonstrate this.
I am saying that the emphasis on group success (traditional "girl" play) over personal success and direct leadership (traditional "boy" play) can result in people going into the workforce with an attitude which is not conducive to success. I thought I was clear about that.
Yes focusing too much in any one area can be bad.
That is not what inferior means.
I'm not speaking objectively, but pragmatically. All I am saying is that boy's play seems to be better in training for success in American business culture.
What about success in the arts, crafts, sciences, social services.
That's what I find weird about this whole Gordon gekko rational self interest greed is good thing we assume with modern masculinity, there's only one area where its true.
I mean look at these traditional valued male role models: fireman, soldier, doctor, father, pioneering scientist, policeman, priest, knight in shining armour. They're all defined by their service to the community, not by their heroic self interest.
But what if the knight only keeps his armor shining so he can see his FACE reflected in it??
On a different note, I know I've been talking about "pink this, pink that", but actually the genderization of color is something that makes me roll my eyes big time. "Pink is for girls, red is for boys" is particularly amusing since they're basically the same color, it's just that one has a little more white mixed in with it. Just like pale blue and royal blue are shades of the same color. I think we'd be off to a good start if we could stop conditioning children to draw their hands back like they've been scalded when they touch a color "for" the "wrong" gender. I think this has actually gotten worse the past few decades. I remember in the 80s guys could wear pink business shirts and no one would comment on it.
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
Pink is the only gendered color, really.
Like blue is the boy color, but.. I mean, boys' stuff is every color imagineable. Pink marks something as for girls, not-pink marks it as for boys, basically.
You don't have to say you liked it, but you certainly don't have to say you hated it. To be honest, always expressing your full views irrespective of what is appropriate in context seems like the act of a child to me. I really hate FO3. Some people at work played it and really loved it. When it came up, I said "I didn't play that much of it, but I'm a real fan of the originals and it was so different that it just threw me." If I had said I thought it was terrible, that would have just created an awkward situation for no reason whatsoever.
Being tactful and lying aren't the same thing. At all.
You asked for "proof" on the value. I am not familiar enough with the social science literature on this issue to so provide it. If you read the rest of the thread, then you will see a discussion of the topic and some clarifications on what the right word/concept really is, but what it comes down to is really the belief that it is harmful to be so focused on the success of a group that you don't receive the personal recognition that you should. In my own life I have seen plenty of very smart, hard working people get fired or not get to advance because they just sat and quietly did competent work when they were asked to, instead of being more active and establishing relationships/making sure that people knew what they were doing for them.
Which has literally nothing to do with this claim:
If you let girls do boy stuff because that's socially acceptable but don't let boys do girl stuff because that might not be, you are saying girls stuff is inferior to boys'.
So the best thing is to let kids do everything.
They kind of are though, in that they emphasize traits that are less associated with success in America. I actually do think there is a difference between a tomboy and a "tomgirl" in America. That said, you definitely need to be careful not to say girls things are worse than boys.
You claim one is inferior to the other. You've done nothing to demonstrate this.
I am saying that the emphasis on group success (traditional "girl" play) over personal success and direct leadership (traditional "boy" play) can result in people going into the workforce with an attitude which is not conducive to success. I thought I was clear about that.
Yes focusing too much in any one area can be bad.
That is not what inferior means.
I'm not speaking objectively, but pragmatically. All I am saying is that boy's play seems to be better in training for success in American business culture.
And there's a pretty solid argument that it's long past time for American business culture to be given the Ol Yeller treatment.
Sure. In our imagined perfect world persons with penises do not have an inherent advantage over persons with vaginas, in the workplace. I think SKFM's point, or one of his points, is that we do not currently live in that world. So, one's options are:
1) Work to fundamentally change our culture by modifying the entrenched gender norms.
2) Exploit the current system to one's own advantage.
1 behooves persons who are not SKFM. 2 behooves SKFM. Given that, it doesn't seem that a sensible strategy in this conversation is to blow glitter up SKFM's ass by talking about the virtues of equality. Rather, someone needs to present him with an argument for why gender equality is to his advantage.
