A helpful guide for parents

[–]Super_delicious 50 points51 points52 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]redfrobro 20 points21 points22 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Will_billy 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Super_delicious 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]ChemicalRascal 18 points19 points20 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eenjoy 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]diamondjim 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alopixgg 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ChemicalRascal 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]zNzN 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fia_bui 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]pogmathoinct 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fia_bui 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Built2Last 47 points48 points49 points 12 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 45 points46 points47 points 12 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]k1ngm1nu5 25 points26 points27 points 12 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]squidick 17 points18 points19 points 12 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]k1ngm1nu5 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]fia_bui 21 points22 points23 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]JoshtheAspie 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]fia_bui 17 points18 points19 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]JoshtheAspie 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fia_bui 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GodOBiscuits 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]fia_bui 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]GodOBiscuits 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]fia_bui 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]fia_bui 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fia_bui 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]squidick 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]k1ngm1nu5 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lenspirate 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kehlder 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AUGUST_BURNS_REDDIT 14 points15 points16 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]blazefreak 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]cuckname 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MegMartinson 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eenjoy 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nicholmikey 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]coonstev 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]intensely_human 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]eggoChicken[S] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]uncommonman 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CKlandSHARK 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alopixgg 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]captainpixystick 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]I_divided_by_0- -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]vkob 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]vkob -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Crackerjacksurgeon 81 points82 points83 points 12 years ago (52 children) | Copy Link

[–]eggoChicken[S] 99 points100 points101 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Xanthan81 25 points26 points27 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]IlleFacitFinem 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]DukeofLizards 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Skorpazoid 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wannabkate 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pablol 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]eggoChicken[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]sulfura3 12 years ago* [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

This pretty much. I like all of the stereotypical male things, except for sports and overly exaggerated boobs and genitalia. My parents didn't mind me watching violent, bloody, gory, fucked up or sexual stuff (mind you, they made sure I could handle it and was not at risk) but somehow me having this weird interest in Polly Pocket playsets somehow was something to worry about.

EDIT: I later found out that I was more interested in world-building and that Polly Pocket playsets basically were the only toys around that represented an entire house or area without taking up too much space. So now, I use video games for that.

[–]sv21js 15 points16 points17 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]eggoChicken[S] 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Orcasmic 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]napalm_anal_emission 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kulkija 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]johnny_gunn 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]Crackerjacksurgeon 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]eggoChicken[S] 15 points16 points17 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Muffinizer1 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]throw-away-today 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_ 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -9 points-8 points-7 points 12 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]CosmicKeys 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]CosmicKeys 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]CosmicKeys 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

It's PURELY as the object of someone else's perspective.

As I said, just because you don't like sexuality doesn't make it less valuable. I could claim "but look at HOW we view masculine traits, it's PURELY as tool for someone else's benefit which is why masculine men die overseas for our oil". You can throw negative words like tool and object around but it doesn't sell the point much. You seem to think being physically sexually attractive is negative, I don't and few people of any gender would.

And to be valued as an object is LESS than to be valued as an agent.

Saying this does not make it true.

Women who are too active in their sexuality are considered "sluts" and devalued. - Women are valued as objects to be observed (as beautiful) or obtained (for sex).

Men who use their agency incorrectly are considered evil. Men are valued as tools to work for the betterment of others and be disposed of when sacrifice is required.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the inherent constrictions with being seen as a sexual object. But I find your statements about agency unfounded. edit: apologies if this comment sounded a little hostile.

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Well you're implying a hell of lot in assuming I think being sexually attractive is negative. I don't think that.

I think women's sexuality being limited to being considered attractive (or not) by another human being is negative. The way that society denies their agency in their sexuality is negative.

And we DON'T look at masculine traits as a tool for someone else's benefit. We look at masculine traits as highly variable...as tools for their own benefit (to climb to corporate ladder). We look at masculine traits as action - and action is considered better than innaction.

Look, again, at your own sentence: "men who USE their AGENCY incorrectly are considered evil." - Even in your statement of what you think is considered negative for men, you're talking about people doing things, making decisions and taking action.

Women aren't considered evil for using their agency incorrectly...in large part because women's agency is denied. Women are considered evil for using their agency, full stop, in a lot of ways...(again, women taking action regarding their sexuality).

Anywho, I'm done with this conversation.

[–]johnmarkley 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bodertz 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

What is your evidence that this is the reason?

But I think my bigger issue is different:

Society hates feminine traits so much, we consider it "failing" at masculinity to take feminine traits on.

Yes. Men are shamed for not living up to their gender role. I see you don't accept it when women are shamed for not living up to their gender role, but whatever.

Society values masculine traits so much that we consider it "transcending" gender roles for girls to take them on.

Okay, so what makes a "girl" if not her gender role? What reason would society have to both encourage and discourage the feminine gender role in girls at the same time? Or are you saying that it is biologically based? That women are biologically destined for the feminine gender role, at least so much as society discouraging it does not eradicate it?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I do accept that women are shamed for not living up to their gender role...I've just acknowledged that they have a bit more wiggle room regarding gender performance.

And society doesn't need a "reason" to do anything. Social norms often build up and interact in ways that aren't predictable until a few centuries down the line when we can go "oh hey, look at what's happening."

As for both encouraging and discouraging femininity at the same time, I've actually written a blog post about it: http://radicalcentristblog.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/how-gender-fucks-women/

Or if you don't want to read it, the basic theory goes like this: masculinity is viewed as higher than femininity, men are viewed as naturally masculine, women are viewed as naturally feminine...attempting to break what is considered "natural" is frowned on. At the same time, even when women are performing femininity, that femininity is still considered less than masculinity.

