~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
eggoChicken
[–]Super_delicious 50 points51 points52 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
Just get kids blocks. Everyone loves blocks.
[–]redfrobro 20 points21 points22 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Toys that make you use your imagination are best.
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
But building blocks are sexist! Have you seen the new "girly" legos? How dare they try to appeal to a wider audience?
[–]Super_delicious 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
I mean wooden blocks. Nobody can get mad with wooden alphabet blocks.
[–]ChemicalRascal 18 points19 points20 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
The letter "I" is so phallic! An abomination!
[–]Eenjoy 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I am just worried that the sideways "p" may be emotionally scarring to a lot of young girls. We should make young boys take an extensive sensitivity course so they can always be proper and respect that the girls don't want to play with these obscene "toys".
[–]diamondjim 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
What's wrong with a P?
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Niss.
[–]ChemicalRascal 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
... But shit, it was ninety-nine cents?
[–]zNzN 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
sideways 6 or 9 might make it more clear?
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I don't let my child play with that one.
I have removed all I's, O's and Q's from the house. I buy books for my kid, but cross out those letters. Also, the kindergarten teacher keeps me informed when she is covering those letters so I can keep my child home from school.
I have found the school very helpful. They have even set up a lunch table for my child where the letters I, O and Q are not discussed. It is beside the peanut free lunch table.
[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
If they have girly legos they're sexist for making them girly.
If they don't have girly legos they're sexist for only making toys for boys.
[–]pogmathoinct 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
If they make girly Legos, they're sexist for assuming that only boys would be interested in construction toys.
If they don't have girly Legos, they're not sexist because Legos were already gender-neutral as they are goddamn squares of plastic.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
But why are there no female engineers? Must be the toy companys' fault.
[–]Built2Last 47 points48 points49 points 12 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link
When I was a little boy I had a pink easy-bake oven! Apparently boys aren't supposed to like baking.
[–][deleted] 45 points46 points47 points 12 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link
I used to think it was weird too, but now I realize how stupid that is considering that 95% of the programming on the Food Network is centered around male chefs and bakers.
[–]k1ngm1nu5 25 points26 points27 points 12 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link
That's them targeting a female audience.
[–]squidick 17 points18 points19 points 12 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link
That's true, yet in professional restaurants the number of male chefs seems to be incredibly high compared to that of women.
[–]k1ngm1nu5 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link
That's true. I think its one if those stereotypes that doesn't actually exist.
[–][deleted] 21 points22 points23 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
Both stereotypes exist: Amateur cooks/bakers are more likely to be female. Professionals are more likely to be male.
Catering and baking are some of the most anti-female jobs out there in terms of hours and flexibility. The exception is office/function catering which have more reasonable hours and cake bakeries which don't usually expect their workers at 5am in the morning.
Regular bakeries and hotel/restaurant kitchens are almost entirely male.
[–]JoshtheAspie 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
How is having particular hours that aren't flexible anti-female?
I'm aware that women generally prefer jobs with shorter, or more flexible hours, but wouldn't that make women anti-bakery-jobs for their choices, rather than the other way around?
[–][deleted] 17 points18 points19 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
It's not anti-female in the general sense, it just means that women won't tend to pick those jobs.
[–]JoshtheAspie 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
So by Anti-female you mean "not something most women will choose", not "prejudiced against women"? Alright then, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Pretty much.
Edit: Unless things change of course. Most of the "male/female" job requirements are based around the fact that men earn most of the money and women do most of the childcare. If that changes the jobs will change. Until then all the outreach programs in the world won't make a dent.
[–]GodOBiscuits 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
5am isn't terribly early. I usually start work at 1am (bread baker here).
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
You'd know better than me so. Earliest I've ever had to work was 5am and the bakers were always around, so I assumed they turned up around then.
Edit: Seeing as you actually work in one, how many female bakers are there?
[–]GodOBiscuits 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
My boss is the only female bread baker. All the pastry people are women though.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
That's interesting. Do the pastry chefs work the same hours? Or are they a later shift? Also, if you don't mind me asking, does the pay differ?
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Not to mention how hard the work is, especially at entry level. Washing dishes for a big restaurant was one of the physically toughest jobs I've done. Logging in the Sierras was easier.
KP isn't easy, but tougher than logging? Wow. Were you doing it by hand?
I've actually known a few (very capable and tough) female KPs but they were all in kitchens with big industrial washers.
Yes, by hand. I'm sure most people would disagree with me, I have an extreme aversion to heat and humidity. There are exceptions to every rule.
Oh, I could completely understand that one actually. I worked in a restaurant in the blazing sun once. It was hard enough bussing tables on the deck, I hate to think what it was like in the kitchen. Some of the KPs were stuck in the basement doing food prep D:
[–]squidick 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Yeah I think the idea of baking is still seen as feminine, yet in the average bakers in the UK the owner/head baker is nearly always a man. I think you're right; cooking is just a complicated subject where stereotypes kinda fail.
[–]k1ngm1nu5 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Whatever "typical cook" image someone has is probably very dependant on their childhood and who cooked for them.
[–]lenspirate 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Obviously, that's part of the patriarchy.
[–]kehlder 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Honestly, that wouldn't surprise me.
[–]AUGUST_BURNS_REDDIT 14 points15 points16 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I'm a cook. Aside from culinary school I've never had a female coworker. Funny how that works out?
[–]blazefreak 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
The only female coworkers i had were garde manger and pastry. Everyone else are male.
[–]cuckname 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
my female BOH coworkers are a 64 year old chef owner who out cooks me and a 36 year old woman dishwasher.
[–]MegMartinson 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Chef de Plonge
[–]Eenjoy 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I was a heater-upper at Chili's omce and everyone there was male... we had a few girls work there but they all quit within a week or two because it is "too fast paced", "inconvenient hours", and even "too many guys" (I guess they got uncomfortable that guys were the only ones willing to work that hard for $8.50/hr.
Of course I am not saying all girls are this way. This was just a few at that location and it was a college town. Young guys and girls came and left like crazy because , whatdayaknow, most college kids that take 3 hrs of class a day/party all weekend that THINK they work hard can't handle real work.