Seems like the best course of action is to build on SKFM's intent to have children, and ask him what sort of world he would want his daughter to grow up in. If he has empathy, then he'll want a world in which his potential daughter has the same possibilities and options as his potential son, and that ought to spur a preference for #1, since SKFM's sense of self would extend beyond his own personal well-being to the well-being of his offspring that happens to have a vagina.
I wonder what would happen if a parent told their son they could have any toy from the pink aisle but only from the pink aisle. Would the son pick something fun like Barbie's RC white convertible or would he want nothing at all?
As Jon Stewart said, he gave his son a Barbie, and his son found a way to use it as a gun. He gave his daughter a Hulk toy, and she used it to play wedding.
This shit isn't entirely cultural. Things with penises tend to act in one way. Things with vaginas tend to act in another way.
We didn't invent gender roles in the 1950s. This shit has been around for a while.
Like blue is the boy color, but.. I mean, boys' stuff is every color imagineable. Pink marks something as for girls, not-pink marks it as for boys, basically.
But the solution is the same, I am just a pedant.
Just in case we wander into the 'Pink Blue Reversal' conversation: Debunkery.pdf
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
My children will only be given formless beige clay to mold their own toys from.
Posts
That anyone who lies about how they feel about a movie in order to fit in is a child.
And if you're in a culture where punishing someone for their likes is acceptable then your culture is becoming more and more unacceptable every day.
Also I'd still like for you to answer my question about your value of assertiveness.
Well, the middle ground is you know, not buying those products, thereby limiting your child's exposure to gendered toys and making them less profitable.
I'd doubt I'd miss out on making my kid happy just for that sort of moral stand though.
And you know... if they came out with a really positive quality barbie cartoon, and maybe tweaked the line to be a little more realistic(something I believe they've done in the past a little bit), I think they could probably sell a lot of merch to males.
We'd horribly mock them, like we do the bronies, but it would move a shitload of product.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
Why do you value your action being the biggest factor in the outcome so much? I can understand this at work or doing something where you deserve the credit, but this isn't the proper solution to every situation. It means shit in voting. Its also foolish to isolate yourself from the world when it doesn't go your way.
You don't have to say you liked it, but you certainly don't have to say you hated it. To be honest, always expressing your full views irrespective of what is appropriate in context seems like the act of a child to me. I really hate FO3. Some people at work played it and really loved it. When it came up, I said "I didn't play that much of it, but I'm a real fan of the originals and it was so different that it just threw me." If I had said I thought it was terrible, that would have just created an awkward situation for no reason whatsoever.
You asked for "proof" on the value. I am not familiar enough with the social science literature on this issue to so provide it. If you read the rest of the thread, then you will see a discussion of the topic and some clarifications on what the right word/concept really is, but what it comes down to is really the belief that it is harmful to be so focused on the success of a group that you don't receive the personal recognition that you should. In my own life I have seen plenty of very smart, hard working people get fired or not get to advance because they just sat and quietly did competent work when they were asked to, instead of being more active and establishing relationships/making sure that people knew what they were doing for them.
Congratulations, you have, in fact, described a collective action problem. This right here is the problem. If everyone followed this metric, no collective action would ever be accomplished.
"Then government regulations," you say. This is true, most of these problems should be codified in law. The problem is our laws are written by people, who still need to overcome the problem. And they don't. Look at healthcare in america.
Like, I actually understand analyzing and picking out where to self-sacrifice where it really matters. Most people do that to a pretty large extent. But I think that should always be done with the understanding that it's not ethically clear and should be carefully considered. We can't, as a society, teach all our children to only act in self-interest because then no collective action problems will ever be solved. Your whole outlook relies on there being others willing to sacrifice without knowing there's a likely reward. People only do that because they believe it is ethical. You can't foist all that off on the laws and government and expect the system to keep working.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
I've never had any trouble with this. But I'm not in a socially conservative environment like you are.
