It would take a great deal more than not buying girls a wendy house to counter the effects of seeing all the real world housework done by women (in the home, the wider world and in various forms of media). Likewise all the driving, plane piloting and whatever almost always done by men.
The daft meme about toys only resulted in evo-psych geese pointing to kids picking gendered toys for themselves, and declaring it "proof" of innate gender roles.
Not to mention that girls will pick the barbie because they want to play with ciphers and barbies are female.
Psychological research would be so much easier if it wasn't for scientific ethics. If you could raise children in labs, that sort of thing would actually be testable.
Of couse then you lose all the data you collected when they become killing machines and turn on you.
Psychological research would be so much easier if it wasn't for scientific ethics. If you could raise children in labs, that sort of thing would actually be testable.
That basically makes it a difficult thing to prove. I Googled Pink Aisle and didn't come up with much. I saw a few things about giving girls "boys" toys when they grew up and they were technically proficient or something.
But what would happen if we awesomely went back into time, grabbed that same girl, and stuck an example of each toy in front of her? If she went for the baby doll instinctively instead of the toy car, what would that mean?
Psychological research would be so much easier if it wasn't for scientific ethics. If you could raise children in labs, that sort of thing would actually be testable.
Of couse then you lose all the data you collected when they become killing machines and turn on you.
Or they kill themselves at the sight of a bundle of red balloons...
EDIT
This reminds me of the "controversy" surrounding Super Princess Peach on the DS. People were all up in arms because it stared Peach and her powers came from her emotions. "zOMG Not all Wemeens are emotional this game is sexist!" However, the powers were the result of a curse in the game you have to lift, not because Peach is a woman and we all know that women are unstable amirite?
Are there any studies regarding what young boys/girls would choose by "default"? Basically stick a Barbie and a GI Joe in front of a young boy and see which he picks without any outside stimulation?
it would be hard to find a really unbiased kid. If they're young enough that they've literally never seen any advertising, they're probably young enough that they wouldn't have any interest in either toy. I would be kind of interested in seeing which toy a kid from like, an amazon tribe would prefer, though.
This reminds me of the "controversy" surrounding Super Princess Peach on the DS. People were all up in arms because it stared Peach and her powers came from her emotions. "zOMG Not all Wemeens are emotional this game is sexist!" However, the powers were the result of a curse in the game you have to lift, not because Peach is a woman and we all know that women are unstable amirite?
That's just like the protagonist in my comic book who gained super dancing and basketball ability, but has to fuel it with an endless supply of fried chicken. Of course if people would read the backstory they'd learn about the aliens and the nanochip, but no, they always jump straight to racism just because he happens to be black.
Psychological research would be so much easier if it wasn't for scientific ethics. If you could raise children in labs, that sort of thing would actually be testable.
That basically makes it a difficult thing to prove. I Googled Pink Aisle and didn't come up with much. I saw a few things about giving girls "boys" toys when they grew up and they were technically proficient or something.
But what would happen if we awesomely went back into time, grabbed that same girl, and stuck an example of each toy in front of her? If she went for the baby doll instinctively instead of the toy car, what would that mean?
That she's scared of an unfamiliar metallic object.
Psychological research would be so much easier if it wasn't for scientific ethics. If you could raise children in labs, that sort of thing would actually be testable.
That basically makes it a difficult thing to prove. I Googled Pink Aisle and didn't come up with much. I saw a few things about giving girls "boys" toys when they grew up and they were technically proficient or something.
But what would happen if we awesomely went back into time, grabbed that same girl, and stuck an example of each toy in front of her? If she went for the baby doll instinctively instead of the toy car, what would that mean?
That she's scared of an unfamiliar metallic object.
It would mean something similar when the baby boy did the exact same thing.
That's just like the protagonist in my comic book who gained super dancing and basketball ability, but has to fuel it with an endless supply of fried chicken. Of course if people would read the backstory they'd learn about the aliens and the nanochip, but no, they always jump straight to racism just because he happens to be black.
I think that kind of illustrates my point a little bit. If that character and power was real and there were not any negative connotations with that character what so ever, it's very existence would be considered racist by many many people because "that black person is eating fried chicken and wearing parachute pants". Demanding that a certain person of a certain race or sex not be portrayed a certain way because of political correctness in itself simply goes to far for me.
That's just like the protagonist in my comic book who gained super dancing and basketball ability, but has to fuel it with an endless supply of fried chicken. Of course if people would read the backstory they'd learn about the aliens and the nanochip, but no, they always jump straight to racism just because he happens to be black.
I think that kind of illustrates my point a little bit. If that character and power was real and there were not any negative connotations with that character what so ever, it's very existence would be considered racist by many many people because "that black person is eating fried chicken and wearing parachute pants". Demanding that a certain person of a certain race or sex not be portrayed a certain way because of political correctness in itself simply goes to far for me.
Either they wanted to make a video game about emotions so for the first time they had Peach star in a game, or they wanted to make a Peach game and their strongest idea was emotions, and either way is pretty bad.
That's just like the protagonist in my comic book who gained super dancing and basketball ability, but has to fuel it with an endless supply of fried chicken. Of course if people would read the backstory they'd learn about the aliens and the nanochip, but no, they always jump straight to racism just because he happens to be black.
I think that kind of illustrates my point a little bit. If that character and power was real and there were not any negative connotations with that character what so ever, it's very existence would be considered racist by many many people because "that black person is eating fried chicken and wearing parachute pants". Demanding that a certain person of a certain race or sex not be portrayed a certain way because of political correctness in itself simply goes to far for me.