[–]nicholmikey 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I had a red one and still got shit for it. I used it to melt cheese on triscuit crackers.
[–]coonstev 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I'm 40 and only recently discovered triscuit nachos. They're fucking awesome.
[–]intensely_human 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Triscuits are surprisingly good with hummus too
[–]eggoChicken[S] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Pssshhh. I've literally won awards for my baking skills.
[–]uncommonman 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/swedish-toys-r-us-catalog-tries-blur-gender-roles-145540
[–]CKlandSHARK 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Well boys are allowed to bake in Colorado
[–]Pecanpig 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I had access to an oven :/
I don't understand this. What's unmasculine about cooking? Where are these people who supposedly think this? I've never met any.
Man, I used to play with all kinds of figurines that people could call dolls. I would make the barbies fight with the GI Joes and make all kinds of fighting noises while the plastic arms and legs would slap against each other.
If a child wants to play with a gender specific toy, let them play with it. Hell, I've done some pretty gay shit in my life and I'm straight as an arrow.
[–]I_divided_by_0- -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Which is weird because the most of the top chefs in the world are men.
Which is also weird because women are just as capable to produce fantastic food.
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
This is the kind of constructive shit I want MR to be about
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Thats what feminism is already about, if MR was about that, instead of the underrecognized issues its about, then the underrecognized issues its about wouldn't come to light.
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Feminism, in large part, is mostly about abolishing the parts of patriarchy that are unfair to women and keeping the parts of patriarchy that are unfair to men.
There are other versions of feminism, but then it's really a "No true Scotsman" label game.
[–]Crackerjacksurgeon 81 points82 points83 points 12 years ago (52 children) | Copy Link
That'll only work when boys no longer have to conform to a gender role and girls still respect them if they do not conform.
[–]eggoChicken[S] 99 points100 points101 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
I think you mean "...and girls AND boys still respect them..."
As a young boy I was given a pink guitar for Christmas one year. Kids made fun (one kid in particular). I had few friends which pushed me to learning how to play better. Fast forward to high school the pink guitar beat up and worn from play was cool now and my band was actgually popular locally. The kid that ragged on me the most had a younger sister that liked pink guitars. We dated for several years and her family loved me and I still come over to their house from time to time. Not her brother though, but fuck him anyway.
tl;dr: This kid made fun of me in grade school for bringing a pink guitar to show and tell. His sister was a fan of my band and we started dating.
[+][deleted] 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]Xanthan81 25 points26 points27 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
OP is now banging your sister.
[–]IlleFacitFinem 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I wish OP would bang my sister
[+][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]DukeofLizards 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Just get a pink guitar
[–]Skorpazoid 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
"Suffice to say, I had the last laugh."
[–]Wannabkate 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I had a cabbage patch doll. Then again I not exactly a good example.
[–]Pablol 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I request a picture of said guitar.
[–]eggoChicken[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This is the only picture I could find of it. It wasn't a very nice guitar so I ended up selling it. It's on the left.
http://i.imgur.com/3woxDoK.jpg
[+][deleted] 12 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]sv21js 15 points16 points17 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
My dad used to be friends with the man who invented Polly Pocket. He (the inventor) is a big burly guy and was interested in the idea for similar reasons that you were.
[–]eggoChicken[S] 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Dude! Me too. My sister had a bunch of them. They made a "boys" version of this too. I can't remember what it was called. I just know my dad bought one for me the first time he saw me playing with my sisters Polly Pocket.
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Mighty Max. I had a ton of them.
[–]napalm_anal_emission 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Star Wars had a line too, I had about half of these:
http://www.keecua.com/ofertas/images/auctions/20111116/4ec424a2c99402.39492029
[–]kulkija 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You should have gotten into D&D. Heheh
[–]johnny_gunn 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link
Why are you making this gender specific?
Girls conform to gender roles too.
[–]Crackerjacksurgeon 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link
Because girls can transcend their gender roles without much repercussion. Not so with boys.
I'm not saying it should be so, I'm saying how it currently is.
[–]eggoChicken[S] 15 points16 points17 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I kind of, not really, but kind of agree. I think it's slightly more acceptable for girls to play with "boys toys" but I think they still catch some shit for it. The name "Tom Boy" is far better than "sissy boy" but neither are great.
[–]Muffinizer1 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Yeah, but think about adulthood. Like, what the fuck is a female cross dresser? It's just a woman wearing jeans, and that's pretty acceptable.
[–]throw-away-today 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Actually, they can catch flak for looking "butch" or "dyke-like". Short hair, baggy clothes, ect. It's still not as bad in most areas but I've see it happen.
[–]fiat_lux_ 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Aside from that, we can make it even less gender specific.
That'll only work when boys kids no longer have to conform to a gender role and girls other kids still respect them if they do not conform.
Let's be honest, a lot of the criticism come from other boys/men.
No one should give a shit if a boy/man decides to be a gamer, MGTOW, brony, furry, otaku, whatever the fuck, but somehow it's a huge deal to a lot of guys.
Even alpha-wannabe men... I have to wonder, if they think that these guys are voluntarily taking themselves out of the competitive pool, then shouldn't that work in their favour? Why complain or hate on them so much?
[+][deleted] -9 points-8 points-7 points 12 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link
The problem with this outlook, is that it fails to examine WHY girls are encouraged to move outside their gender roles. Society values masculine traits so much that we consider it "transcending" gender roles for girls to take them on. Society hates feminine traits so much, we consider it "failing" at masculinity to take feminine traits on.
[–]CosmicKeys 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
I disagree, that is the bog standard feminist assertion on the topic though.
An alternate version is that women are innately valuable and so gaining more agency is never a problem unless it puts them in danger. On the other hand, men cannot gain more innate value, and so losing agency (signified by acting feminine) is more harshly chastised.
Regardless, these kinds of examinings of are almost always trying to say "Let's remember who has it worse". It's an awful game to play when it creates a divide in people who agree that it's a bad thing in the first place.
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
First, I'm not arguing about who has it worse. Rather I'm discussing how the system is set up.
