So the most egregious societal act against women has gone from being denied the right to vote, to Xerxes having a nose ring. I think the battle for equality is coming to a close.
The Big Picture: Pink Is Not The Problem
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I find it ironic that 300 uses gay as a shorthand for villain, look up ancient Spartan culture to know why.
it?s not like its impossible to buy girl toys as a boy,it?s like complaining that Mac Donald is marketing to people who like fast food.
the problem is not the pink aisle but the people who bully boys who buy girl toys.
it?s not like its impossible to buy girl toys as a boy,it?s like complaining that Mac Donald is marketing to people who like fast food.
the problem is not the pink aisle but the people who bully boys who buy girl toys.
This is what bugged me about Bobs video. He starts off toys don't have an inherent gender (to which I agree) but then goes on to say traits do (to which I disagree).CymbaIine said:
Traits themselves do not have a specific gender, sure stereotypes will often consists of a number of traits, but that does not make the trait itself belong to that stereotype and just because something else also exhibits the same trait does not make it fall under the same category as the stereotype.
Take the vanity example, the first story I'm aware of that uses vanity was that of Narcissus [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissus_(mythology)] and nothing in the story describes him as being feminine.
Ummm? You might not have picked the best days to post this one Bob. No really, when the top of the Drudge Report has a major research study kind of clearly defining that in many ways Gender roles, or at least Gender Perceptions and thought processes are not artificial constructs and are in fact biological or if you prefer actual physiological constructs. As in THEY ARE HARDWIRED IN.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/the-hardwired-difference-between-male-and-female-brains-could-explain-why-men-are-better-at-map-reading-8978248.html
Gee, maybe just maybe there was something to the million dollars Lego spent in research to determine that in spite of what all the well meaning adults kept demanding of them, little girls do in fact play differently than little boys, and they do have distinctly different toy preferences.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/the-hardwired-difference-between-male-and-female-brains-could-explain-why-men-are-better-at-map-reading-8978248.html
Gee, maybe just maybe there was something to the million dollars Lego spent in research to determine that in spite of what all the well meaning adults kept demanding of them, little girls do in fact play differently than little boys, and they do have distinctly different toy preferences.
Imposible! What should not exist, can not exist!faefrost said:
Burn this ... ähh witcher ... i guess, on the stacke.
Wait wait, gender a social construct? I thought it was more something based on the fact that some of us humans have plugs and some of us have outlets (or inlets, as the matter may be). Also something with hormones. I mean, yes, social interpretations on what either sex should do, look like and be like were constructed, but that does not change the very fact that sexes are, by their very nature, at least for the vast majority of Homo Sapiens, a binary thing. You cannot socio-construct that away.
The trick about gender equality is not baselining everyone. The trick is to acknowledge each gender's strengths and let everyone pursue them to their fullest and on socially equal footing. At the same time, however, you need to acknowledge that there *are* physical/biological, even behavioural/hormonal differences, and those won't go away.
Of course, that wasn't the main topic of the episode, and I agree that "the pink aisle" is certainly a leftover thing from a bygone era that will inevitably disappear sooner rather than later, but the broader context the question is presented in here goes a bit too far overboard with its generalizations (as Bob likes to do).
Another disclaimer: I'm European, which puts me outside of Bob's target group as I have noticed in several videos.
The trick about gender equality is not baselining everyone. The trick is to acknowledge each gender's strengths and let everyone pursue them to their fullest and on socially equal footing. At the same time, however, you need to acknowledge that there *are* physical/biological, even behavioural/hormonal differences, and those won't go away.
Of course, that wasn't the main topic of the episode, and I agree that "the pink aisle" is certainly a leftover thing from a bygone era that will inevitably disappear sooner rather than later, but the broader context the question is presented in here goes a bit too far overboard with its generalizations (as Bob likes to do).
Another disclaimer: I'm European, which puts me outside of Bob's target group as I have noticed in several videos.
I completely agree.