And if a there was a Jew out there who really cooked the blood of christ- you know what, fuck it, I'm just going top tell you straight out: THE CHRONICLES OF ZION ARE ANTISEMITIC!
Why do I have to tell you this?
I believe the issue with the pink aisle effect is, according to what I've researched in gender studies, the issue is that we create separate spheres of what is acceptably masculine and acceptably female - gender is a social construct.
Gender =/ sex
So when a girl shows a preference for, say, playing outside in the mud, or speaking out and whatnot, people may hinder that exploration, curiosity, and ambition by telling her to be more lady like.
A good example actually occurred a few weeks ago. Even though I think bachmann is an idiot, telling her to be more "lady like" is pretty sexist. If a man was rowdy, what would you say to him? Would you tell him to act more "lady-like?" or would you say stop interrupting me?
There have been psychological studies showing that gender is a social construct and that what females/males are supposed to be interested in is completely arbitrary - as well as their social roles. In one culture, it is more common for the woman to raise the children - in another, the men. In one culture, females are passive, in another they are more aggressive and dominant over their male counterparts.
This should tell you that such behaviors and preferences are pretty arbitrary. The least we could do is not psychological hinder or restrict a child's decision to choose. Unfortunately, children are shown to be influenced as young as 6 mo. old, so the effects are pretty immediate and like you guys have said, are hard to quantitatively measure prior to that.
That's just like the protagonist in my comic book who gained super dancing and basketball ability, but has to fuel it with an endless supply of fried chicken. Of course if people would read the backstory they'd learn about the aliens and the nanochip, but no, they always jump straight to racism just because he happens to be black.
I think that kind of illustrates my point a little bit. If that character and power was real and there were not any negative connotations with that character what so ever, it's very existence would be considered racist by many many people because "that black person is eating fried chicken and wearing parachute pants". Demanding that a certain person of a certain race or sex not be portrayed a certain way because of political correctness in itself simply goes to far for me.
Too bad your hypothetical doesn't operate even remotely close to reality. You're using fantasy to prove a point - sure it's interesting speculation, but it isn't relevant.
Those portrayals are often used to oppress or restrict. A stereotypically gay man was literally a living joke in movies - and still is to an extent. Hell, they are in games (See Gay Tony in GTAIV). Please watch the Celluloid Closet to get a better idea of what I'm talking about. Or hell, black face? A black man acting as those caricatures?
Princess peach was seen as acceptable because it was a woman. I guarantee that if you put a man in place of her - less people would buy the concept of an emotional man. While the younger males are better at communicating their feelings, being a "man" still greatly hinges on your ability to hide your emotions and be tough, with very few exceptions. If you do show emotions, it's under extreme stress rather than in an attempt to communicate prior to a problem.
Some media goes beyond this idea of masculinity though...
Expect moderate view points from everyone. Like Eddy's example. Do you have a girlfriend? No. But I have a boyfriend. Oh, my apologies. That person wouldn't expect Eddy to suddenly think that this man/woman is homophobic simply because the nature of the language but after that point in time it would be expected of that person to not make that same mistake repeatedly.
I had a "conversation" with someone here once that thought we should do away with gender specific labels on the basis that a young girl might want to buy a pair of jeans out of the mens section but become confused by things like a Woman's/Girl's section in a clothing store.
I think another example was given of a young tom girl who grew up playing with GI Joes and that baby dolls/tea sets/etc being labeled "for girls" could confuse and scar the girl.
That's taking political correctness much too far.
Wait, you think asking we do away with labelling toys "for girls" or "for boys" is going too far, when toy marketing is consistently one of the most socially regressive things in existence?
I mean, as someone who will probably have kids in the future, I would be thrilled if we no longer labelled toys as "for girls" or "for boys". I'd be doubly thrilled if certain toys simply disappeared entirely too because there's no possible way half the shit marketed as being "for girls" is remotely healthy for any child to consume. Toys that were marketed in a gender neutral way would be a fantastic cultural advance.
I believe the issue with the pink aisle effect is, according to what I've researched in gender studies, the issue is that we create separate spheres of what is acceptably masculine and acceptably female - gender is a social construct.
Gender =/ sex
So when a girl shows a preference for, say, playing outside in the mud, or speaking out and whatnot, people may hinder that exploration, curiosity, and ambition by telling her to be more lady like.
A good example actually occurred a few weeks ago. Even though I think bachmann is an idiot, telling her to be more "lady like" is pretty sexist. If a man was rowdy, what would you say to him? Would you tell him to act more "lady-like?" or would you say stop interrupting me?
There have been psychological studies showing that gender is a social construct and that what females/males are supposed to be interested in is completely arbitrary - as well as their social roles. In one culture, it is more common for the woman to raise the children - in another, the men. In one culture, females are passive, in another they are more aggressive and dominant over their male counterparts.
This should tell you that such behaviors and preferences are pretty arbitrary. The least we could do is not psychological hinder or restrict a child's decision to choose. Unfortunately, children are shown to be influenced as young as 6 mo. old, so the effects are pretty immediate and like you guys have said, are hard to quantitatively measure prior to that.
I can't think of a single culture where the gender roles are switched, as in.. the women are the hunter gatherers and the men are the housekeepers and raise the children.
In fact, I would say that a majority of culture is just the opposite of what I've described above. Now, in the animal world you see all of this mixed up. Seahorses actually carrying the children, lionesses hunting for food while the males.. well do almost nothing.