Second, again...I find word choice quite interesting in that you talk about "losing agency" as being "signified by acting feminine." i.e. Agency=masculine, losing agency=feminine. -- Okay, AND then on top of that western culture highly values agency. I mean, that should be obvious from your own comment in which you imply that gaining agency is a good thing.
Also, to take a quote from Margaret Attwood's A Handmaid's Tale - " I want to be valued, in ways that I am not; I want to be more than valuable." -- Agency, at least in western culture, is about being valued for what you DO. Being valuable, is about being a prized possession of the folks who actually have agency.
[–]CosmicKeys 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
[Society hates feminine traits] AND then on top of that western culture highly values agency.
Western culture highly values beauty and sexuality in women though. Just because you don't like the power of sexuality does not make it less valued.
[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Just step back for a moment and take a look at HOW western culture values beauty and sexuality in women. It's PURELY as the object of someone else's perspective. 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).
And to be valued as an object is LESS than to be valued as an agent.
Thus Attwood's quote: "I want to be valued, in ways that I am not; I want to be more than valuable."
[–]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.
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
Society hates feminine traits so much, we consider it "failing" at masculinity to take feminine traits on.
So when a woman is called a "slut" for being sexually aggressive or promiscuous, or a "bitch" for being forceful and assertive, or a "dyke" for being hairy or muscular, that's an example of how much society hates masculine traits, right?
[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Ah, that old chestnut. If it works one direction, it must work in the other direction...as though social context and power dynamics mean nothing.
http://radicalcentristblog.wordpress.com/2013/10/28/mens-rights-subreddit-attempts-to-create-an-mrm-framework/
[–]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:
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?
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'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?
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...well then there's not much point in continuing this conversation.
[–]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.
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
What are you talking about? Masculinity is demonized at every turn and you-go-girlism is rampant.
EDIT: Modern women ARE failing at femininity. Or at least making femininity and masculinity vague concepts (until it's time to shame boys about being pussies)
[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Right see here's the problem with what you've just written....note the language you've used..."shame boys about being pussies." i.e., shame boys about being FEMININE as denoted by a derogatory word for female genitalia.
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
Feminine boys are shamed. Masculine girls are not shamed.
Masculine boys are shamed. Feminine girls are not shamed.
Society clearly prefers women.
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Say what, now? I agree women have more wiggle room regarding gender performance...but masculine girls aren't shamed? AREN'T SHAMED? The term "tom boy" is not a compliment, especially after girls reach a certain age.
And feminine girls aren't shamed? My goodness...if we take one example of something tied to femininity (say being emotional)...then yes, feminine girls are definitely shamed. More than shamed, they are denied opportunities for being "too" feminine. i.e. the idea that a woman can't be a good President because she'd be too emotional.
[–]JoshtheAspie 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The term "tom boy" is not a compliment, especially after girls reach a certain age.
That's interesting. I've heard girls and their mothers use that term as a mark of pride, as well as older gals use it to describe their youth with pride.
It's usually used as a mark of pride to explain why they fail at traditionally feminine tasks I know how to perform, like cooking and sewing.
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I hesitate to get involved in this, but saying the term 'tom boy' is less than neutral seems like something you have perceived but not everyone has perceived the same thing. While I do not intend to attack your perception, as I expect it is rooted in your experience and not at all flippant, I'd like to provide the counter-example that in my experience and perception 'tom boy' has been used in a complimentary manner more often than derisively. This applies to females from the single digits up to their twenties. Maybe it's a cultural difference, though.
No, I'm not talking about just personal experience. I'm speaking through rather extensive reading on the subject.
But, as JoshtheAspire actually hints at...often when it is used as a compliment, it's done in a "I'm not like other girls," sort of a way. And usually as a mark of 'when I was young I wasn't like other girls,' rather than as something one continues to be as they grow up. At some point (and different cultures are different), women are expected to toss aside the "silly notion" that they can do masculine things, and embrace the feminine gender role - even though the feminine gender role is considered less desirable than the masculine gender role.
[–]throw-away-today 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
Tom boy was most certainly a badge of pride amongst girls I grew up with. It basically meant they were friends with guys and therefore cracked the cootie code.
[–]throw-away-today -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Generalizations aren't helpful or realistic, they weaken your argument.
Girls are more likely to show feminine and masculine traits without critique, whereas men are not. More likely.
I mean, look at the "metro" culture of California. I know men that use leave in conditioners, Chapstick, moisturizers, and foundation and no one gives them shit for it. That's pretty feminine to me, personally. I know guys that talk about chick flicks, shopping, and home interior design and no ones questions their sexuality.
TL;DR society is a very broad term.
[–]mineobile 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
My easy bake oven was a beast.
[–]YetAnotherCommenter 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I think there's a lot to be said for getting kids a bigendered toy collection.
There's a unique satisfaction to be had in tying a doll to the tracks of your train set and running it over.
That, plus a lot of "boy toys" and "girl toys" are differentiated mostly by marketing and window-dressing rather than by what the toy actually does.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Or you can let the kid tell YOU what toys they want and not fucking politicize it.
[–]YetAnotherCommenter 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I absolutely agree with you. I was being humorous, not politicizing a toy collection.
Of course what should matter is the toy the child wants, absolutely.
[–]MoFuckinBananas 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Does the toy cause pain or damage as a feature? Yes? Then no not for kids. Otherwise, have fun.
[–]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
I appreciate the seemingly rare instances of logic in this subreddit. Fuck gender norms.
[–]Morichalion 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Uh... sure I'm not stepping on toes anywhere? You are still grinding that axe, right?
[–]transsisterradio 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
ha! I didn't realize I was responding to you. I really agree with every word you posted there, and disagree with your comments on the other comment thread. Ah people and their opinions are complex. In person, I wonder if we would get along or loathe each other.
[–]Morichalion 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Depends on how often you seek out social justice, and how often I end up in the middle of it.
I don't think I'd loathe you. It takes a lot to get that reaction out of me. So far, you haven't proposed hurting anyone or adopting policies that are expressly designed to hurt anyone, which is really the line of thinking that inspires loathing from me.
