The Big Picture: Pink Is Not The Problem

[Xman490]

These "feminine" children's products seem to be mostly about decoration, which is a much more passive - yet important - leisure activity than racing - for lack of a better comparison. Some idolize nurturing and other housework, which are more passive - yet still important, don't get me wrong - job than construction, demolition, or other public services.

The average male is stronger than the average female, from what I've heard, but such different ideals in play and work do not cater to outliers from these norms.

 

[00slash00]

I love when Bob talks about gender issues. I'm strongly in favor of ending the messaging (subliminal or otherwise) that some toys are for boys and some are for girls. That said, I completely agree that simply having pink or feminine toys or products is not the problem. I'm an outspoken feminist but one of the issues I have with the current wave of the feminist movement (one of many, really) is that it largely demonizes femininity and associates it with weakness

 

[Therumancer]

I almost thought he was going to get into My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic for a moment there, since it ties into the fact that Lauren Faust created that show with the intent of showing that something "girly" doesn't automatically make it bad.

Funnily enough, it was Powerpuff Girls where I first noticed this problem. Remember this guy?

Even back in the 90s, that one was blatant enough to rub me the wrong way.

To PPG's defense their villains were wide and varied. The Rowdyruff Boys, The Ganggreen Gang, and Fuzzy Lumpkins could all be considered "masculine."
But with that being said, Him is a very good example of what Bob is talking about.

A defense isn't even necessary. At the end of the day there is nothing wrong with having an effeminate, homosexual, and/or crossdressing bad guy. One of the biggest problems with liberalism is that it tends to lead to outcries that turn into an effort to declare certain groups into sacred cows where you can't say, do, or use them in any kind of bad, or antagonistic role at all. One of the reasons why I inherently oppose 99% of this stuff, because even when there is a legitimate point, in many cases acknowledging it is going to do 100x more damage than was being done by what it was intended to address.

At the end of the day that particular bad guy is ridiculous, he makes you laugh, that's the sum total of the point (and arguably the point of "Powerpuff Girls" to begin with). If your offended by it, change the channel.

To me it's almost like the "so offensive, it's hilarious" animated "Black Panther" cartoon they did for BET. It oozed so much anti-white racism and anti-Americanism that it was almost funny, along with making an eye rolling mockery out of some of Marvel's best creations. This is coming from someone who actually LIKES The Black Panther (at least as he is usually presented in the comics, not some of the attempts nowadays to change the character for political reasons, oftentimes coming across like he might belong in the actual Black Panther organization). I mean we're talking about defeating Juggernaut with knockout gas (nobody tell The X-men it's that easy!), turning The Ebony Blade wielding version of the Black Knight into a villain for who knows what reason just so they could define him as a religious zealot, having Klaw run around as a cyborg as opposed to a being of pure sound, and turning a Captain America Vs. Black Panther fight (one of those classic comic match ups that is typically epic, and can go either way) into a comedy routine. The intro music was okay though, and I give T'challa a lot of credit as his introduction was him pretty much clobbering The Fantastic Four at the height of their popularity... at any rate the point is that they apparently got the license, so they had the "right" to do it, I'm not going to make a statement about it being some kind of huge affront to society and a group of people and worthy of special attention for that reason. As a general rule things like this tend to be so hilariously bad that they wind up being more or less forgotten.... I mean very few people even realize there WAS a "Black Panther" cartoon show.

 

[VanQ]

I almost thought he was going to get into My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic for a moment there, since it ties into the fact that Lauren Faust created that show with the intent of showing that something "girly" doesn't automatically make it bad.

Funnily enough, it was Powerpuff Girls where I first noticed this problem. Remember this guy?

Even back in the 90s, that one was blatant enough to rub me the wrong way.

I remember HIM quite clearly. I'd be inclined to agree with you if it wasn't for the fact that 2/3 of the protagonists of the Powerpuff Girls were very feminine themselves. And the fact that while HIM was considered the most despicable of the villains in PPG, Mojo Jojo who was very masculine was probably the most dangerous and caused the most mayhem and destruction throughout the series than any other villain.