Look, it's not like a woman with a career is somehow odd or strange in this day in age. At least in the United States. In fact, it seems that most young people today have almost no aspirations to be a stay-at-home mom unless the woman specifically chooses to. Maybe I was blessed with parents who didn't adhere to gender roles, even if they grew up in the 1950's and 1960's, where womanizing and gender bias was rampant.
I don't know really.. I think it's really all just silly.
Toys that were marketed in a gender neutral way would be a fantastic cultural advance.
I've never met a woman who's played with Legos. I've never met a man who hasn't played with Legos. This is pretty fucking disturbing, yet it seems to me that Legos have mostly been marketed in a fairly gender-neutral way.
I wouldn't blame marketing. They'll try to sell whatever they think people would buy; they don't shape society. It's all about the parents and their attitudes. If your parents are silly geese and fuck you up, neither the education system nor the free market can do much for you.
I really don't know how far you can blame toys for encrypting gender roles into children. It's just how it goes. If you start marketing Legos to women and beanie babies to men, you're not going to wake up one day 200 years from now and see the majority of men working at salons and women working construction sites and oil rigs.
Demerdar on
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
Toys that were marketed in a gender neutral way would be a fantastic cultural advance.
I've never met a woman who's played with Legos. I've never met a man who hasn't played with Legos.
Er, really? I mean, I asked the first person on my buddy list if she played with legos and she has. Anecdotes are anecdotes, but that still seems really, really bizarre.
I believe the issue with the pink aisle effect is, according to what I've researched in gender studies, the issue is that we create separate spheres of what is acceptably masculine and acceptably female - gender is a social construct.
Gender =/ sex
So when a girl shows a preference for, say, playing outside in the mud, or speaking out and whatnot, people may hinder that exploration, curiosity, and ambition by telling her to be more lady like.
A good example actually occurred a few weeks ago. Even though I think bachmann is an idiot, telling her to be more "lady like" is pretty sexist. If a man was rowdy, what would you say to him? Would you tell him to act more "lady-like?" or would you say stop interrupting me?
There have been psychological studies showing that gender is a social construct and that what females/males are supposed to be interested in is completely arbitrary - as well as their social roles. In one culture, it is more common for the woman to raise the children - in another, the men. In one culture, females are passive, in another they are more aggressive and dominant over their male counterparts.
This should tell you that such behaviors and preferences are pretty arbitrary. The least we could do is not psychological hinder or restrict a child's decision to choose. Unfortunately, children are shown to be influenced as young as 6 mo. old, so the effects are pretty immediate and like you guys have said, are hard to quantitatively measure prior to that.
I can't think of a single culture where the gender roles are switched, as in.. the women are the hunter gatherers and the men are the housekeepers and raise the children.
In fact, I would say that a majority of culture is just the opposite of what I've described above. Now, in the animal world you see all of this mixed up. Seahorses actually carrying the children, lionesses hunting for food while the males.. well do almost nothing.
Look, it's not like a woman with a career is somehow odd or strange in this day in age. At least in the United States. In fact, it seems that most young people today have almost no aspirations to be a stay-at-home mom unless the woman specifically chooses to. Maybe I was blessed with parents who didn't adhere to gender roles, even if they grew up in the 1950's and 1960's, where womanizing and gender bias was rampant.
I don't know really.. I think it's really all just silly.
*Sigh*
Baby, why you gotta make me pull out my gender and communication book.
"What gender means and how we express it depend on a society's values, beliefs, and preferred ways of organizing collective life....
To realize the arbitrariness of the meanings of gender, we need only consider varying ways different cultures define masculinity and femininity. Many years ago, anthropologist Margaret Mead (1935/68) reported three distinct gender patterns in the New Guinea societies she studied. Among the Arapesh people, both women and men conformed closely to what we consider feminine behavior. Both were passive, peaceful, and deferential, and both nurtured others, especially young children.
The Mundugumor tribe socialized both women and men to be aggressive, independent, and competitive. Mothers were not nurturing and spent very little time with newborn babies, weaning them early instead.
Within the Tchambuli society, genders were the reverse of current ones in America: Women were domineering and sexually aggressive, whereas men were considered delicate and taught to wear decorative clothes and curl their hair so they would be attractive to women."
~Gendered Lives: Communication, Gender, and Culture by Julia T. Wood. Page 26-27.
I could go on, she provides more examples, but I'm kind of tired of typing.
However, our gender norms have negative effects because they essentially restrict what we can, or in some cases want to be. Read that book - or more on the issue to get a good understanding of it.
I really don't know how far you can blame toys for encrypting gender roles into children. It's just how it goes. If you start marketing Legos to women and beanie babies to men, you're not going to wake up one day 200 years from now and see the majority of men working at salons and women working construction sites and oil rigs.
Yeah - that's why we need to stop doing shit like this.
Toys that were marketed in a gender neutral way would be a fantastic cultural advance.
I've never met a woman who's played with Legos. I've never met a man who hasn't played with Legos. This is pretty fucking disturbing, yet it seems to me that Legos have mostly been marketed in a fairly gender-neutral way.
I wouldn't blame marketing. They'll try to sell whatever they think people would buy; they don't shape society. It's all about the parents and their attitudes. If your parents are silly geese and fuck you up, neither the education system nor the free market can do much for you.
Look at the commercials. Hardly gender neutral. They did a good job of marketing that idea to you though.