I doubt I'd seek out your company, though.
I'm white, straight, and male. Y'know, the most evil of races, sexual identity, and genders. I'm tired of being made out as "the enemy" for any or all of those three traits.
[–]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.
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.
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
If you have two toddlers, one male and one female in a room with typical boys and girls stuff, the toddler is more likely to pick toys of his gender (boys take cars and lego, girls are more likely to pick dolls and ponies).
There are differences between genders - and that's okay. But there are SJWs who completely deny it.
Edit: Thank you for the interesting and informative Discussion!
[–]gremlina 13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
more likely to pick toys of his gender
And yet there are going to be exceptions. The problem is when the parents and the people around them try to make that decision for the child.
As a female who has never been interested in baby dolls who grew up to be vehemently horrified by the idea of being pregnant (personally -- others can feel free to get as pregnant as they like), it's not about the majority who fits the norms, it's about the ones who don't that people like you keep trying to cram into the right slot.
[–]MeEvilBob 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
It's people that don't seem to realize that supporting equality doesn't mean believing that everyone is exactly the same in every way. Anyone who refuses to acknowledge that there is a difference between men and women may mean well but isn't that observant.
[–]felixg3 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I support your opinion.
[–]hugged_at_gunpoint 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Believing everyone is the same is different than treating everyone the same.
[–]JoshtheAspie 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
If you treat everyone the same while believing that they are different, aren't you acting in a way disconnected with your understanding of reality? How can that be a positive thing?
If you have two children (of any combination of sexes), and one is more phyically vulnerable than the other, and more sedate, and you have annother that is more emotionally vulnerable and rambunctious, then you should take those qualities into account when deciding how to best protect and nurture your children.
[–]AlexReynard -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That's very well said.
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
very nice series related to this and similar issues. (norwegian with english subtitles) http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xp0tg8_hjernevask-brainwashing-english-part-1-the-gender-equality-paradox_news
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
Except what that means varies with culture and time. See here: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/04/fdr-grew-up-in-a-dress-it-wasnt-always-blue-for-boys-and-pink-for-girls/237299/
Of course toddlers are more likely to pick up toys related to their gender - they've had months or years of socialization to do so. There might be innate differences between the genders, but we sure as hell won't know them until we can significantly decrease our current biases. But it's fairly clear at this point that any that do exist are not worth shaping society around.
[–]ZorbaTHut 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Except what that means varies with culture and time. See here:
That's talking about color, though, not toy type. I'm very skeptical about whether toy choice also varies with culture and time, given that it doesn't seem to vary by species.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
it doesn't seem to vary by species.
Humans aren't the only species that can be socialized. You still haven't ruled anything out.
[–]ZorbaTHut 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Are you suggesting that all human and animal social behavior "varies with culture and time", but by pure coincidence, a set of monkeys happens to have the exact same cultural conditioning at this time that humans do?
Or are you suggesting that us humans are culturally influencing the monkeys somehow?
This is really feeling like a stretch to me.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
This one. These are monkeys in captivity, of course our behavior influences them.
[–]ZorbaTHut 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I really doubt the researchers and hanging out and playing games with the monkeys. The cultural influence is going to be quite minimal, and this really feels like grasping at straws.
... have you ever worked in a primate research lab? Of course the researchers hang out and play games with the monkeys.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
they've had months or years of socialization to do so.
Except the same thing happens with infants.
[–]felixg3 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Yes, that was part of the article I read. There IS a difference of the toy choice, regardless of socialisation.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Why are infants immune to socialization?
[–]felixg3 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
They aren't. Socialisation begins at the very first moment. But in the discussed study they tried to socialise them gender neutral.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
We're nowhere near the point where we can socialize gender-neutral, and there is an obvious difference between those we attempt to socialize neutrally and those we don't. There may be innate differences, but we don't have the capability to know them yet - and it's clear at this point that such differences are not worth capitalizing on. And certainly not worth enforcing or forcing on those who don't have them.
[–]felixg3 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I agree on your point.
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Do you really think they just pick up a complex gender identity purely by osmosis in that short a time? If so, then why do virtually the same results occur in children from different cultures with different ideas about gender and even in monkeys? I'm sorry, but gender is not the result of some global conspiracy!
Do you really think they just pick up a complex gender identity purely by osmosis in that short a time?
There isn't much that's complex about this aspect of gender identity.
why do virtually the same results occur in children from different cultures
They don't. Unless you're using "virtually" as a ridiculously broad wiggle word - and even then, you have to ignore some cultures completely.
some global conspiracy
Oh please. It's a largely social construct. That doesn't mean conspiracy.
[–]Morichalion 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
This is a fair point, and very few people would disagree.
But how do you treat the exceptions to this rule? The girl who picks cars and action figures? The boy who picks dolls? Is it justifiable to treat them poorly for such choices, and why?
[–]felixg3 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
This is not a rule. The exceptions are quite common (around 25%), but there is still a connection.
[–]Morichalion 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Is it justifiable to treat them poorly for such choices, and why?
This was the important question... why ignore it?
[–]felixg3 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Because I am on a mobile and couldn't see the question while typing the answer :-) Of course one should not treat them in a different way because of their choice. But what really grinds my gears is the stigmatisation of boys. If a girl wants to play with Lego, cars or wants to join the boys who beat themselves up with sticks, that's okay. Buy if a boy wants to play with dolls or other girls stuff, he is going to be bullied.
My opinion on this topic only describes that there is a connection between gender and choice of toys (even if they are treated equally before). I think that there is an anthropological explanation for this. Maybe girls have the urge to care about babies (dolls) and boys to defend them (playing with toy soldiers and sticks outside in the forest).
[–]Morichalion 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Of course one should not treat them in a different way because of their choice.
All I wanted to hear... :P Sorry, this whole thread has me wound up.
There's obviously causes for these traits, lots of generations of groups facing down other groups and the groups that protected their women best got to stay alive.
[–]hugged_at_gunpoint 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
the toddler is more likely to pick toys of his gender
That's a claim you need to back up with citation.