This might have to do with your field though its possible your right they didn't adapt properly to the work environment. Social networking can be vital to succeed though I can understand people who avoid that, they're there to work not make friends. That said, in a workplace that prioritizes social networking over competency is being badly managed IMO.
Everyone is competent though. That isn't enough. You need to be viewed as valuable and well regarded, and both of those things require you to be active in self promotion, at least in my field.
In that case they need to be taught that earlier in their education for that field and aided by mentors in workplaces to guide them. Otherwise by the time they understand what's going on it's too late.
Almost like these are skills that we should be nurturing on a life long basis. . .
Incidentally, almost everyone that fits the description I mentioned have been women or very quiet, reserved men.
And now we're back to why I said I think its better to be a tomboy than a tomgirl. . .
I agree those abilities should be given more attention in schools, but jobs training should focus on those as well. Its in their employers best interests to get a well-rounded worker, not one whose abilities are narrowly confined especially when not everyone has access to the same education or learn the same way.
No we're just back to collective action problems. It's easier to work around sexism than to fix it.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Of course it is. Being a man is still an advantage in western society.
Which has literally nothing to do with this claim:
You claim one is inferior to the other. You've done nothing to demonstrate this.
Barbie doesn't need to be made "gender neutral" in the way you're implying any more than Call of Duty needs to be moved to an office setting because women couldn't serve in combat until recently. All that's needed is to make the Barbie line not feel like it's actively pushing out boys who might want to play with Barbie. They could add additional male dolls to the line (female dolls: Barbie, Barbie's friend, Barbie's little sister, Barbie's baby ....friend (I was honestly never clear on whose baby it was supposed to be), Hawaiian Barbie, black Barbie, etc etc. Male dolls: Ken.). More clothes for the dudes. Show both boys and girls playing with them in your ads.
These are all things that are good for any kids that want to play with Barbie. (I know if there were more guys than just Ken, I would have definitely wanted a couple of them, because it was difficult to act out all my mom's soap opera plots with just one guy who only could wear either a suit or swim trunks.)
It'd also be great if not every single one of Barbie's accessories was pink but it's part of the brand I guess so that probably won't happen.
Actively pushing people away from your brand is dumb dumb dumb and it hurts the people who you are marketing towards. An example: the Avatar: the Last Airbender toys. The main character of the show is a boy, the show was targeted at boys, but the characters on the show were split pretty close to 50/50 male/female. All of the toys they put out were for male characters. (Even now the only female action figure you can buy for the show is actually based off of the horrible M Night Shyamalan movie. *sad trombone*) There's no way for the boys that would be getting the action figures to act out their favorite scenes from the show because half of the characters aren't there. And this was for the most popular show on Nickelodeon.
The sequel show (Korra), which is similarly popular, has no action figures at all. It has a female lead character.
I am saying that the emphasis on group success (traditional "girl" play) over personal success and direct leadership (traditional "boy" play) can result in people going into the workforce with an attitude which is not conducive to success. I thought I was clear about that.
Yes focusing too much in any one area can be bad.
That is not what inferior means.
I'm not speaking objectively, but pragmatically. All I am saying is that boy's play seems to be better in training for success in American business culture.
And there's a pretty solid argument that it's long past time for American business culture to be given the Ol Yeller treatment.
American business culture is complete garbage.
There are a myriad of way to be successful without feeding in to that bullshit.
I don't think there's anything wrong with a little boy liking a Barbie in a lacey dress because, hey, I think lacey dresses are awesome, so why shouldn't a little boy think they're awesome? But I have been watching the recent fandom of My Little Pony (shorthand: 30 year old girls toy franchise, new show is really good, new show brought in a surprising number of adult fans including men) and a looooot of what I see is guys trying to redefine My Little Pony as being "not girly (anymore)" . . . in order to assuage mixed feelings about liking something "for girls", I guess? (Ridiculous, because the new show is just as girly as any other incarnation.) I don't know, but it's made me wonder if "gender neutrality" of Barbie or such would really be more like "boys take over and redefine the toyline, and then the marketers (mostly men) focus on the boys."