I believe the issue with the pink aisle effect is, according to what I've researched in gender studies, the issue is that we create separate spheres of what is acceptably masculine and acceptably female - gender is a social construct.
Gender =/ sex
So when a girl shows a preference for, say, playing outside in the mud, or speaking out and whatnot, people may hinder that exploration, curiosity, and ambition by telling her to be more lady like.
A good example actually occurred a few weeks ago. Even though I think bachmann is an idiot, telling her to be more "lady like" is pretty sexist. If a man was rowdy, what would you say to him? Would you tell him to act more "lady-like?" or would you say stop interrupting me?
There have been psychological studies showing that gender is a social construct and that what females/males are supposed to be interested in is completely arbitrary - as well as their social roles. In one culture, it is more common for the woman to raise the children - in another, the men. In one culture, females are passive, in another they are more aggressive and dominant over their male counterparts.
This should tell you that such behaviors and preferences are pretty arbitrary. The least we could do is not psychological hinder or restrict a child's decision to choose. Unfortunately, children are shown to be influenced as young as 6 mo. old, so the effects are pretty immediate and like you guys have said, are hard to quantitatively measure prior to that.
I can't think of a single culture where the gender roles are switched, as in.. the women are the hunter gatherers and the men are the housekeepers and raise the children.
In fact, I would say that a majority of culture is just the opposite of what I've described above. Now, in the animal world you see all of this mixed up. Seahorses actually carrying the children, lionesses hunting for food while the males.. well do almost nothing.
Look, it's not like a woman with a career is somehow odd or strange in this day in age. At least in the United States. In fact, it seems that most young people today have almost no aspirations to be a stay-at-home mom unless the woman specifically chooses to. Maybe I was blessed with parents who didn't adhere to gender roles, even if they grew up in the 1950's and 1960's, where womanizing and gender bias was rampant.
I don't know really.. I think it's really all just silly.
*Sigh*
Baby, why you gotta make me pull out my gender and communication book.
"What gender means and how we express it depend on a society's values, beliefs, and preferred ways of organizing collective life....
To realize the arbitrariness of the meanings of gender, we need only consider varying ways different cultures define masculinity and femininity. Many years ago, anthropologist Margaret Mead (1935/68) reported three distinct gender patterns in the New Guinea societies she studied. Among the Arapesh people, both women and men conformed closely to what we consider feminine behavior. Both were passive, peaceful, and deferential, and both nurtured others, especially young children.
The Mundugumor tribe socialized both women and men to be aggressive, independent, and competitive. Mothers were not nurturing and spent very little time with newborn babies, weaning them early instead.
Within the Tchambuli society, genders were the reverse of current ones in America: Women were domineering and sexually aggressive, whereas men were considered delicate and taught to wear decorative clothes and curl their hair so they would be attractive to women."
~Gendered Lives: Communication, Gender, and Culture by Julia T. Wood. Page 26-27.
I could go on, she provides more examples, but I'm kind of tired of typing.
However, our gender norms have negative effects because they essentially restrict what we can, or in some cases want to be. Read that book - or more on the issue to get a good understanding of it.
I believe the issue with the pink aisle effect is, according to what I've researched in gender studies, the issue is that we create separate spheres of what is acceptably masculine and acceptably female - gender is a social construct.
Gender =/ sex
So when a girl shows a preference for, say, playing outside in the mud, or speaking out and whatnot, people may hinder that exploration, curiosity, and ambition by telling her to be more lady like.
A good example actually occurred a few weeks ago. Even though I think bachmann is an idiot, telling her to be more "lady like" is pretty sexist. If a man was rowdy, what would you say to him? Would you tell him to act more "lady-like?" or would you say stop interrupting me?
There have been psychological studies showing that gender is a social construct and that what females/males are supposed to be interested in is completely arbitrary - as well as their social roles. In one culture, it is more common for the woman to raise the children - in another, the men. In one culture, females are passive, in another they are more aggressive and dominant over their male counterparts.
This should tell you that such behaviors and preferences are pretty arbitrary. The least we could do is not psychological hinder or restrict a child's decision to choose. Unfortunately, children are shown to be influenced as young as 6 mo. old, so the effects are pretty immediate and like you guys have said, are hard to quantitatively measure prior to that.
I can't think of a single culture where the gender roles are switched, as in.. the women are the hunter gatherers and the men are the housekeepers and raise the children.
In fact, I would say that a majority of culture is just the opposite of what I've described above. Now, in the animal world you see all of this mixed up. Seahorses actually carrying the children, lionesses hunting for food while the males.. well do almost nothing.
Look, it's not like a woman with a career is somehow odd or strange in this day in age. At least in the United States. In fact, it seems that most young people today have almost no aspirations to be a stay-at-home mom unless the woman specifically chooses to. Maybe I was blessed with parents who didn't adhere to gender roles, even if they grew up in the 1950's and 1960's, where womanizing and gender bias was rampant.
I don't know really.. I think it's really all just silly.
Except a woman is certainly expected to take a larger roll in raising the kids. This sort of sexist sentiment is seen how the courts will favor a mother over a father when it comes to custody, the perverse notion by some in society that you need a man and a woman in order to raise a child properly, and the worst part is that women are socially conditioned to feel obligated to raise those kids, or want it badly. Marketing baby dolls to girls rather than boys is emblematic of that.
It has an effect and is certainly fucked up.
SkyGheNe on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
edited January 2010
It's kind of a ridiculous form of feedback loop.