[–]gprime312 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
They really do, it's been studied many times. But that's not important. What's important is not disparaging the outliers and allowing them to choose what they like.
[–]felixg3 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I read that in a newspaper in my university bibliotheca some months ago. Can't remember which magazine, most likely Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung or Die Welt. I dont claim that there are 99% of the boys that choose cars, but there is a significant coincidence that is proven.
[–]JoshtheAspie 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I recall a similar experiment where they put kids in rooms with toys for the opposite sex, and the boys wound up using the girls dolls as soldiers and fighter-planes, and the girls wound up playing house with the soldier dolls.
[–]draykow 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I'm really confused about this post. Is it sarcastic or serious? Are gender roles bad on this sub or good?
[–]Morichalion 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I'd guess that the post is serious. At least, I'm taking it to be.
There's a bit of disagreement on that issue of gender roles here. The best answer I have is, "depends on who you talk to." Sometimes, "depends on the very narrow-specific issue we're talking about."
For the most part, judging from how the votes are falling on various comments, I'm gonna say yeah, prevailing opinion says gender roles are kinda bad.
As for myself, I've posted a comment that I hope clears up my own view clearly enough.
The question I have is; what do you think? Do you think gender roles are important?
[–]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.
[+][deleted] 12 years ago (52 children) | Copy Link
[–]Morichalion 25 points26 points27 points 12 years ago (49 children) | Copy Link
How do you respond to a boy who wants the latest My Little Pony figurine?
How do you respond to a girl who wants a brand new GI Joe action figure?
[+]masterrod -55 points-54 points-53 points 12 years ago (47 children) | Copy Link
Interesting.. for me i'd wonder why. Unless he has a sister and their playing together. I'd have to avoid the question until he made it evident that he needed it. If he made a good case, then i'd buy it.
This wouldn't bother me too much, but i'd immediately I think she's developing sexuality much too quickly. I'd be more inclined to buy her a GI joe figure, than the pony figure for my son. But not a full set.
[–][deleted] 65 points66 points67 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
This wouldn't bother me too much, but i'd immediately I think she's developing sexuality much too quickly.
A girl wants a military action figure and your first thought is she's getting turned on by it? What the fuck, man.
[–]IAmTheBauss 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I think it's a troll, brother.
[–]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
I would and do.
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.
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 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
They didn't seem rhetorical so I answered
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.
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.
I have a little problem with my girl playing house with half naked action figures. Sorry. But truly that's a mom assessment.
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
I think you may not have realized that it's socially acceptable for girls/women to believe in unicorns(I.e Prince Charming, etc.)
We'll believing in unicorns when dating women makes things difficult, and easy way to get played.
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.
Sorry I didn't know you had a monopoly on right. Let me know next time.
Too bad.
[–]Chross 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
When I was a kid I wanted My Little Pony figures because you could brush their hair and some of them had wings and others had magic which was cool. Plus, they came in purple and pink, my favorite colours at the time.
[–]connorheardawho 22 points23 points24 points 12 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link
what a shitty mentality. If my kid wanted a toy that didn't conform to the 'modern conventions' that their gender role expects I wouldn't question it once? This is how homophobia is developed, which is completely wrong in my opinion. And plus, just because my kid wants to play with a barbie doll or a GI Joe doll, doesn't mean anything? They're kids and they want to play with toys regardless of their colour... What's your opinion on the LGBT community?
[+]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
I'm a male and not at any point in my life did I choose to be attracted to women. I just was. Was I deprived of a choice? When did you get to choose?
[+]masterrod -20 points-19 points-18 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Did you choose who you fuck or was that forced on you?
[–]eggoChicken[S] 20 points21 points22 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I choose who I fuck, but I DON'T get to choose who I want to fuck.
[–]Morichalion 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Not the most intelligent question.
Being raped (being forced to have sex) is not an indicator of the victim's sexual preferences.
[–]Chross 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
No one thinks that gays don't choose their partners. They just think that when given the choice, they would choose a same sex partner because that is what they are attracted to. Attraction is not a choice.
[+][deleted] 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]The_Truthkeeper 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
FUCKING NINJA
I thought you said GI Joes weren't sexual?
[–]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
[–]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] 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
GI joes is hyper masculine image. Ken is a husband.
I would be concerned with her playing house with hyper masculine figures. That's like a boy playing with a stripper doll.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
Why shouldn't young girls be comfortable with male figures when they're young? What about their fathers? Uncles? Brothers? Grandfathers? Neighbors? Men aren't scary monsters to be afraid of, that's how you raise women who believe all men are bad, by depriving them of positive male influence in their lives.
[–]masterrod -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I didn't say shouldn't. I said if she was playing with GI joe in a house setting I would be concerned that my little girl was growing up too fast.
I said also hyper masculine figures not just any masculine figure.
[–]twigtts 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
I do not believe people are born to sleep with a specific type of person. I think it's a choice
This mentality right here is what makes you a piece of shit.
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I think that people often speak from personal experience. When I hear someone say that sexuality is a choice, what I actually hear is: "I'm bi and choose to ignore/suppress attraction to people that have the same sex as me".
[–]nathan8999 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Seems like away to dismiss the opposite opinion because you're incapable of proving that opinion wrong.
[+]masterrod -8 points-7 points-6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Try to prove it. If heteros can choose who they sleep with then why can't any some else?
You may not be able to choose who you love. But someone can choose whom they're with and who they fuck. That's life. LGBTs want to build the propaganda that a person has zero control of their genitals and that's just bad logic. People have control over their genitals, but they have the freedom to fuck whomever they want in America. LGBTS should spend more time ask people to explore their sexuality versus calling out heteros for unfavorable LGBT views.
[–]Chross 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
Lgbt people aren't saying that they can't help sleeping with one another, they are saying you don't choose which gender you are attracted to. They could choose to be alone forever I guess... But what kind of choice is that?
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.
Why? I think it is quite pointless to try to hide the fact that boys and men exists. I have a 6 year old niece, when she plays with her dolls or even teddy bears she usually plays that one is a daddy, one is a mommy and a third is a daughter.
I wouldn't have a problem buying her some tools, if she wanted them.
That is good.