[–]Bodertz 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I do accept that women are shamed for not living up to their gender role...I've just acknowledged that they have a bit more wiggle room regarding gender performance.

I'll rephrase: You don't accept it as evidence of the reverse. I only skimmed your blog post, but from it a gathered that you thought that the power differences between men and women are important in this case, and I don't see how they are.

And society doesn't need a "reason" to do anything.

Okay... But isn't this entire dialogue meant to find out WHY society does something? The reason, if you will?

Or if you don't want to read it,

Yeah, not now, sorry. I skimmed it, and by that I mean a saw a few words, but I just can't get myself interested enough just yet.

the basic theory goes like this: masculinity is viewed as higher than femininity, men are viewed as naturally masculine, women are viewed as naturally feminine

Are they naturally that way? Or is it all socialization?

attempting to break what is considered "natural" is frowned on.

Okay, so this applies to both men and women, yes? This is before we add the "we value masculinity bit", so both men and women are affected by this first force.

I think I'll need what you think femininity is. The Stepford Wives (Which is an actual organization apparently... I urge you to stay far far away. I mean, I guess they can live how they want, but their devaluing of themselves kind of freaks me out...) ... okay, restarting. The Stepford Wives shows a vision of femininity that many people probably agree with. I assume you do not agree with this definition?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bodertz 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If you honestly can say you don't think the power dynamics between men and women (and masculinity and femininity) are important when examining the relationships men and women have to masculinity and femininity then

Wow. Good job misrepresenting what I said. A++. 11/10.

well then there's not much point in continuing this conversation.

Yeah, fuck you. You don't want to continue, fine. Just fuck off. Don't lay it at my feet. Don't write an entire comment saying, "You are too stupid for me". Just fuck off.

We observe the same thing going both directions, and "because power dynamics" you dismiss one. Well, let's make it different: Men are not shamed for leaving their gender role and women are. "Because power dynamics", the male gender role is seen as above women, so they are shamed for emulating it, whereas men are allowed to act with the female gender role because society respects men and their choices.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well way to turn the hostility up to 11. My goodness. I did not say you were stupid at all..and I did not even imply that. My point with there being no point in continuing, is that we are clearly working under two completely incompatible frameworks.

I also don't think I misrepresented what you said. If I misunderstood what you said, that's something different. But when you typed: "I gathered that you thought that the power differences between men and women are important in this case, and I don't see how they are." -- That reads to me as you saying you don't think the power differences between men and women are important when discussing "this case" (which is an examination of why women have more flexibility with masculine behaviour than men do with feminine behaviour). -- Again, if I misunderstood then please feel free to clarify.

Anyway -- I don't dismiss anything "because power dynamics". Rather, power dynamics create CONTEXT for the observations. As in, we don't observe the same thing in both directions...we observe a similar shaming for stepping outside the norm in both directions, but we ALSO observe that being feminine (whether a man or a woman) is undervalued...that isn't true for the masculine. -- But so, this issue of context is why flipping and reversing gender norms doesn't provide an accurate picture of whether something is oppressive. It can be a useful tool, no doubt, as a way to highlight a problem and provide an example. But it doesn't work as a proof - because the context (i.e. the power dynamics) involved are different.

And your hypothetical...I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at there? It's not true...men ARE shamed for leaving their gender role (as are women, but...as I said..less than)...so I'm not quite sure why you provided it? You're right on half of it, though, in that because the masculine is seen as above the feminine, women are shamed for attempting to step outside their place by being masculine.

[–]Crackerjacksurgeon 15 points16 points17 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Also, note that "you-go-girlism" is often referring to the idea of being a more masculine sort of woman...at least in the traditional sense. i.e. - the idea that "girls can do whatever boys can do." The thing is, that mentality still suggests that what boys can do is somehow better...worth girls striving toward. Whereas what girls can do is somehow of less worth...less worth striving toward.

That is without a doubt the biggest steaming pile of crap I've ever heard.

The "You Go Girl" attitude seeks to elevate women and girls above and beyond that of boys and men. "Girls can do whatever boys can do. Only better". It is nothing but treating women and girls like they can do no wrong and everything they do right is awesome and a miracle.

A woman or girl beats a boy or man at something? Thunderous applause while mocking the male loser.

A woman or girl hits a man or boy? Exerting her assertiveness, getting back at the male having wronged them. Plus, it's just playful teasing. Ha ha ha!

A girl bullies a boy? The boy must've done something to provoke it. Oh, she's hitting him, cornering him. OH MY GOD, HE HIT HER IN DEFENSE? SEND HIM TO THE PRINCIPLE IMMEDIATLY, EXPELL HIM, RARGH!

You get the point? I should also add having female main characters in movies/tv shows/books abuse and verbally malign the male supporting cast without merit and repercussion. Oh, that's a strong female character. We need more of those.

That is what "You Go Girl" is: Men and boys are the disposable dregs as women and girls are allowed to rub it in their face. "Girls rule and Boys Drool", "Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them", etc, etc.

Okay, that's enough from me. I need to take a breath.

[–]Crackerjacksurgeon 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]JoshtheAspie 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]throw-away-today 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]throw-away-today -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mineobile 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alopixgg 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MoFuckinBananas 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Morichalion 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Many of the responses to this post feel like they're almost threatened by the idea of kids playing with "gender inappropriate" toys. Some of them express the idea that gender roles are somehow sacred, and should be protected and/or enforced in our society; and toys are somehow a MAJOR part of that...