Most studies do support the idea that certain types of thinking, emotions, and practices are gender specific to a great degree, but almost everyone of those studies also admits that there are no results exclusive to a specific gender affiliation.
Following that, it stands to reason that many things designed as gender-specific are that way because it makes more sense. However, at some point the tail starts wagging the dog, and manufacturers release products to appease a created stereotype about gender roles, in which the consumer is expected to enjoy it because of their gender. At that point stereotypes become reinforced, and choice and preference are out the window, potentially forever.
Most studies do support the idea that certain types of thinking, emotions, and practices are gender specific to a great degree, but almost everyone of those studies also admits that there are no results exclusive to a specific gender affiliation.
Following that, it stands to reason that many things designed as gender-specific are that way because it makes more sense. However, at some point the tail starts wagging the dog, and manufacturers release products to appease a created stereotype about gender roles, in which the consumer is expected to enjoy it because of their gender. At that point stereotypes become reinforced, and choice and preference are out the window, potentially forever.
Yeah, it's cyclical.
Marketing mirrors culture, and culture mirrors marketing.
A good marketing campaign can change culture though - this is seen in the 1930s when companies marketed diamonds as the de-facto thing you get your partner if you're getting married. From then on...it's history.
Most studies do support the idea that certain types of thinking, emotions, and practices are gender specific to a great degree, but almost everyone of those studies also admits that there are no results exclusive to a specific gender affiliation.
Following that, it stands to reason that many things designed as gender-specific are that way because it makes more sense. However, at some point the tail starts wagging the dog, and manufacturers release products to appease a created stereotype about gender roles, in which the consumer is expected to enjoy it because of their gender. At that point stereotypes become reinforced, and choice and preference are out the window, potentially forever.
Yeah, it's cyclical.
Marketing mirrors culture, and culture mirrors marketing.
A good marketing campaign can change culture though - this is seen in the 1930s when companies marketed diamonds as the de-facto thing you get your partner if you're getting married. From then on...it's history.
Additionally, there have been many switches in what gender wears what. For example, people used to think that shoes were effeminate and that men should wear slippers.
And, of course, we've never been able to decide which gender should be cultured and sensitive.
Additionally, there have been many switches in what gender wears what. For example, people used to think that shoes were effeminate and that men should wear slippers.
And, of course, we've never been able to decide which gender should be cultured and sensitive.
The history of men's fashion is a curious thing. Throughout most of history, men did not wear pants, instead opting (depending on the era) for robes, wraps, tunics, pleated leather, kilts, togas, and in some Asian examples, what would be functionally considered a dress.
Yet for the last 300 years or so, it's been pants and pants only.
Additionally, there have been many switches in what gender wears what. For example, people used to think that shoes were effeminate and that men should wear slippers.
And, of course, we've never been able to decide which gender should be cultured and sensitive.
The history of men's fashion is a curious thing. Throughout most of history, men did not wear pants, instead opting (depending on the era) for robes, wraps, tunics, pleated leather, kilts, togas, and in some Asian examples, what would be functionally considered a dress.
Yet for the last 300 years or so, it's been pants and pants only.
So weird.
I want to wear a kilt one day. I just wanta free ball.
I think basic feminism and gender studies should be taught in high school so people actually knew about things like the difference between gender and sex. Alongside sex education, perhaps.
I believe the issue with the pink aisle effect is, according to what I've researched in gender studies, the issue is that we create separate spheres of what is acceptably masculine and acceptably female - gender is a social construct.
Gender =/ sex
So when a girl shows a preference for, say, playing outside in the mud, or speaking out and whatnot, people may hinder that exploration, curiosity, and ambition by telling her to be more lady like.
A good example actually occurred a few weeks ago. Even though I think bachmann is an idiot, telling her to be more "lady like" is pretty sexist. If a man was rowdy, what would you say to him? Would you tell him to act more "lady-like?" or would you say stop interrupting me?
There have been psychological studies showing that gender is a social construct and that what females/males are supposed to be interested in is completely arbitrary - as well as their social roles. In one culture, it is more common for the woman to raise the children - in another, the men. In one culture, females are passive, in another they are more aggressive and dominant over their male counterparts.
This should tell you that such behaviors and preferences are pretty arbitrary. The least we could do is not psychological hinder or restrict a child's decision to choose. Unfortunately, children are shown to be influenced as young as 6 mo. old, so the effects are pretty immediate and like you guys have said, are hard to quantitatively measure prior to that.
I can't think of a single culture where the gender roles are switched, as in.. the women are the hunter gatherers and the men are the housekeepers and raise the children.
In fact, I would say that a majority of culture is just the opposite of what I've described above. Now, in the animal world you see all of this mixed up. Seahorses actually carrying the children, lionesses hunting for food while the males.. well do almost nothing.
Look, it's not like a woman with a career is somehow odd or strange in this day in age. At least in the United States. In fact, it seems that most young people today have almost no aspirations to be a stay-at-home mom unless the woman specifically chooses to. Maybe I was blessed with parents who didn't adhere to gender roles, even if they grew up in the 1950's and 1960's, where womanizing and gender bias was rampant.
I don't know really.. I think it's really all just silly.
there are have certainly been a number of societies worldwide that have historically embraced matriarchy rather than patriarchy, a number of native american tribes for instance, where councils of women would have at least as much power as councils of men. Other tribes view menstruation as a thing of great and sometimes terrifying power.
yet other societies are known for having a third gender.