[–]masterrod 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link
Exactly. GI joes are muscle bound half naked action figures. I would be concerned that she's playing house with that type of hyper masculine image. My concern would be that she was growing up too fast. I'd be ok with her playing house with a Ken doll. Because Ken is a benign male figure, without a personality. I'm sure her mother would just override me, but that would be my concern. Barring being overridden, I would ask my daughter to make a good case for the toy if she wanted it.
Until she made a bomb. Haha.. Ty...
Exactly. GI joes are muscle bound half naked action figures
I'm not very familiar with GI Joe "action figures", but most I have seen have had clothes on. I would be more worried about the violent nature of the toy than how much clothes or muscles it had.
Until she made a bomb
Just remember to take out the diesel and fertilizer from the set before you wrap it...
[–]masterrod 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That's a good point; I didn't really think of violence. I as a dad I'm more worried about her getting used to the wrong type of men too soon. I know she will do it anyway, but better as teenager than a little girl.
Check!
[–]JoshtheAspie 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago* (4 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.
Oh, and I'm gonna build a dragon mecha battle-robot for spike to ride in.
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... but only after the care-bare-stare from the giant Care-bear had weakened the evil mind-control.
[–]masterrod -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Yep the MLP is a symbol for the ideal man. He-man rides the ideal woman. Implied gender roles in each.
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
Spike is the baby dragon from both the origional MLP, and MLP: Friendship is Magic. He's one of the few male characters in either show.
And kids usually don't have a lot of bariers built up, until others inculcate them. That includes enjoying cross-reality adventures. The kid from Toy Story reminds me of some of my own make-believe as a kid.
Seriously, the ponies go on adventures. Most boys like adventures, and steeds. Also, sometimes the best show in the time slot is targeted for gals, but enjoyed by guys. Why wouldn't your son want the ponies?
[–]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
MLP just stands for "My Little Ponies". "Friendship is Magic" is the appelation for the new serries. It's like distinguishing between Star Trek: TOS and Star Trek: TNG. Both are Star Trek.
Also, boxes are awesome. You can make them into castles, or rocket ships.
And yes, observing parents, and hanging out with their group of friends are two of the ways children learn and grow. Even among adults, it's said that in a few years you'll grow to be more like the average of your 5 closest friends.
[–]VZPurp 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
What kind of nonsense is this?
[–]Grubnar 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
OK, that was a bit funny.
[+][deleted] 12 years ago* (20 children) | Copy Link
[–]Morichalion 14 points15 points16 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Gender roles (on most topics, not just toys), are part of the "bigger" issues you described.
A kid going through school being bullied and harassed is going to be more likely to succumb to self-harm of some kind. It doesn't matter WHY they're being harassed, and I've seen folks get vicious over choices of entertainment.
This is shit that radfems bitch about.
This is all too similar to invoking hitler.
[–]Is_It_A_Throwaway 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Thank you, Morichalion, you and people like you is why this sub is still worthy.
[–]Morichalion 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Thanks.
[+][deleted] 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Morichalion 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Radfems
Is about equal to and definable as
Hitler
At least, in many of the contexts I've seen it in. It's an insult that makes little real sense anymore, but adds that little bit of emotional weight to an argument when data just doesn't help anymore. The "Hitler" comment is usually used in political talk shows, "Radfems" here, usually.
"WE are right because THEY are evil" is a poor measure of how 'right' we actually are. The value of our discussion should not be measured by what the other groups do.
[+][deleted] 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] 12 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] 12 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]hugged_at_gunpoint -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
How do you define "Feminine" aside from "having female parts"? "Gender" and "gender role" aren't the same thing.
[–]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
Women are not going to mate with men who have abandoned masculinity. It's real strange that people here are focused on removing gender roles. Feminism's obsession with gender roles is one of the reasons they're completely nonsensical.
[–]FerCrerker 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Nice picture, I like the top font in particular; I use it occasionally when designing.
[–]HeyThereCharlie 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Either the circles or the text inside them needs to be darker. The low contrast makes it hard to read.
[–]DarthNobody 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That seems fairly obvious, even for a guy who hasn't played with toys in almost two decades. Is this actually something modern feminists are complaining about, toys that should only be used by one sex or the other?
[–]Zosimasie -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Please keep this SJW-level kind of muckery off this sub. Please.
[–]Morichalion 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Often, when I stray into this sub, I tend to find myself confused by the content. Sometimes I'll even say so. Usually, it's something that feels like it should be in a different sub, relating to health issues or sometimes non-gender-specific legal issues. Sometimes it's just a troll-type-post, and I just downvote and leave.
But this one feels like it belongs. It's an issue that I've butted heads with folks my entire life.
Why does this particular post irk you?
[–]CosmicKeys 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
That's not a criticism of the content, it's just name calling.
[–]Zosimasie -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I'm saying it doesn't belong on this sub. What's wrong with that?
[–]hugged_at_gunpoint 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That's not all you said.
[–]CosmicKeys -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Because your comment had no real content or explanation.
[–]Funcuz 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Okay...we're descending into the same stupidity as all of the feminists we bitch about.
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 , I get that we shouldn't tell boys they have to play with toy guns and girls have to play with dolls but for fuck's sake...ENOUGH OF THE GOD-DAMNED POLITICAL CORRECTNESS ! Boys generally DO want to play toy guns and girls generally DO want to play with dolls.
Stop fighting what everybody else in the history of this planet took to be obvious.
[–]YetAnotherCommenter 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
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
Boys and girls typically only want "gendered toys" because it's enforced by their parents and peers. I know for a fact that I didn't want to play with dolls or play dress up. My father was a military man and my brothers had toy guns. It was way more fun to play "point and shoot" games than sitting around hugging a baby doll.
It's not political correctness. It's kids playing with fucking toys. Yet there are parents everywhere that say shit like "No that's for boys/girls, not for you."
So no, it's not "obvious" to a lot of people.
Boys and girls typically only want "gendered toys" because it's enforced by their parents and peers.