First, toys aren't going to be that much of a deciding factor in what roles someone plays when starting a family, these decisions are driven by economics anymore. The issue of toys is all about how badly I get to treat you because your "action figure collection" is a bunch of Polly Pockets. The fear towards toys is baseless.

So, enough about toys, let's talk about roles...

How many of you guys, the one's who have the "men work, women cook" mentality, have gone through family court? How many of you guys only experience fatherhood as a chunk of your wages gone from every paycheck? Men are the breadwinners. Women care for the children. Kids NEED their moms, even if it means the absence of their dads. That's gender-role enforcement, right there.

To me, personally, that issue is pretty much the only reason I ever come to this sub. Family court is the scariest place I've ever been, because I'm not the mommy. I'm not, by virtue of gender, automatically the best parent, or best choice for the child. I could explain why I AM, but I'm not the mommy, and kids need their moms. It's a miracle of circumstance that things ended up the way they have so far. I say "so far" because everything is so fucking firmly placed in the air, anything can change, and I don't know if I'll be able to get the money for another go-round in court.

Public enforcement of gender roles almost cost me the right to be in my child's life. It almost sentenced her to a constantly unstable and often abusive home.

So, if you're latching on the "Women do this, Men do that" style of thinking, just go fuck yourself...

[–]transsisterradio 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Morichalion 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]transsisterradio 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Morichalion 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]transsisterradio 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As a formerly white, straight and male person (well, I'm still white), I get that. It's complicated. You aren't the enemy, but the groups (you didn't choose to be a part of) can be antagonistic to oppressed groups via obstruction, inaction, maintaining the status quo, etc. It's a shortcut generalization to call the groups you belong to as the enemy, but it's not about anyone in particular (unless they're causing an obstruction to equal rights). The enemy is more about the set of net privileges than the actual groups of people (unless manipulative generalizations are used), but it's still alienating. Different groups simply can't fully understand each other. For everyone who is tired of being alienated and labelled the enemy, there is someone else who is tired of being dehumanized and oppressed (that's rhetorical, not statistical). But like I said, it's complicated.

Anyways, we probably wouldn't loathe each other or seek out the other's company. And yes I seek out social justice. But it seems we agree on somethings and disagree on others, as we would on other issues, but that's to be expected; logic is not partisan.

[–]Alopixgg 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

There's a difference between ending the shame and injustice that comes with society enforcing gender roles and attacking all expression of them. Too frequently I see sentiments where instead of encouraging society to accept those who choose nontraditional gender roles; society seems to be moving to look down on people who don't.

What if I want to be a provider, a breadwinner, a traditionally masculine person? Why can't I decide to be that AND not be subjected to prejudice by the establishment and ridicule by the progressive? If it's still not my choice to define my own gender role without fear of repercussion, what does "breaking down traditional gender roles" accomplish? The whole diea functions on the assumption that gender roles ONLY exist because society continually reinforces them, and I simply don't believe that's true. Society did not invent gender roles.

What society needs is acceptance and a breaking down of prejudice, not political micromanagement of people's gender identity.

[–]Morichalion 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Too frequently I see sentiments where instead of encouraging society to accept those who choose nontraditional gender roles; society seems to be moving to look down on people who don't.

Depends on the role we're discussing. Generally, women who opt to be a stay-at-home wife tend to be looked down by other women as they don't fit the feminist philosophy.

What if I want to be a provider, a breadwinner, a traditionally masculine person? Why can't I decide to be that AND not be subjected to prejudice by the establishment and ridicule by the progressive?

Not sure I understand where you're coming from. Generally this behavior gets a thumbs up from everyone.

Get married; you work, your wife keeps house and home. I don't know that I've ever heard a disparaging word from a level-headed soul about a man providing for his wife and children.

The problem is when things go bad. You get divorced. Her role is to raise your kids. Your role is still to provide for them (child support and alimony). You never actually have to SEE the kids to provide for them.

What society needs is acceptance and a breaking down of prejudice, not political micromanagement of people's gender identity.

I thought I said this. Different words, but same meaning.

Suggesting that I should be allowed to fill the role of caregiver to my child, as well as provider, is not the same as attacking your expression of your role.

[–]felixg3 15 points16 points17 points 12 years ago* (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]gremlina 13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MeEvilBob 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]felixg3 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hugged_at_gunpoint 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]JoshtheAspie 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alopixgg -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZorbaTHut 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZorbaTHut 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZorbaTHut 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alopixgg 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]felixg3 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]felixg3 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]felixg3 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alopixgg 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Morichalion 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]felixg3 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Morichalion 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]felixg3 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Morichalion 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hugged_at_gunpoint 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]gprime312 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]felixg3 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]JoshtheAspie 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]draykow 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Morichalion 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]draykow 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sent from my phone please pardon any spelling/Swype errors. Also I was about to go to bed because I'm very tired, so I hope I make sense. Metro in mind that with all things in life, this is MY opinion, I think.

Gender rules are a relatively new concept to me. I never really thought much of what constitutes a girl toy from a boy toy other than who the company targeted (transformers were always considered boy toys to me because the stores said so, but that didn't mean that only boys could play with them, much like the doll house that the neighbor girl had wasn't restricted to girls only). I'm always telling people that I am all for full equality in that men and women can do everything equally except child birth and sperm donations (don't get me started on the women on combat controversy in America). If a girl doesn't want a Barbie doll I don't think you should force it on her, and the same for a boy with hot wheels.