Toys that were marketed in a gender neutral way would be a fantastic cultural advance.
I've never met a woman who's played with Legos. I've never met a man who hasn't played with Legos. This is pretty fucking disturbing, yet it seems to me that Legos have mostly been marketed in a fairly gender-neutral way.
I wouldn't blame marketing. They'll try to sell whatever they think people would buy; they don't shape society. It's all about the parents and their attitudes. If your parents are silly geese and fuck you up, neither the education system nor the free market can do much for you.
Look at the commercials. Hardly gender neutral. They did a good job of marketing that idea to you though.
Aside from "build together" and the pink bullshit, the ads are actually fairly gender neutral (and Pink Bullshit is an abomination of a commercial, no matter who it's aimed at). Sure, pirates and medieval castles appeal more to boys than to girls, but that's not Lego's fault, and there's very little in those ads that can be interpreted as actively reinforcing those gender roles.
Bliss 101 on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I think basic feminism and gender studies should be taught in high school so people actually knew about things like the difference between gender and sex. Alongside sex education, perhaps.
I think high school is a bit too late for either. Right now at work, I see tons of single mothers who have 3 kids before their 19th birthdays.
What we have to do is undo the brainwashing and poor role-modeling that's being done from Day 1, and that means starting on effective gender studies on the first day of kindergarten.
I think basic feminism and gender studies should be taught in high school so people actually knew about things like the difference between gender and sex. Alongside sex education, perhaps.
I think high school is a bit too late for either. Right now at work, I see tons of single mothers who have 3 kids before their 19th birthdays.
What we have to do is undo the brainwashing and poor role-modeling that's being done from Day 1, and that means starting on effective gender studies on the first day of kindergarten.
Perhaps we should have a kindergarten day where all the boys are given free dolls and all the girls are given free cars and see what happens.
A lot of gender studies literature suggests that even the first day of Kindergarten would be a bit too late. Although I didn't look very hard, I couldn't find a copy of it online, but anyone interested in this type of thing should check out Spencer Cahill's "Fashioning Males and Females: Appearance Management and the Social Reproduction of Gender." It appears in Symbolic Interaction: Volume 12, Fall 1989 for those of you who have access to databases and whatnot.
It's a study, primarily participant observation, of the types of gender identities preschoolers adopt and maintain. It was a pretty watershed moment in gender studies as it points to gender identities being normalized at a much, much earlier age than most people expect.
I do remember reading about a study which found that, if told the gender of a baby was a boy, adults when playing with it would try to keep it active and doing things, whereas if told it was a girl, would encourage it to limit its movements and be more passive.
So yeah, first day of kindergarten is almost certainly too late.
I think basic feminism and gender studies should be taught in high school so people actually knew about things like the difference between gender and sex. Alongside sex education, perhaps.
I think high school is a bit too late for either. Right now at work, I see tons of single mothers who have 3 kids before their 19th birthdays.
What we have to do is undo the brainwashing and poor role-modeling that's being done from Day 1, and that means starting on effective gender studies on the first day of kindergarten.
Perhaps we should have a kindergarten day where all the boys are given free dolls and all the girls are given free cars and see what happens.
Ever seen the study were little kids watched Barney then played nicely but later watched Power Rangers and acted like Ninjas? Both boys and girls reacted the same way. Its us pushing "gender" on to them, teaching them that boys play football and girls play house. My sister was the only girl in my house and grew up a Tomboy. My parents let her play with me and my brothers and now she throws and catches the football better then anyone on my high school football team. She tried to join but since there was only "guy" showers at the field, she wasn't allowed to play. We tried fighting it at the school board, but an all women school board said it wasn't a lady-like sport.
How do you go about teaching children to ignore the gender training that basically fills their whole world?
Most of that gender training isn't so much pushed on them from external forces vis a vis advertising and the like. Toddlers don't watch advertising.
It's learned behavior that starts at home. If kids have a passive and submissive mother and a domineering father, that's what their ideal and expectation of gender roles becomes.
How do you go about teaching children to ignore the gender training that basically fills their whole world?
Most of that gender training isn't so much pushed on them from external forces vis a vis advertising and the like. Toddlers don't watch advertising.
It's learned behavior that starts at home. If kids have a passive and submissive mother and a domineering father, that's what their ideal and expectation of gender roles becomes.
That, and reinforcement directly from parents. Parents, especially when they have two or more different-gender kids, love seeing how their little boy totally likes trucks but their little girl totally is dressing up with jewelry and stuff and isn't it funny how they're so different already. Which isn't evil or anything. You just unconsciously reinforce behavior and interests from a very early age.
Hell, people are generally nicer to female babies. As though at 6 months the little boys can totally take it.
Edit: Actually, a good example that's a bit more large-scale:
How many ladies do you know who totally throw like girls? Hilariously limp-wristed and all that?
Well, my sister doesn't do that. She throws a mean fastball. Why? Because my dad made up a game when we were kids involving hucking a superball at a tower of blocks and trying to knock it over. It was awesome, and it helped teach us how to throw decently from a very early age. It's a behavior that almost all boys are taught, and almost no girls, for no particular reason.
Posts
Not to mention that girls will pick the barbie because they want to play with ciphers and barbies are female.
Of couse then you lose all the data you collected when they become killing machines and turn on you.
That basically makes it a difficult thing to prove. I Googled Pink Aisle and didn't come up with much. I saw a few things about giving girls "boys" toys when they grew up and they were technically proficient or something.