It is not necessarily that simple. There is some evidence that there might be a biological component in the difference: http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_REPORT/erarchive/2008/April/April21/YerkesMonkeyToys.htm
I wouldn't buy a toy gun to any child. Guns are not toys, and they should not learn to treat them like toys. If a child only wanted guns, I would ask them if there was anything else they wanted. If they could not think of anything else, I would start suggesting things that I found appropriate, such as toy cars, books etc. I am not categorically opposed to buy dolls to girls (I once bought a pink doll crib for one of my (much) younger female cousins), but I try to buy presents that are closer to gender neutral, such as books and Lego.
[–]droterse -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Wow, that's so modern and progressive. I'm happy /r/MensRights is just like every other effeminate "rights" movement out there. Truly you all are a beacon of hope for the few rational people left in the world.
[–]Vahnya 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Why? This sub is mostly an egalitarian subreddit and it believes in equality. This post fits in here.
"A non-related to MRA guide for parents" should be the title.
Dammit, that made me think of kids using their genitalia as iPad styluses...
[–]EinsteinRidesShotgun -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I like it. Simple. Good.
[–]transsisterradio -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link
This is awesome, minus the cissexism(transphobia).
[–]Vahnya 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
Oh my god, how the fuck is this "transphobia"?
Nowhere does it mention penises on boys makes them boys and vaginas on girls makes them girls- it says genitals on girls or boys.
If anything this post could be incredibly trans-inclusive.
[–]Morichalion 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
It's not. /u/transsisterradio just has an axe to grind, and has been working on it for a couple of days now (according to the user's posting history). I'm not sure what could be said that wouldn't be "bad" to that person.
[–]transsisterradio 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I literally just said that this post was awesome, minus the one issue that gender is not linked to genitals (see my reply to Vahnya). I just think the important goal that is the destruction of gender roles should not depend on enforcing gender as synonymous to sex. I wouldn't be here if I didn't want to challenge and be challenged.
You're trying to pick a fight where there's none to be had.
I'd say you ARE challenged.
[–]Vahnya 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Most likely leaked from tumblr.
I don't often go to tumblr. When I do, it's usually because I'm trying to find the source for some web comic someone posts on other subs.
[–]transsisterradio 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Basically, it implies that maleness can be reduced to penises and femaleness can be reduced to vaginas. According to its logic, a toy is only non-gendered if it isn't used on one's genitals. But to say that is to say that gender is decided by one's genitals, which is cissexist.
Technically though, it's cissexist, not transphobic, but those are closely related terms.
I feel like you're being offended at something that doesn't need to be.
You are literally looking to be offended at something.
[–]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
Basically, it implies that maleness can be reduced to penises and femaleness can be reduced to vaginas.
But... it doesn't o_O It only refers to genitals in the sense of separating toys into sex toys for adults and normal toys for children. It doesn't refer to genitals as a way to separate males from females.
[–]transsisterradio 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I wasn't trying to make it a big deal when I said it was cissexist, as I like the overall message, but the message would not work if it didn't rely on the argument that men are men because they have penises and women are women because of their vaginas. The whole joke wouldn't make sense without that implicit argument, therefore it is cissexist.
With this lens of potential cissexism in mind, I looked at the photo again. Personally I'm thinking that if the "it's for girls or boys" hand been changed to "this is a toy for children of any gender," or something, it'd take the underlying cissexism out of it.
That's where I see the cissexism, not in the mention of genitals...but in the clear-cut use of "boys and girls."
[–]transsisterradio 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
as a little mexican girl once said,"can't it be both?" personally, I think it's both, but I'm glad you mentioned that aspect of it. There are people with genders other than male or female (I'm one of them lol), so only giving two options is indeed cissexist, as you said. I still think the whole argument plays off the premise of genders being based on genitals. It cleverly subvert our expectations, which is why it's funny, but I don't think that (even with your suggestion) it subverts the premise. I'm not sure if the joke could be made without it though...
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
Well, true, its not perfect and it doesn't fully capture the real-world complexities and subtleties of sex and gender (and human biological development etc)... but its a simple meme.
Its a slogan. Catchphrase. Its intended to be pithy and get into people's heads.
This necessarily means some subtlety and nuance has to be sacrificed.
I'm not saying that the meme is perfect... I'm just saying that sometimes the conventions of a particular kind of communication don't always allow perfectly inclusive language.
I agree, sometimes you've just got to say fuck it and acknowledge the shortcomings in what you're trying to say so that you can say it at all. But that it is so often trans-related things that get sacrificed is indicative that people aren't even trying/aren't aware to even try. Trans people have historically been thrown under the bus so that other groups (gays, women) can win their rights.
[–]YetAnotherCommenter 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
But that it is so often trans-related things that get sacrificed is indicative that people aren't even trying/aren't aware to even try. Trans people have historically been thrown under the bus so that other groups (gays, women) can win their rights.
Also a good point. That said, you're welcome to try and work on some pro-trans memes of your own. I'd certainly be supportive, even though I think memes which explained the complexity and nuance of human biology (and how some parts of the body and brain can be sexually developed in different ways to others in certain individuals etc. etc.) would be pretty difficult to create.
[+]bigrob1 -8 points-7 points-6 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Fuck this, Im sick of the its ok either way attitude of some of the people on this sub. Give boys guns and GI Joes and legos and give girls barbies and EZ Bake ovens. Done, problem solved. We have gender roles for reasons. Its not okay if a boy wants to be a pussy and a girl wants to be butch. We need men in leadership and protective roles and women in caring roles. MRAs who advocate little boys acting like little girls if they want are just as big a detriment to our society as feminists.
[–]YetAnotherCommenter 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Downvoted because attitudes like yours are the antithesis of men's rights.
[–]a_little_duck 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
We have gender roles for reasons.
We have gender roles for basically the same reasons as we have astrology and creationism.
Hey, Lauren Faust posted this on twitter!
Could you link to the tweet?