This may sound very contradictory: I don't think you should force a kid to be boyish or girly if they don't want to be; but then again, I don't like the idea of a young boy running around in a dress on a daily basis(kilts are okay, as are silly occasions). I like knowing who I'm talking to when I meet someone and I very much dislike having to guess if someone is a guy or a gal. I don't like when parents keep their kids androgynous on purpose; it just feels to me like a somewhat mature trait that the child should pick up on their own when they are older if they do close, much like the usage of "bad words". Androgyny is fine but not to the point where someone truly appear genderless.

I guess when it comes down to it, yes gender is important to me, but not the things like an interest or hobby. I'm fine buying my kids a kitchen set, the latest action hero toys, model cars, tea party supplies, 12 inch figurines(dolls), or whatever, no matter what who asks for it. I'm fine if I become a stay at home dad and my wife makes the money or the other way around. But I would never be alright with someone mistaking my boy for a girl or my girl for a boy.

Tl;dr: my opinion is that genders and appearance are important, but the roles/interests are not.

[+]Tebbo 12 years ago [recovered] (52 children) | Copy Link

I don't get this. Clearly this is a joke. What does it have to do with MRA's?

[–]Morichalion 25 points26 points27 points 12 years ago (49 children) | Copy Link

[+]masterrod -55 points-54 points-53 points 12 years ago (47 children) | Copy Link

[–]Miracle_Fruit 65 points66 points67 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]IAmTheBauss 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Morichalion 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

If he made a good case, then i'd buy it.

But would you listen to what he presented? It feels like you've got a pretty clear internal bias of gender-appropriate entertainment for children already, and rare is the person who sits and listens to a child talk about... things...

That said, what would a "good case" for an MLP figure be if he didn't have a sister? Would "I like the animation, writing, and voice acting of the show" work?

Since you've got such misgivings, it should be safe to say you've seen the show, and could point out things you expressly disagree with, right? Unless you're speaking from a position of ignorance (don't do that... it's just stupid...).

..but i'd immediately I think she's developing sexuality much too quickly.

Please don't do that. I mean, don't assume that you know where someone is sexually, based on selection of toys or entertainment. Seriously, it opens up a box of many problems, not the least of which is trying to discuss sex in general.

The most general question I've got about this is... Why are you on an "equal rights" board if you're so easily confused/threatened/concerned about simple preference of toys?

[+]masterrod -10 points-9 points-8 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

But would you listen to what he presented? It feels like you've got a pretty clear internal bias of gender-appropriate entertainment for children already, and rare is the person who sits and listens to a child talk about... things...

I would and do.

That said, what would a "good case" for an MLP figure be if he didn't have a sister? Would "I like the animation, writing, and voice acting of the show" work?

If he really liked a particular show, friend, or something of that nature. Maybe he's trying recreate something he's seen. The thing is you can't so anything with a MLP toy. Now if he wanted a Barbie I might be more inclined to buy one, but not a set.

Since you've got such misgivings, it should be safe to say you've seen the show, and could point out things you expressly disagree with, right? Unless you're speaking from a position of ignorance (don't do that... it's just stupid...).

I watched MLP and Care Bears too. But never wanted any of those toys. Well I have more of problem with a guy growing up to idolize a unicorn vs a female. That's just good sense. Probably not good for either, but more acceptable for females.

Please don't do that. I mean, don't assume that you know where someone is sexually, based on selection of toys or entertainment. Seriously, it opens up a box of many problems, not the least of which is trying to discuss sex in general

I think that girls playing with burly men, mixed in with her other toys is alarming. I would be concerned.

The most general question I've got about this is... Why are you on an "equal rights" board if you're so easily confused/threatened/concerned about simple preference of toys?

The question was how would respond to a kids toy. I clearly said I would listen to the child and if they made a case I would capitulate. That means I have my idea of how the kid should be raised, but I have to prudent when they kid chooses to deviate. That's what parents do.

[–]Morichalion 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The question was how would respond to a kids toy.

The questions were meant to be rhetorical, in response to /u/Tebbo wondering about the relevance of the graphic the OP posted.

The graphic is intended to get viewers to think about "boys' vs girls' toys," aiming to bring questions to why we even make these categories. Ultimately, the goal is to convince folks to be less judgmental about the subject.

Your response is 180 degrees from the appropriate one. Exactly opposite of any goal of "happy."

You're not terribly specific about how a boy might suffer from playing with "girls' toys." I'm gonna go with "playing with ponies will make that boy gay." This is just wrong, maybe you're just uninformed...

Here's a good documentary on the subject: http://bronydoc.com/

And, here's the netflix link, if you subscribe to that: http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Bronies/70297884

The most WTF-worthy thing I've seen all day is your opinion on what girls playing with GI Joe figures indicates. I just... I don't have a good response to that... there is no polite way I can think of to describe how fucked up that is.

Nothing you posted in this thread is a real-world-equality-promoting view on this subject. Your post is rife with gender-role enforcement. You exhibit fear of sexual deviancy pretty much everywhere in this thread. Neither of these things make any sense in a gender-rights movement.

[+]masterrod -8 points-7 points-6 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The questions were meant to be rhetorical, in response to /u/Tebbo wondering about the relevance of the graphic the OP posted.

They didn't seem rhetorical so I answered

The graphic is intended to get viewers to think about "boys' vs girls' toys," aiming to bring questions to why we even make these categories. Ultimately, the goal is to convince folks to be less judgmental about the subject.

Terrible idea

Your response is 180 degrees from the appropriate one.

You should redevelop your "appropriate" rubric.

Exactly opposite of any goal of "happy."

Toys are about fun but also parenting.

You're not terribly specific about how a boy might suffer from playing with "girls' toys." I'm gonna go with "playing with ponies will make that boy gay." This is just wrong, maybe you're just uninformed...