Maybe little boys would react differently than adult men who have been told since birth that they will get Pink Herpes if they take one step into the pink aisle, though.
Summary: I support kids being able to play with whatever they choose, but am reluctant to suggest that classic girls toylines undergo any major changes to achieve this. (I agree that Ken could get more attention, though. Sidenote, I'll bet a lot of kids wanted a Ken doll after Toy Story 3 came out.) To me, the solution is not to make everything "gender neutral", but to make it clear that "girly" is not a dirty word and shouldn't be an insult, any more than "manly" is. To accept the little boy who likes Barbie, just like people generally accept the girl who likes Transformers.
By offering traditionally male activities, but letting him try anything that he wants to if he doesn't like them?
The thing with My Little Pony is, I believe, because we've gotten so intense about gender roles that people think touching something for girls will give them Pink Herpes. So in much the same way people say "no homo", as though being gay were both bad and something that happened when you made a joke, people say "nah, this isn't for girls" in an attempt to keep their status as, well, men, intact.
At least that's my read on it. I think you're absolutely right, and that what we should really be trying to do in particular instances like this is make it so that being girly isn't seen as some hex that touching pink things puts on you.
What about success in the arts, crafts, sciences, social services.
That's what I find weird about this whole Gordon gekko rational self interest greed is good thing we assume with modern masculinity, there's only one area where its true.
I mean look at these traditional valued male role models: fireman, soldier, doctor, father, pioneering scientist, policeman, priest, knight in shining armour. They're all defined by their service to the community, not by their heroic self interest.
On a different note, I know I've been talking about "pink this, pink that", but actually the genderization of color is something that makes me roll my eyes big time. "Pink is for girls, red is for boys" is particularly amusing since they're basically the same color, it's just that one has a little more white mixed in with it. Just like pale blue and royal blue are shades of the same color. I think we'd be off to a good start if we could stop conditioning children to draw their hands back like they've been scalded when they touch a color "for" the "wrong" gender. I think this has actually gotten worse the past few decades. I remember in the 80s guys could wear pink business shirts and no one would comment on it.
Like blue is the boy color, but.. I mean, boys' stuff is every color imagineable. Pink marks something as for girls, not-pink marks it as for boys, basically.
But the solution is the same, I am just a pedant.
Sure. In our imagined perfect world persons with penises do not have an inherent advantage over persons with vaginas, in the workplace. I think SKFM's point, or one of his points, is that we do not currently live in that world. So, one's options are:
1) Work to fundamentally change our culture by modifying the entrenched gender norms.
2) Exploit the current system to one's own advantage.
1 behooves persons who are not SKFM. 2 behooves SKFM. Given that, it doesn't seem that a sensible strategy in this conversation is to blow glitter up SKFM's ass by talking about the virtues of equality. Rather, someone needs to present him with an argument for why gender equality is to his advantage.
Seems like the best course of action is to build on SKFM's intent to have children, and ask him what sort of world he would want his daughter to grow up in. If he has empathy, then he'll want a world in which his potential daughter has the same possibilities and options as his potential son, and that ought to spur a preference for #1, since SKFM's sense of self would extend beyond his own personal well-being to the well-being of his offspring that happens to have a vagina.
As Jon Stewart said, he gave his son a Barbie, and his son found a way to use it as a gun. He gave his daughter a Hulk toy, and she used it to play wedding.
This shit isn't entirely cultural. Things with penises tend to act in one way. Things with vaginas tend to act in another way.
We didn't invent gender roles in the 1950s. This shit has been around for a while.
Just in case we wander into the 'Pink Blue Reversal' conversation: Debunkery.pdf
We'll solve this problem once and for all.
Your son turns his into a gun. Your daughter throws a wedding for her clay blobs.
"Damn clay embodies gender stereotypes!!!"
I will definitely not say that.
Though I won't have toy guns in my house. At all.
My mom tried that. She says that one day while out in the yard playing I picked up a stick and started pretend shooting things with it.
Some children seem disposed towards turning things into weapons.
Something something Darwin something something Freud something something it's not just culture.