Growing up liking things like games and other traditionally `masculine` hobbies, I was always sort of put in the `Tomboy` category. I sort of fell into that trap of thinking because I liked X I shouldn't like Y unless I want to be defined by it.
It's stupid to define someone by the things they enjoy.
It's perfectly okay to like making cakes and stomping zombies and there's nothing conflicting about that.
I like pink (prefer purple though), and I also like stuff that people have randomly decided are `men's things`.
Growing up liking things like games and other traditionally `masculine` hobbies, I was always sort of put in the `Tomboy` category. I sort of fell into that trap of thinking because I liked X I shouldn't like Y unless I want to be defined by it.
It's stupid to define someone by the things they enjoy.
It's perfectly okay to like making cakes and stomping zombies and there's nothing conflicting about that.
I like pink (prefer purple though), and I also like stuff that people have randomly decided are `men's things`.
I see several others have already pointed out the problem of believing that gender roles and identity are purely constructs and not biological. But I'm throwing my hat in as well.
There is some real binary differences between sexes and even genders. For example, the very notion of trangenderism indicates the idea of genders that are binary and are typically attributed to one sex or another. Hence why it's notworthy at all to say that a sexually male individual is born with the gender identity that is typically assigned to sexually female individuals. To dismiss the idea of stable gender identities and differences between the two would be to not only trivialize trangendered individuals but would also dismiss countless experiments that generally establish differences in genders/sexes even when accounting for gender role influences.
There simply IS girl stuff and boy stuff. There IS a difference between genders and sexes. It isn't just some amount of time before it goes away unless gender culture eventually results in forcing people to pretend like there aren't differences which is the same coin but different side where the problem is concerned.
The problem society has faced is one of extremely firm boxing of what is one or the other and how it has resulted in social rejection of things not fitting into the arbitrary box. So it's a mistake to be too rigid where guys must like X and girls must like Y. But it's also a mistake to say that girls don't honestly trend towards liking Y on their own more than guys typically trend to like y on their own. Doing that doesn't only trivilize girls who do follow the norm of their sex as Bob pointed out but also fails to recognize possible differences.
Testosterone and Estrogen are a hell of a thing. They really do generally impact certain things in agreggate. And that's key. A girl can absolutely like manly things. Hell, my wife hates makeup and loves FPS games even more than I do. But norms are what drive business. The pink aisle exists not because of some guy in the sky trying to force gender roles on society. They exist because a lot of girls like those things. I would argue that there is a biological factor encouraging those things at play in addition to gender roles.
Success in allowing less rigid parameters for what guys and girls can like is a good thing. But failing to acknowledge trends and differences in the name of liberality is flawed and inhibits our ability to celebrate our differences and rely on the strengths that one group has more of on average than another and vice versa.
There is some real binary differences between sexes and even genders. For example, the very notion of trangenderism indicates the idea of genders that are binary and are typically attributed to one sex or another. Hence why it's notworthy at all to say that a sexually male individual is born with the gender identity that is typically assigned to sexually female individuals. To dismiss the idea of stable gender identities and differences between the two would be to not only trivialize trangendered individuals but would also dismiss countless experiments that generally establish differences in genders/sexes even when accounting for gender role influences.
There simply IS girl stuff and boy stuff. There IS a difference between genders and sexes. It isn't just some amount of time before it goes away unless gender culture eventually results in forcing people to pretend like there aren't differences which is the same coin but different side where the problem is concerned.
The problem society has faced is one of extremely firm boxing of what is one or the other and how it has resulted in social rejection of things not fitting into the arbitrary box. So it's a mistake to be too rigid where guys must like X and girls must like Y. But it's also a mistake to say that girls don't honestly trend towards liking Y on their own more than guys typically trend to like y on their own. Doing that doesn't only trivilize girls who do follow the norm of their sex as Bob pointed out but also fails to recognize possible differences.