If you read my post you would know I didn't say that. And secondly, I highly doubt playing with a pony today is going to make him become gay.

First of a horses are symbols of a masculinity. My concern would be my boy believing in the unicorn concept. That is a problem for me.

The most WTF-worthy thing I've seen all day is your opinion on what girls playing with GI Joe figures indicates. I just... I don't have a good response to that... there is no polite way I can think of to describe how fucked up that is.

I have a little problem with my girl playing house with half naked action figures. Sorry. But truly that's a mom assessment.

Nothing you posted in this thread is a real-world-equality-promoting view on this subject. Your post is rife with gender-role enforcement. You exhibit fear of sexual deviancy pretty much everywhere in this thread. Neither of these things make any sense in a gender-rights movement.

You don't read very well. I would in it's you to read my posts. The idea that any one thinks that gender roles will disappear cause of some toys is asinine. We haven't lived in a role of gender role equality, so we can't hope to teach of children his way. We will inadvertently pass gender roles. So what we can do is look at what out children, and what they do. There's nothing wrong with holding court with your children. If they want something they should talk to you about it. The most damaging hope is to think that if they just play with a bunch of toys they're going to some how eliminate gender roles. A deviant toy purchase is a chance to talk them.

[–]Morichalion 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

First of a horses are symbols of a masculinity.

Why is this a problem? Why would it be okay for a girl to play with ponies if they're symbols of masculinity? Wait, don't answer those... this is getting exhausting.

My concern would be my boy believing in the unicorn concept. That is a problem for me.

Okay, THIS is the most WTF-worthy thing I've seen all day. If your kid, having lived in a modern, developed-world setting, believes in unicorns, there's problems WAY above, beyond, and sideways of toy selection.

The idea that any one thinks that gender roles will disappear cause of some toys is asinine. We haven't lived in a role of gender role equality, so we can't hope to teach of children his way.

This isn't an argument for your position. With this logic, there's no reason to concern one's self with which toys children select.

A deviant toy purchase is a chance to talk them.

I have a feeling, from this thread, that you'd be talking "at" rather than "to" the kids. Something along the lines of "No, <toy> isn't an appropriate <girl/boy> toy. You get to play with <alternate toy>."

I've attempted to be polite, and I know you have been too, but I'm finished. Your position, on every talking point you brought up in this thread, is wrong.

I'm done talking to you.

[+]masterrod -10 points-9 points-8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why is this a problem? Why would it be okay for a girl to play with ponies if they're symbols of masculinity? Wait, don't answer those... this is getting exhausting.

I think you may not have realized that it's socially acceptable for girls/women to believe in unicorns(I.e Prince Charming, etc.)

Okay, THIS is the most WTF-worthy thing I've seen all day. If your kid, having lived in a modern, developed-world setting, believes in unicorns, there's problems WAY above, beyond, and sideways of toy selection.

We'll believing in unicorns when dating women makes things difficult, and easy way to get played.

This isn't an argument for your position. With this logic, there's no reason to concern one's self with which toys children select.

Right. A parent concern themselves with parenting.

I have a feeling, from this thread, that you'd be talking "at" rather than "to" the kids. Something along the lines of "No, <toy> isn't an appropriate <girl/boy> toy. You get to play with <alternate toy>

You have a limiting belief. You should work on that.

I've attempted to be polite, and I know you have been too, but I'm finished. Your position, on every talking point you brought up in this thread, is wrong.

Sorry I didn't know you had a monopoly on right. Let me know next time.

I'm done talking to you.

Too bad.

[–]Chross 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]connorheardawho 22 points23 points24 points 12 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[+]masterrod -33 points-32 points-31 points 12 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

Toys aren't the reason why homophobia is developed.

I think as a parent your job is to show a way of life. And when things pop up that are out of the norm, you have to question why it's happening. If it's a true desire or something transient, or destructive. If the kid wants to sleep with men, well he's just going to do it, but at 18 not 5. For me, if he's going to do things that girls typically do then I need some compelling information to assist him on his quest.

For instance, it's ok for me to buy a kitchen set for a my son, versus My lil Pony doll.

But, I'd be even more worried about my daughter playing with GI Joes. She just shouldn't be that comfortable with male figures at a young age. I wouldn't have a problem buying her some tools, if she wanted them. .

You bring up color and LGBT community they are unrelated. I do not believe people are born to sleep with a specific type of person. I think it's a choice. The color of your skin is not a choice.

[–]eggoChicken[S] 27 points28 points29 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]masterrod -20 points-19 points-18 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]eggoChicken[S] 20 points21 points22 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Morichalion 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chross 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]The_Truthkeeper 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]masterrod -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I'm a bi male. I never chose to one day to just say, "I'll be gay and straight so I can be cool" when did you choose? When did you wake up one morning and decide to do it this way?

I doubt you went through this process. You probably just saw some people, felt a feeling went with it. Your choice is in your action and lifestyle. You chose to explore your sexuality in a specific way. At the end of the day you are making choices to develop relationships with people, whether straight, gay or bi, requires work and several choices. Additionally, people are generally attracted to behaviors, and there are no sex specific behaviors. So the idea that you were born with some sort of sexual predisposition is a bit of stretch, it makes more sense, in your case, that being bi is string of long behaviors and choices over time.

I was kissing girls at a very young age. Women have always been a part of my life. I have no reason to explore men sexually. Besides from a practical sense men make great friends, and it's tough to find women that can be friends.

HOE THE FUCK IS A GI-JOEIN ANY WAY SEXUAL? A LITTLE GIRL ISNT THINKING ABOUT THAT!! SHE SEES A FUCKING NINJA AND WANTS THE FUCKING NINJA BECAUSE ITS A FUCKING NINJA!!!!