But what would happen if we awesomely went back into time, grabbed that same girl, and stuck an example of each toy in front of her? If she went for the baby doll instinctively instead of the toy car, what would that mean?
Or they kill themselves at the sight of a bundle of red balloons...
EDIT
This reminds me of the "controversy" surrounding Super Princess Peach on the DS. People were all up in arms because it stared Peach and her powers came from her emotions. "zOMG Not all Wemeens are emotional this game is sexist!" However, the powers were the result of a curse in the game you have to lift, not because Peach is a woman and we all know that women are unstable amirite?
it would be hard to find a really unbiased kid. If they're young enough that they've literally never seen any advertising, they're probably young enough that they wouldn't have any interest in either toy. I would be kind of interested in seeing which toy a kid from like, an amazon tribe would prefer, though.
That's just like the protagonist in my comic book who gained super dancing and basketball ability, but has to fuel it with an endless supply of fried chicken. Of course if people would read the backstory they'd learn about the aliens and the nanochip, but no, they always jump straight to racism just because he happens to be black.
That she's scared of an unfamiliar metallic object.
It would mean something similar when the baby boy did the exact same thing.
I think that kind of illustrates my point a little bit. If that character and power was real and there were not any negative connotations with that character what so ever, it's very existence would be considered racist by many many people because "that black person is eating fried chicken and wearing parachute pants". Demanding that a certain person of a certain race or sex not be portrayed a certain way because of political correctness in itself simply goes to far for me.
Either they wanted to make a video game about emotions so for the first time they had Peach star in a game, or they wanted to make a Peach game and their strongest idea was emotions, and either way is pretty bad.
And if a there was a Jew out there who really cooked the blood of christ- you know what, fuck it, I'm just going top tell you straight out: THE CHRONICLES OF ZION ARE ANTISEMITIC!
Why do I have to tell you this?
Gender =/ sex
So when a girl shows a preference for, say, playing outside in the mud, or speaking out and whatnot, people may hinder that exploration, curiosity, and ambition by telling her to be more lady like.
A good example actually occurred a few weeks ago. Even though I think bachmann is an idiot, telling her to be more "lady like" is pretty sexist. If a man was rowdy, what would you say to him? Would you tell him to act more "lady-like?" or would you say stop interrupting me?
There have been psychological studies showing that gender is a social construct and that what females/males are supposed to be interested in is completely arbitrary - as well as their social roles. In one culture, it is more common for the woman to raise the children - in another, the men. In one culture, females are passive, in another they are more aggressive and dominant over their male counterparts.
This should tell you that such behaviors and preferences are pretty arbitrary. The least we could do is not psychological hinder or restrict a child's decision to choose. Unfortunately, children are shown to be influenced as young as 6 mo. old, so the effects are pretty immediate and like you guys have said, are hard to quantitatively measure prior to that.
Too bad your hypothetical doesn't operate even remotely close to reality. You're using fantasy to prove a point - sure it's interesting speculation, but it isn't relevant.
Those portrayals are often used to oppress or restrict. A stereotypically gay man was literally a living joke in movies - and still is to an extent. Hell, they are in games (See Gay Tony in GTAIV). Please watch the Celluloid Closet to get a better idea of what I'm talking about. Or hell, black face? A black man acting as those caricatures?
Princess peach was seen as acceptable because it was a woman. I guarantee that if you put a man in place of her - less people would buy the concept of an emotional man. While the younger males are better at communicating their feelings, being a "man" still greatly hinges on your ability to hide your emotions and be tough, with very few exceptions. If you do show emotions, it's under extreme stress rather than in an attempt to communicate prior to a problem.
Some media goes beyond this idea of masculinity though...
Wait, you think asking we do away with labelling toys "for girls" or "for boys" is going too far, when toy marketing is consistently one of the most socially regressive things in existence?
I mean, as someone who will probably have kids in the future, I would be thrilled if we no longer labelled toys as "for girls" or "for boys". I'd be doubly thrilled if certain toys simply disappeared entirely too because there's no possible way half the shit marketed as being "for girls" is remotely healthy for any child to consume. Toys that were marketed in a gender neutral way would be a fantastic cultural advance.
I can't think of a single culture where the gender roles are switched, as in.. the women are the hunter gatherers and the men are the housekeepers and raise the children.
In fact, I would say that a majority of culture is just the opposite of what I've described above. Now, in the animal world you see all of this mixed up. Seahorses actually carrying the children, lionesses hunting for food while the males.. well do almost nothing.
Look, it's not like a woman with a career is somehow odd or strange in this day in age. At least in the United States. In fact, it seems that most young people today have almost no aspirations to be a stay-at-home mom unless the woman specifically chooses to. Maybe I was blessed with parents who didn't adhere to gender roles, even if they grew up in the 1950's and 1960's, where womanizing and gender bias was rampant.
I don't know really.. I think it's really all just silly.
I've never met a woman who's played with Legos. I've never met a man who hasn't played with Legos. This is pretty fucking disturbing, yet it seems to me that Legos have mostly been marketed in a fairly gender-neutral way.
I wouldn't blame marketing. They'll try to sell whatever they think people would buy; they don't shape society. It's all about the parents and their attitudes. If your parents are silly geese and fuck you up, neither the education system nor the free market can do much for you.
Er, really? I mean, I asked the first person on my buddy list if she played with legos and she has. Anecdotes are anecdotes, but that still seems really, really bizarre.
*Sigh*
Baby, why you gotta make me pull out my gender and communication book.