 

[Baresark]

When he's right, he's right. This is a perfect video for the reason that it points out that it's OK if girls are into things that are considered... essentially "girly". They aren't holding back other women, they don't have anything wrong with them, and they aren't broken in some way. That is my one problem with extreme feminism, the whole "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality of it.

 

[The Great JT]

I hope we can get over the Frilly Bad, Macho Good thing soon. How refreshing would it be to see a not-flaming transsexual man be the hero in an action movie?

 

[Therumancer]

Interesting, well thought out, but ultimately wrong because it's based under a flawed premise. The entire argument is based around the behaviorist school of psychology that has largely been disproven, that posits that people are entirely influenced by their environment and what they are taught. That's really not true.

Can you please provide a source?

On what? That most psychologist and psychiatrists follow a discipline that combines elements of all three major theories of the "fathers of psychology" as opposed to making arguments based entirely on one theory of psychological development? I suppose I could, but at the end of the day this is one of those cases where I'm going to say "do your own research" as someone else responding to me managed to more or less hit what I was talking about.

The point here is that Bob is making an argument entirely based on Behaviorism, saying that the environment we have created is responsible for the behavior of girls, and change the environment and they will change entirely, something which has come to be seen as fairly absurd in of itself. Environment can however be a factor that contributes to certain things. Basically if you don't want to do the research an easy way to make the point is that your probably going to be unable to find a pure behaviorist, or any credited psychological program that will say that it presents this as the do all and end all of human behavior, even in their recruiting material.

I'll also say that asking for sources on things like this really doesn't help any kind of case you might be out to make. Especially seeing as you can just do a search for things like oh say "Behaviorism Debunked" or "Behaviorism criticisms" as well and get tons of articles. ESPECIALLY seeing as behaviorism (and in many cases Environmentalism) is
a hot topic for Christians since it's an easy avenue to attack evolution, the typical Christian angle being that if they can use science and other research to blow holes in it, they can turn around and then use that point to make arguments against the evolution of animals, humans, and other things. It can get pretty warped in how it's used but the basic points tend to be fairly solid before they do a triple backflip off the deep end.

EDIT: Towards the end I relented and did some research for you. But I was informed I borked the last paragraph I wrote turning around which side the link was on and which side the argument it was addressing was on despite me knowing the difference... but most importantly it was pointed out that it undermines the rest of my post to even do that much. That said with a few search words like "behaviorism debunked" and "crticisms of behaviorism" along with the bits I said above you can find plenty. Including things on Youtube like "how women evolved to shop" (part of Skepticon) and criticisms there of. There are even sites like "The Last Behaviorist" which exist to discuss and try and defend behaviorism under circumstances where it's not exactly well received on it's own. Including making arguments about the misuse of the term "Skinner Box" in relation to MMOs, and even having directly addressed an old bit by "Extra Credits" at one time.

 

[sweetylnumb]

I have no problem with girls playing with boy toys and vice-versa. But there is nothing wrong with "coding" a female or male marketed toy to a certain set of colors. It's years of cultural evolution that really is harming no one.

No, you mean it's not harming YOU. Many children are being "harmed" by the idea that they cant play with dolls becuase dolls are for girls, or vice versa. Many transgendered or homosexual/bisexual people are being harmed by the binary male/female separation.
I, for example, am "harmed" by disapproval from the rents when i wear large hoodies, becuase they arn't what females wear, apparently.


Try some empathy. I know its hard being a (probably white/straight) male. Hard to emphasize, that is.