Well, since you were once a lil girl I take your statement with the highest esteem. I simply have a problem with my little girl playing house with hyper masculine figures. GI joes are hyper masculine muscle bound half naked figures, and the thought of her playing house with those toys strikes me as Daddy's little girl is growing up too fast.

[+][deleted] 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]masterrod 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I didn't go through that process. I'm asking if you did. I WAS born this way, and it wasn't put into me by willingness to experiment. I WAS born this way and I wouldn't vhange it for the world. I've never had any reason to want to explore women or men beyond that I find them sexually attractive. There should be no other reason to ever explore. The way you talk about this is like you have to "teach" your own sexuality. Its not something you teach. Its not something you learn. It is something you are born having. Sexuality does not come from the brain, the sensation of an orgasm actually is produced by the spine. Sexual arousal does not originate in the brain. It isn't something I have to think about. When I feel turned on its never something I am telling myself to like.

Well you weren't, born this way. Because there's no such thing. You learn your sexuality, you can also teach it if you want. You're 100% naive if you think sexuality can't be taught or learned. More important your attraction level is relative to behavior not sex. We as humans have the ability to erotisize anything, but we have histories passed down to us from our ancestors by behavior.

Just because you aren't' born a certain way doesn't mean you need to change your sexuality, nor should you.

This argument is silly because it becomes one of nature vs nurture, which is a dead end. We can have diametrically opposed positions, it's fine.

Actually the two most important orgasmic organs are your lungs and your brain, not your genitals. That's one reason women can have more intense orgasm than men. For example, I can increase intensity of any given orgasm with better breathing.

I was NEVER a little girl. I WAS however a little boy. And I am yet to see a half naked Gi Joe who's half naked. In fact every Gi Joe I've ever seen is wearing some kind of full body armor, like google "Gi Joe" the most naked person is a redhead with a sleeveless shirt.

So are you denying that GI joe's exist that are muscular and half naked? And you're denying that I should be concerned of what my lil girl considered is an acceptable housemate? My method allows for two checks, first I ask her to support her desire with some more information of how she was influenced or arrived to the conclusion. And if her mom says ok, then I'm likely to go with it. Or mom will just buy the toy. I'm trying to figure out what you find abhorrent about this? That I care about my lil girl, or that I should just do what she says.

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

What is the difference between GI Joe and Ken? Well, other than Ken is a wuss who likes to go change his clothes for fun and G I Joe has really cool stuff like binoculars, maps, a canteen and a jeep. Barbie dolls are often sold with Ken dolls, how is this any different?

But seriously, who cares? And what do you mean comfortable with male figures? How would having a male doll hurt her. It isn't like it is even anatomically correct.

Why couldn't a boy play with my little pony's. They are cute little horses. I cannot fathom why you would want to perpetuate stereotypes which are damaging and fodder for bullying. The more socially acceptable it becomes for kids to enjoy what toys they like, rather than the blue for boys and pink for girls, the less bullying will accompany these choices. Your idea is to keep perpetuating the cycle?

Your last statement sort of is confusing. So did you choose to be attracted to women (assuming you are a man)? If you did not, if you were born being attracted to women, then how can you assume a gay man wasn't born being attracted to men?

[+]masterrod -9 points-8 points-7 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What is the difference between GI Joe and Ken? Well, other than Ken is a wuss who likes to go change his clothes for fun and G I Joe has really cool stuff like binoculars, maps, a canteen and a jeep. Barbie dolls are often sold with Ken dolls, how is this any different?

GI joes is hyper masculine image. Ken is a husband.

But seriously, who cares? And what do you mean comfortable with male figures? How would having a male doll hurt her. It isn't like it is even anatomically correct.

I would be concerned with her playing house with hyper masculine figures. That's like a boy playing with a stripper doll.

Why couldn't a boy play with my little pony's. They are cute little horses. I cannot fathom why you would want to perpetuate stereotypes which are damaging and fodder for bullying. The more socially acceptable it becomes for kids to enjoy what toys they like, rather than the blue for boys and pink for girls, the less bullying will accompany these choices. Your idea is to keep perpetuating the cycle?

I think kids need to bullied. I was bullied but it quickly stopped when I learn how to protect myself. I don't think bullying has anything to with toys, it had to do with power. The idea that toys change perception is silly, parents change perceptions and kids copy parents.

Your last statement sort of is confusing. So did you choose to be attracted to women (assuming you are a man)? If you did not, if you were born being attracted to women, then how can you assume a gay man wasn't born being attracted to men?

Well I'm hunter. So to me I go for what I want. I make a decision and I go with it. Attraction is difficult concept and it's based on behavior over sex, and complex. Since either sex can have any particular set of behaviors it doesn't make sense that a person could be predisposed to a homosexual relationship by birth, but activity. There are no sex biased behaviors.

People don't deconstruct who their attracted to or even get to level clarity to realize that sex is highly mechanical. What usually happens is just choice. People choose a good enough relationship/sex strategy and run with it till it fails, of there's no turning back.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I find your ideas very odd. G I Joe is not sexualized. It would be more like allowing your boy to play with Barbie, not a stripper. And Ken is physically not much different than GI Joe, other than the accessories, so how is he not hyper-masculine? It seems to me to teach the idea that a husband is to be boring and have no interests other than dressing up. Ken has no personality. He has no function other than to accessorize Barbie. There is no plot or goal with Ken. So how exactly is that a positive role model?