Testosterone and Estrogen are a hell of a thing. They really do generally impact certain things in agreggate. And that's key. A girl can absolutely like manly things. Hell, my wife hates makeup and loves FPS games even more than I do. But norms are what drive business. The pink aisle exists not because of some guy in the sky trying to force gender roles on society. They exist because a lot of girls like those things. I would argue that there is a biological factor encouraging those things at play in addition to gender roles.
Success in allowing less rigid parameters for what guys and girls can like is a good thing. But failing to acknowledge trends and differences in the name of liberality is flawed and inhibits our ability to celebrate our differences and rely on the strengths that one group has more of on average than another and vice versa.
I think the main idea is that attacking dolls and "pink stuff" is a bad way to break down gender stereotypes. Campaigns against gender stereotyping have a tendency to focus on getting girls interested in "boy things" and disregard the idea that boys might also benefit from being interested in "girl things". I've come across articles that really sneer at traditionally "girly" toys (such as dolls and playhouses), which is very unfair to all the people who do actually like that stuff!Daaaah Whoosh said:
His added point on the end is that it's potentially damaging to always portray "empowering female role-models" as essentially quite "masculine" characters (and conversely villains as quite "feminine" characters). It can send the message that traditionally "masculine" traits (such as physical prowess and a stern expression) are "good" traits and traditionally "feminine" traits (such as sensitivity and pride in appearance) are "bad" or "weak" traits.
TL;DR
- Telling girls that they must only play with dolls is bad.
- Telling girls that playing with dolls makes them weak and/or stupid is also bad.
- Telling girls that they are free to play with whatever the hell they want is good.
What's manly, what's feminine? Depends on the decade and who you're asking. The only thing that really matters is the definition of the person asking the question, and the answer they come up with only really matters to that selfsame person. Bit of a tautology, perhaps.
?If someone isn't what others want them to be, the others become angry. Everyone seems to have a clear idea of how other people should lead their lives, but none about his or her own.?
?If someone isn't what others want them to be, the others become angry. Everyone seems to have a clear idea of how other people should lead their lives, but none about his or her own.?
I ran out of time, so I couldn't read the whole thing, but the mention of natural tendencies is certainly a point I was going to make.Therumancer said:
Thanks for making it for me so I can get to running off to my EDH games.
Bob, I like when you talk about movies because that is what you're good at. When you get on your soap box about boys, girls, and the mystery 3rd gender though I can't help but to roll my eyes. You've had a million of these episodes where you essentially say the same thing over and over. I can only make it though about a fourth of it before it gets so repetitive I have to turn it off.
Let me say now that I don't care whether you like pink, as a guy or blowing shit up and you're a girl. Also let me say I don't mind if you're transgendered either, but if you are, you're not a third gender, you just switched places. It is a bit more binary than Bob thinks it is. You were a guy, now a girl. Were a girl, now a guy. No extra bathroom for you.
Let me say now that I don't care whether you like pink, as a guy or blowing shit up and you're a girl. Also let me say I don't mind if you're transgendered either, but if you are, you're not a third gender, you just switched places. It is a bit more binary than Bob thinks it is. You were a guy, now a girl. Were a girl, now a guy. No extra bathroom for you.
Pride in appearance is not associated with femininity. Vanity and/or perceiving appearance as extremely important is associated with femininity. This is to the detriment of women and girls, dolls which promote negative body types and homogeneous ideas of beauty are bad.MetalMagpie said:
Wow that was heavy and certainly brought to my attention stuff I'd never noticed or considered before.
No Bob, you've got this all wrong. There is no such thing as pastel colored "Legos," because the plural of Lego is simply Lego.MovieBob said:
*gender norms*
*300*
*genderless society*
*Hunter's Game sexism conspiracy*
Really? Not even going to try to hide how sociopolitical this video, and how its extremely one sided?
Tell me again how being the "God-King" of an entire people or wanting to use war, violence and bullheaded aggression to try to conquer the entire world is a classical feminine characteristic? Or explain how wanting to protect your family and friends is somehow an exclusively masculine characteristic?