~Gendered Lives: Communication, Gender, and Culture by Julia T. Wood. Page 26-27.
I could go on, she provides more examples, but I'm kind of tired of typing.
However, our gender norms have negative effects because they essentially restrict what we can, or in some cases want to be. Read that book - or more on the issue to get a good understanding of it.
Yeah - that's why we need to stop doing shit like this.
http://www.mattel.com/
Look at the commercials. Hardly gender neutral. They did a good job of marketing that idea to you though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqE78PXzkqY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIZ2lua9aQA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdp7KxcYt6c&feature=related
If legos are marketed to girls, it's in the form of horsies that are pink and cute. Play house.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S80nnUa4Re8
oh
snap
Except a woman is certainly expected to take a larger roll in raising the kids. This sort of sexist sentiment is seen how the courts will favor a mother over a father when it comes to custody, the perverse notion by some in society that you need a man and a woman in order to raise a child properly, and the worst part is that women are socially conditioned to feel obligated to raise those kids, or want it badly. Marketing baby dolls to girls rather than boys is emblematic of that.
It has an effect and is certainly fucked up.
Most studies do support the idea that certain types of thinking, emotions, and practices are gender specific to a great degree, but almost everyone of those studies also admits that there are no results exclusive to a specific gender affiliation.
Following that, it stands to reason that many things designed as gender-specific are that way because it makes more sense. However, at some point the tail starts wagging the dog, and manufacturers release products to appease a created stereotype about gender roles, in which the consumer is expected to enjoy it because of their gender. At that point stereotypes become reinforced, and choice and preference are out the window, potentially forever.
Yeah, it's cyclical.
Marketing mirrors culture, and culture mirrors marketing.
A good marketing campaign can change culture though - this is seen in the 1930s when companies marketed diamonds as the de-facto thing you get your partner if you're getting married. From then on...it's history.
Additionally, there have been many switches in what gender wears what. For example, people used to think that shoes were effeminate and that men should wear slippers.
And, of course, we've never been able to decide which gender should be cultured and sensitive.
The history of men's fashion is a curious thing. Throughout most of history, men did not wear pants, instead opting (depending on the era) for robes, wraps, tunics, pleated leather, kilts, togas, and in some Asian examples, what would be functionally considered a dress.
Yet for the last 300 years or so, it's been pants and pants only.
So weird.
I want to wear a kilt one day. I just wanta free ball.
Proud owner here.
Wore it at my wedding. Extremely comfortable.
there are have certainly been a number of societies worldwide that have historically embraced matriarchy rather than patriarchy, a number of native american tribes for instance, where councils of women would have at least as much power as councils of men. Other tribes view menstruation as a thing of great and sometimes terrifying power.
yet other societies are known for having a third gender.
Aside from "build together" and the pink bullshit, the ads are actually fairly gender neutral (and Pink Bullshit is an abomination of a commercial, no matter who it's aimed at). Sure, pirates and medieval castles appeal more to boys than to girls, but that's not Lego's fault, and there's very little in those ads that can be interpreted as actively reinforcing those gender roles.
I think high school is a bit too late for either. Right now at work, I see tons of single mothers who have 3 kids before their 19th birthdays.
What we have to do is undo the brainwashing and poor role-modeling that's being done from Day 1, and that means starting on effective gender studies on the first day of kindergarten.
Perhaps we should have a kindergarten day where all the boys are given free dolls and all the girls are given free cars and see what happens.
Eh, I don't know how well gender-opposing training would go over, but I wouldn't expect very well at all.
What we actually probably need is more gender-neutral training, and constant iteration that gender roles and generalities are not exclusive.
It's a study, primarily participant observation, of the types of gender identities preschoolers adopt and maintain. It was a pretty watershed moment in gender studies as it points to gender identities being normalized at a much, much earlier age than most people expect.
So yeah, first day of kindergarten is almost certainly too late.
Ever seen the study were little kids watched Barney then played nicely but later watched Power Rangers and acted like Ninjas? Both boys and girls reacted the same way. Its us pushing "gender" on to them, teaching them that boys play football and girls play house. My sister was the only girl in my house and grew up a Tomboy. My parents let her play with me and my brothers and now she throws and catches the football better then anyone on my high school football team. She tried to join but since there was only "guy" showers at the field, she wasn't allowed to play. We tried fighting it at the school board, but an all women school board said it wasn't a lady-like sport.
Most of that gender training isn't so much pushed on them from external forces vis a vis advertising and the like. Toddlers don't watch advertising.
It's learned behavior that starts at home. If kids have a passive and submissive mother and a domineering father, that's what their ideal and expectation of gender roles becomes.
That, and reinforcement directly from parents. Parents, especially when they have two or more different-gender kids, love seeing how their little boy totally likes trucks but their little girl totally is dressing up with jewelry and stuff and isn't it funny how they're so different already. Which isn't evil or anything. You just unconsciously reinforce behavior and interests from a very early age.
Hell, people are generally nicer to female babies. As though at 6 months the little boys can totally take it.
Edit: Actually, a good example that's a bit more large-scale:
How many ladies do you know who totally throw like girls? Hilariously limp-wristed and all that?
Well, my sister doesn't do that. She throws a mean fastball. Why? Because my dad made up a game when we were kids involving hucking a superball at a tower of blocks and trying to knock it over. It was awesome, and it helped teach us how to throw decently from a very early age. It's a behavior that almost all boys are taught, and almost no girls, for no particular reason.