As for bullying, good for you that you could defend yourself. You do realize kids are suspended now for protecting themselves. You also realize that bullying has changed since the onset of social media, and there IS no protecting yourself from many kinds of bullying. If the idea that toys change perception is silly, then why can't your son have a My Little Pony?

I think you over estimate the power parents have over their kids. Sure, kids will look to their parents for guidance....for a while. But other kids, media, and other adults also have a big influence in how kids perceive the world.

If you are a 'hunter', and you 'go for what you want', how did you decide what you wanted? Did you look at men, think "Gee, that would be a difficult lifestyle, so perhaps I should go for women". Or did you get a hard-on when you saw a gorgeous woman and not when you saw a handsome man, and your body did what was natural to it?

I just don't buy the 'choice in attraction' bit because we as heteros never made a choice. It just doesn't pass the sniff test. It sounds like a complicated answer to a simple question.

[–]masterrod -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I find your ideas very odd. G I Joe is not sexualized. It would be more like allowing your boy to play with Barbie, not a stripper. And Ken is physically not much different than GI Joe, other than the accessories, so how is he not hyper-masculine? It seems to me to teach the idea that a husband is to be boring and have no interests other than dressing up. Ken has no personality. He has no function other than to accessorize Barbie. There is no plot or goal with Ken. So how exactly is that a positive role model?

Yes, Ken is the classic example a husband. His personality is only to be a prop for Barbie. GI joe figures are muscle bound representing hyper masculine ideals. Essentially is the opposite of Ken. GI JOe concerned with his only concerned with his mission. It would concern me that my little girl was choosing a hyper masculine men to play house with at young age. That doesn't mean it would preclude me from buying it, I need a reason of mommy to override my choice

As for bullying, good for you that you could defend yourself. You do realize kids are suspended now for protecting themselves. You also realize that bullying has changed since the onset of social media, and there IS no protecting yourself from many kinds of bullying. If the idea that toys change perception is silly, then why can't your son have a My Little Pony?

Well. I think bullying is part of life, and parents are making their kids weak. Cause they will just be bullied as they get older and no one will be there to help them.

I didn't say he couldn't. I said I would need a reason from him.

I think you over estimate the power parents have over their kids. Sure, kids will look to their parents for guidance....for a while. But other kids, media, and other adults also have a big influence in how kids perceive the world.

Power over kids and influence are two different things. Your parents influence is undeniable, but it wanes over time. They however can not choose for their children, so the main as parent you must be careful.

If you are a 'hunter', and you 'go for what you want', how did you decide what you wanted? Did you look at men, think "Gee, that would be a difficult lifestyle, so perhaps I should go for women". Or did you get a hard-on when you saw a gorgeous woman and not when you saw a handsome man, and your body did what was natural to it?

For me I loved, and still love, the challenge of women. Pushing a woman heir limit sexually, and mentally has been a super rush to me. I don't feel that challenge with men. I think sure yes I could fuck some guys. Like Miles day used to say. But I think that only comes with fucking more women, they kind of mesh together. The problem is like wet holes, and bjs aren't enough. So men are out for me.

i just don't buy the 'choice in attraction' bit because we as heteros never made a choice. It just doesn't pass the sniff test. It sounds like a complicated answer to a simple question.

You get choice when you fuck more people, or explore your sexuality. Your initial choice is normally bs, as we all know.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]masterrod -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]twigtts 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]mynameisflorian 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]nathan8999 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]masterrod -8 points-7 points-6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Chross 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GodOfAThousandForms 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]masterrod 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]GodOfAThousandForms 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]masterrod 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JoshtheAspie 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]masterrod -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Well obviously it's because the pony's go adventuring, and have fun, and my action hero figures need equine steeds that can talk and go on adventures with them, like how He-Man has Cringer/Battle-cat. Duh.

Yep the MLP is a symbol for the ideal man. He-man rides the ideal woman. Implied gender roles in each.

Oh, and I'm gonna build a dragon mecha battle-robot for spike to ride in.

Spike?

No, seriously. I never got why My Little Pony figures came with combs and brushes, when instead I could ride He-man and Man at arms on their talking mounts through a lego village to go rescue the baby dragon that was trapped within the snap-together triangle mind-control dragon-mech that had captured him

Haha. Well this are things that I would like my child to talk about if he/she was consider a "deviant" toy to purchase.

[–]JoshtheAspie 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]masterrod -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That's interesting question. Ponies and MLP are two different things. Probably because MLP is about a magical unicorn which is intensely traditionally feminine.

Cowboys ride horses? But cowboys don't ride unicorns. That's key.

I know I didn't want MLP, I have no idea why. Probably cause I didn't want brush it's hair. However, i did like MLP, just not my favorite cartoon. I want my kid to tell me, " hey dad I want to do this that and the other thing with MLP." And I'd say sure.

As a parent you have to be careful of where the influence is coming from. If I know it's wholesome influence then I don't mind. It's impossible not to influence your kid, or instill them with some of your values. Because your kid looks at your actions, he will be inculcated automatically. Thinking that for some reason you can give some path way to a world that you do not live in is like dreaming. Surely you can help the child understand things, but that's only through talking. That's why I think it's important to get the kid to talk about what he/she wants and why. Not just give him whatever wants. Hell i'd do this even if it were a GI Joe to a boy. Same deal. Incidentally on of my favorite toys was a box.

[–]JoshtheAspie 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]VZPurp 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Grubnar 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]NotMeUsee 12 years ago* [recovered] (20 children) | Copy Link

This is going to get downvoted for sure but stuff like this is totally pointless. Work on getting the suicide rate down, fair courts, or divorce incentives fixed. Quarreling over gender roles on toys? Who cares? Spend your time on something better. This is shit that radfems bitch about.