 

[CymbaIine]

Not at all, I used environmentalism as a term since it's a subset of behaviorism that posits environment is the primary cause of human psychological development and evolution. It goes a little further than behaviorism and is in many cases used to reinforce racism, the basic argument being that the environment in which white people evolved ultimately lead to a stronger, smarter, and more capable group of people than developed in other parts of the world, something which cannot be undone or changed over a period of time. The early "boost" human civilizations received due to conditions around the fertile crescent having in a lot of cases lead to a somewhat "softer" less intelligent and capable breed of humanity in the form of a lot of the darker skinned folks, who hit a peak, but then were rapidly overwhelmed by the same people they themselves once oppressed who in turn created most of the modern civilization. The basic argument turning into one where you might be able to argue in terms of genetics that there are no differences between humans, but psychologically and in term of mental function there is a huge, evolved, difference. Needless to say it amounts to a lot of bunk, you don't see a lot about it recently. On a lot of levels though this is similar to the kind of argument that Bob is making, that women are being conditioned into certain roles by society and conditions, and that without those conditions they would be well... just like men. That's not true, as your looking at an intrinsic, difference. Not that they are inferior, in any mental sense, but that they are wired with some very different sets of instincts, and instinctive likes and dislikes. Like other animals human men and women are intended to fill different roles, and our entire makeup of chemicals, electricity, etc... reinforces this. Sometimes exceptions occur like we also see with animals, but for the most part women are intended to be more docile, domestic, and nurturing, while men are the aggressive, and practical ones. The two different outlooks intended to work together since we are already unified as a species we already need each other to survive. If some girl winds up being a tomboy, or a guy winds up being more passive and introspective, so be it, that's no huge deal, but that kind of thing represents an exception, not the rule, and it's not something that can ever truly be made the rule as much as some people might want to, nor would it really be a good idea to do so as humanity benefits from both perspectives. What's more if the civilization that allows introspective analysis of such things and people to question it "morally" was ever to collapse, we would be in real trouble since we're looking at the instincts and tendencies that allowed us to survive, thrive, and eventually totally dominate our environment.[/quotes]

Would you like to source any of this? I really don't mean to be rude but you seem to have a very basic understanding of a wide range of extremely questionable (not to mention OLD) theories.

As far as hardwiring goes, I'm using the term more generally than that article is. That article is generally talking about electronic pathways in the brain for the most part, as opposed to instincts and such intristic to humanity. Yes, people's electronic paths change, as is necessary given the nature of the brain. As parts of the brain die and don't get replaced by new cells, the electrical impulses are forced to reroute. At the end of the day we don't know a whole lot about the specific function of the brain (and likely couldn't find out without a whole new age of Mengela-like experimentation). After all in some cases people can have a metal rod stuck through the brain and be pretty much fine afterwards (rare), but in others even a slight amount of trauma can cause a variety of disorders. Then of course we've got the whole concept of "Electroshock Therapy" which remains controversial to this day.
[/quotes]

I don't think you really understood the article. It's possible that these pathways explain why women and men tend to have those masculine and feminine traits. The highly credible source said these pathways (the ones possibly responsible for major differences between the sexes) change though learning. Learning.

At any rate, understand that most psychologists and psychiatrists taking a pluralistic approach is exactly my point. Bob's entire argument is one that this phenomena is 100% caused by society forcing specific roles and attitudes onto girls, a sort of paternalistic brainwashing. He's saying "change the environment, and what you tell girls is normal,
and you will change the girls" that's not true, and represents pure, unfiltered, behaviorist thinking, bordering on environmentalist if he wants to take the argument to the point of saying girls have been turned into this simply because of generations of male dominated society. [/quotes]

I don't think he is saying that, I can't be arsed watching the video again so I guess I will agree to disagree.

you arrive at the simple point where you have no choice but to argue that those at the top of the socio-political food chain culturally have simply become better than those who were ultimately gimped by their environment. [/quotes]

Really not sure what you are saying here. Are oppressed groups negatively effected by their environment? Well, yes, of course. Does this this make the "rich" better? Well it makes them richer, healthier, more likely to do well at school, less likely to end up in prison yada yada yada. I suppose in a lot of ways that's "better". I don't think that view is particularly racist, sexist or controversial, it's just the truth.

But look at it this way, if I were in a race and I shackled my competitor to a tree it doesn't make me any faster.