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]Super_delicious 50 points51 points52 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]redfrobro 20 points21 points22 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]Super_delicious 12 points13 points14 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]ChemicalRascal 18 points19 points20 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Eenjoy 2 points3 points4 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]diamondjim 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ChemicalRascal 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]zNzN 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]pogmathoinct 8 points9 points10 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Built2Last 47 points48 points49 points (38 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 45 points46 points47 points (22 children) | Copy Link
[–]k1ngm1nu5 25 points26 points27 points (21 children) | Copy Link
[–]squidick 17 points18 points19 points (19 children) | Copy Link
[–]k1ngm1nu5 9 points10 points11 points (17 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 21 points22 points23 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]JoshtheAspie 3 points4 points5 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 17 points18 points19 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]JoshtheAspie 11 points12 points13 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]GodOBiscuits 1 point2 points3 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]GodOBiscuits 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]squidick 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]k1ngm1nu5 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]lenspirate 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]kehlder 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]AUGUST_BURNS_REDDIT 14 points15 points16 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]blazefreak 5 points6 points7 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]cuckname 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MegMartinson 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Eenjoy 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]nicholmikey 8 points9 points10 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]coonstev 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]intensely_human 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]eggoChicken[S] 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]uncommonman 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]CKlandSHARK 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Pecanpig 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]I_divided_by_0- -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Crackerjacksurgeon 81 points82 points83 points (52 children) | Copy Link
[–]eggoChicken[S] 99 points100 points101 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (4 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]Xanthan81 25 points26 points27 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]IlleFacitFinem 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]DukeofLizards 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Skorpazoid 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Wannabkate 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Pablol 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]eggoChicken[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (5 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]sv21js 15 points16 points17 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]eggoChicken[S] 7 points8 points9 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]napalm_anal_emission 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]kulkija 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]johnny_gunn 9 points10 points11 points (34 children) | Copy Link
[–]Crackerjacksurgeon 8 points9 points10 points (33 children) | Copy Link
[–]eggoChicken[S] 15 points16 points17 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Muffinizer1 8 points9 points10 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]throw-away-today 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]fiat_lux_ 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -9 points-8 points-7 points (28 children) | Copy Link
[–]CosmicKeys 9 points10 points11 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]CosmicKeys 10 points11 points12 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]CosmicKeys 10 points11 points12 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]johnmarkley 6 points7 points8 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Bodertz 3 points4 points5 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Bodertz 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Bodertz 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Crackerjacksurgeon 15 points16 points17 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Crackerjacksurgeon 11 points12 points13 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]JoshtheAspie 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]throw-away-today 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]throw-away-today -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mineobile 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]YetAnotherCommenter 5 points6 points7 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]YetAnotherCommenter 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MoFuckinBananas 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Morichalion 8 points9 points10 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]transsisterradio 2 points3 points4 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Morichalion 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]transsisterradio 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Morichalion 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]transsisterradio 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Morichalion 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]felixg3 15 points16 points17 points (33 children) | Copy Link
[–]gremlina 13 points14 points15 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]MeEvilBob 8 points9 points10 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]felixg3 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]hugged_at_gunpoint 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]JoshtheAspie 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]AlexReynard -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–]ZorbaTHut 2 points3 points4 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]ZorbaTHut 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]ZorbaTHut 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]felixg3 1 point2 points3 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]felixg3 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]felixg3 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Morichalion 2 points3 points4 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]felixg3 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Morichalion 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]felixg3 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Morichalion 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]hugged_at_gunpoint 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]gprime312 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]felixg3 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]JoshtheAspie 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]draykow 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Morichalion 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]draykow 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (52 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]Morichalion 25 points26 points27 points (49 children) | Copy Link
[+]masterrod -55 points-54 points-53 points (47 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 65 points66 points67 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]IAmTheBauss 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Morichalion 7 points8 points9 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[+]masterrod -10 points-9 points-8 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Morichalion 4 points5 points6 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[+]masterrod -8 points-7 points-6 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Morichalion 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[+]masterrod -10 points-9 points-8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Chross 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]connorheardawho 22 points23 points24 points (32 children) | Copy Link
[+]masterrod -33 points-32 points-31 points (31 children) | Copy Link
[–]eggoChicken[S] 27 points28 points29 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[+]masterrod -20 points-19 points-18 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]eggoChicken[S] 20 points21 points22 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Morichalion 10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Chross 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (8 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]The_Truthkeeper 7 points8 points9 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]masterrod -5 points-4 points-3 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (3 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]masterrod 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[+]masterrod -9 points-8 points-7 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]masterrod -4 points-3 points-2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]masterrod -3 points-2 points-1 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]twigtts 9 points10 points11 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]nathan8999 -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]masterrod -8 points-7 points-6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Chross 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]masterrod 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]masterrod 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]JoshtheAspie 4 points5 points6 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]masterrod -4 points-3 points-2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]JoshtheAspie 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]masterrod -3 points-2 points-1 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]JoshtheAspie 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]VZPurp 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Grubnar 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (20 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]Morichalion 14 points15 points16 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Is_It_A_Throwaway 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Morichalion 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]Morichalion 8 points9 points10 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (12 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[+][deleted] (11 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[+][deleted] (7 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[+][deleted] (6 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[+][deleted] (4 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]hugged_at_gunpoint -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]a_little_duck 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]VZPurp -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]FerCrerker 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]HeyThereCharlie 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DarthNobody 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Zosimasie -4 points-3 points-2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Morichalion 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]CosmicKeys 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Zosimasie -3 points-2 points-1 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]hugged_at_gunpoint 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]CosmicKeys -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Funcuz 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]YetAnotherCommenter 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Vahnya 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]droterse -5 points-4 points-3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]Vahnya 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]AlexReynard -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]EinsteinRidesShotgun -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]transsisterradio -4 points-3 points-2 points (17 children) | Copy Link
[–]Vahnya 1 point2 points3 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]Morichalion 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]transsisterradio 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Morichalion 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Vahnya 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Morichalion 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]transsisterradio 0 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]Vahnya 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]transsisterradio 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]a_little_duck 1 point2 points3 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]transsisterradio 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]transsisterradio 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]YetAnotherCommenter 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]transsisterradio 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]YetAnotherCommenter 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]bigrob1 -8 points-7 points-6 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]YetAnotherCommenter 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]a_little_duck 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Morichalion 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link