[–]Morichalion 14 points15 points16 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Is_It_A_Throwaway 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Morichalion 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]NotMeUsee 12 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Hitler ha? That is a bit of a stretch.

[–]Morichalion 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+]NotMeUsee 12 years ago* [recovered] (11 children) | Copy Link

I typically agree with things in this sub (hence im a member here) but I really dont see the harm in gender roles. I think they are healthy. Why arent they? I think when they are exploited it can cause harm, i.e. "Man up" or "get in the kitchen" but outside of that why exactly is a role in terms of the chromosomes you posses a bad thing? Just because I identify with a judge doesnt make me a person suited to seal the fate of others. Also just because someone is a police officer doesnt make them the best fit to be in a position of civil authority. It makes me think of the ship of state metaphor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_state

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+]NotMeUsee 12 years ago* [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

I get it now. I still think its a bit of a stetch though. Clearly im in the minority here but I feel that gender is an absolute. You can be a feminine man, or a masculine woman, but you are still one or the other. That being said I dont think you, or anyone who disagrees with me, are incorrect. I just dont support that idea.

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+]NotMeUsee 12 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

I cant help but think Im walking into a trap. But I feel they are the gender they were born as. Nothing is stopping them from thinking otherwise though.

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]hugged_at_gunpoint -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]a_little_duck 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I typically agree with things in this sub (hence im a member here) but I really dont see the harm in gender roles. I think they are healthy. Why arent they?

First, try to imagine a few things that define you as an individual person. Your most important personality traits, your favorite books and movies, your favorite colors, the clothes you like to wear the most, how you like to spend your free time, etc. And now imagine that you're born in a society where people have traditional roles based on their hair color. And, unfortunately for you, all the things that define you happen to be socially acceptable only for people with a different hair color than you.

All around you, you can see people who express their personality in the same way as you do, like the things that you like, and they are happily encouraged in the way they live their life. But not you. For exactly the same things that they are encouraged to do, you are mocked, people call you a deviant, avoid you, and generally try to make your life as hard as possible. Only because you happen to have the "wrong" hair color for your personality.

That's exactly what gender roles are like, and why they are wrong.

[–]VZPurp -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]FerCrerker 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HeyThereCharlie 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DarthNobody 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zosimasie -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Morichalion 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CosmicKeys 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zosimasie -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]hugged_at_gunpoint 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CosmicKeys -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Funcuz 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Boys and girls are different. They can both play with whatever toys they want to play with BUT if you think that most girls want a toy gun and most boys want a baby to hug and kiss all the time then you don't know enough of either boys or girls.

Yeah, sure. But the problem is not that overall gender tendencies exist. Those are fine.

The problem is that society in general treats you like a freak if your own tastes and preferences aren't "normal" enough.

Not only that, but take a look at what kind of behavior we deem "normal" - if our models of "normal" masculinity and femininity are valid, why are so many people only partial gender conformists?

The short answer is that biology may incline the averages, but individuals vary around the bell curve quite greatly. Overall tendencies exist, but society in general needs to realize that averages aren't morally normative and that reality has this little thing called the "standard deviation."

Boys generally DO want to play toy guns and girls generally DO want to play with dolls.

But lots of boys want to play with action figures, which are essentially dolls (figurines of people).

I agree gender tendencies exist, but you have to concede that a lot of gendering is pretty damn arbitrary.

[–]Vahnya 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GodOfAThousandForms 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]droterse -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Vahnya 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iTristan -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EinsteinRidesShotgun -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]transsisterradio -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vahnya 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Morichalion 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]transsisterradio 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Morichalion 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vahnya 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Morichalion 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]transsisterradio 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vahnya 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]transsisterradio 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I make a valid criticism and that means I'm looking to be be offended? But what about you, getting all upset that I dare mention that a post with laudable goals has a single flaw? Are you looking to be offended by my comment? You couldn't just appreciate the image for it's intention and also recognize it's problems? Shit is complicated; it's never going to be perfect, but that doesn't mean that efforts to fix errors shouldn't be undertaken.

You (general "you") can't be for gender equality and condone cissexism/transphobia. Well, you can, but you'd be a hypocrite. Trans people have been thrown under the bus enough times by other movements for equality (e.g. gay liberation, second wave feminism), so why must it continue? Because it's more enjoyable and inconvenient? Social justice isn't supposed to be convenient.

[–]a_little_duck 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]transsisterradio 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]transsisterradio 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well it could be both, but I read the reference to "toys you use with your genitals" as being a reference to sex toys, regardless of which genitals someone has. Thus the division in the second boxes between adults and "boys and girls" (i.e. kids).

And, of course, intent of a joke is less important than how it is perceived...but I actually don't think intent is for the joke to play on the premise of men having penises and women having vulvas. I think the joke relies on the premise that adults have toys which they use on their genitals, and children do not.

HOWEVER, given that there is that section with "boys and girls," which is cissexist...I certainly think it creates a cissexist meaning onto the reference to genitals. -- By that, I mean...if the entire joke never mentioned the gender binary and instead use the phrase "any gender," I don't think one would actually read the mention of genitals as referencing men with penises and women with vulvas.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]transsisterradio 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]bigrob1 -8 points-7 points-6 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]a_little_duck 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]destructoid17 -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Morichalion 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	A helpful guide for parents
Author	eggoChicken
Upvotes	961
Comments	258
Date	January 12, 2014 3:26 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1v173c/a_helpful_guide_for_parents/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/a-helpful-guide-for-parents.1004958 https://theredarchive.com/post/1004958

Comments