As for the Hunger Games, you must be joking. Seriously, have you seen what was worn amongst various European Aristocrats? You do realize that such images of how European Aristocrats dressed and acted is known in American society and is a go-to stereotype of rich people, right? What you just described in the hunger games sounds like a modern version of said Aristocrats.
To better explain what I'm talking about, just look up paintings of French aristocracy during the 18th century [https://www.google.com/search?q=John+Wilmot,+2nd+Earl+of+Rochester&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=DEmeUvSlJcPJqQH42YDACA&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1366&bih=618#q=french+aristocracy+18th+century&safe=off&tbm=isch&imgdii=_] or "interesting" people like John Wilmot [http://www.jotempest.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/johnwilmot.jpg].
As for the gender segment, last I checked humans are not hermaphrodites[footnote]By hermaphrodite, I mean animals like earth worms, not individual born with physical birth problems.[/footnote] and/or don't reproduce asexually, so its odd that there is this hostility towards the fact that human are be biologically either female or male.
*300*
*genderless society*
*Hunter's Game sexism conspiracy*
Really? Not even going to try to hide how sociopolitical this video, and how its extremely one sided?
Tell me again how being the "God-King" of an entire people or wanting to use war, violence and bullheaded aggression to try to conquer the entire world is a classical feminine characteristic? Or explain how wanting to protect your family and friends is somehow an exclusively masculine characteristic?
As for the Hunger Games, you must be joking. Seriously, have you seen what was worn amongst various European Aristocrats? You do realize that such images of how European Aristocrats dressed and acted is known in American society and is a go-to stereotype of rich people, right? What you just described in the hunger games sounds like a modern version of said Aristocrats.
To better explain what I'm talking about, just look up paintings of French aristocracy during the 18th century [https://www.google.com/search?q=John+Wilmot,+2nd+Earl+of+Rochester&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=DEmeUvSlJcPJqQH42YDACA&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1366&bih=618#q=french+aristocracy+18th+century&safe=off&tbm=isch&imgdii=_] or "interesting" people like John Wilmot [http://www.jotempest.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/johnwilmot.jpg].
As for the gender segment, last I checked humans are not hermaphrodites[footnote]By hermaphrodite, I mean animals like earth worms, not individual born with physical birth problems.[/footnote] and/or don't reproduce asexually, so its odd that there is this hostility towards the fact that human are be biologically either female or male.
I don't know that there is a problem in using terms like feminine and masculine when discussing things. I think the issue is in demonizing someone for being feminine or masculine. If you have a boy who likes feminine things, there simply should be no problem with that. Nor should there be an issue with a girl liking masculine things. Essentially, people should not be thought less of, made fun of, demonized, hated or condemned for liking what they like, no matter their gender.[/quote] And what if the feminine boy or masculine girl lives in a non-Western society? Should those societies be forced to conform to Western values or do the adults in such countries have the right to have their own cultural values and prohibit the boy or girl from acting in such a way?Darrosect said:
Is it really good though?Ken_J said:
I understand what Bob was getting at, but...well. Imagine the world of Katniss turned a bit on its head. The evil guys were not posh, but raw, masculine gladiators instead. Why would they need other peeps to fight for them again? The story would just fall on its face. Their poshness is a result of the society they have built.
I get what bob is getting at...but...well...what is a "real pink female role model" like then? What stories can you tell with that? Most good stories take conflict. Of some kind. It doesnt have to end in a sky high body count, but to me at least, it has to be a bit more interesting than a fight over what color lipstick is the best to catch guys with.
I feel like I'm sounding a lot more chauvinistic than I mean to here...but honestly, everything has its time and place. You might look at whatshisname in 300 and say it typically male traits, but beside his obvious looks...is it really?
He is powerful, he is loyal, he is brave.
I might as well be describing his wife here. Is she suddenly very macho because she has these traits?
I dont think so. Not sure what that means though. Maybe I'm just a bit free of the entire thing