 

[I.Muir]

Just so long as people don't just pull a 180 and start saying everything "coded" masculine is now bad since that wouldn't be getting anywhere. Also I don't think that traditional gender norms are entirely the fault of society as its partially instinctual but that's just a thought that's worth looking into.

I don't believe that "coded" female norms are specifically targeted so much as at the moment those are the things that make the villains different. Society has a phobia of things that are different and that's part instinctual as well I think. Should the things that currently make villains different become the norm then you would see a reversal. As for the hunger games it's firstly about class struggle and wine and chocolates are signs of excess as you should well know.

Is it in any way significant that pink and high heels were once masculine things?

 

[Sniper Team 4]

I shop the pink isle because it's where they have ponies. Yay ponies!

Er, sorry, I feel I may have missed the bigger picture in this video here. Good points all around though.

 

[Farther than stars]

I suppose this depends on what way you look at it. Sure, pastel and plastic are fine, but one might argue that merely by arranging them into a 'pink aisle' and marketing them to girls, we - as a society - are already forcing young girls to adopt these practices in order to seem normal. Removing this practice would then help to level the playing field. To extend the analogy: sometimes all you can do is treat the symptoms to fight the disease.
Fun fact: 'straw man' actually refers to Medieval public trials, when the person on trial would be required to find witnesses in his favour. 'Straw men' were men who put a straw behind their bootstrap to indicate that they were open to bribery. The person on trial would then call them forward to bear witness in their favour, thus 'distracting' the proceedings away from their guilt. So the straw man fallacy doesn't actually have anything to do with a dummy.

Very muddled episode, the main thing I took from it is that Bob has an extremely limited understanding of a very complex issue.

That's actually quite an offensive way to it. I appreciate that you firmly stand on the side of 'vanity is bad', but plenty of accredited feminists do not. MovieBob's intelligence should not be pulled into question on this point. The main reason why the 'vanity is bad' argument is problematic, is that 'it is OK to have fun'. If wearing make-up makes you happy, you should be allowed to do that, the same way that it's OK for me to play a round of FTL if I get enjoyment out of it. In that same instance, it is progressive to make short shrift of the attitude that 'video games are something for kids'. Even utilitarianism does away with functionality at the moment that it impedes on human happiness.

 

[MegaSuperUberMe]

Bob, honey, I hope you do realise that the "pink isle", the "gender roles" and all the stuff that comes with it is never going away. Man and women evolved a little bit differently and our brains perceive the world a little bit differently. We like different things for a reason. Male and females have different brain "wiring". The common stereotypes in men and women excelling at different tasks is there for a reason, the differences between gender is a natural difference and not socially constructed. Numerous of the largest scientific brain scan studies has concluded that the developmental trajectories of males and females separate at a young age, demonstrating wide differences during adolescence and adulthood.
It is possible that the reason why male and female brains are "wired differently" could be argued to be the result of environmental and/or socialization differences, and not the result of a inherent biological difference. That, however, still makes all the effort to "smash teh gender roles" fruitless, because it is literally thousands of years of social programming at work and will take at least half as long to break it.

 

[Yal]

A defense isn't even necessary. At the end of the day there is nothing wrong with having an effeminate, homosexual, and/or crossdressing bad guy. One of the biggest problems with liberalism is that it tends to lead to outcries that turn into an effort to declare certain groups into sacred cows where you can't say, do, or use them in any kind of bad, or antagonistic role at all. One of the reasons why I inherently oppose 99% of this stuff, because even when there is a legitimate point, in many cases acknowledging it is going to do 100x more damage than was being done by what it was intended to address.

I completely agree with you. We don't need to narrow our range of villain archetypes, that would be a terrible loss to creativity. Rather, we need to expand our set of heroes. We need protagonists who not just female, although that's fun too, but also feminine and even effeminate.

Until that happens it is somewhat tedious that some characters are only allowed to be bad guys, comic relief, or both.

But Him in particular bothered me not just because it played up the effeminate male as creepy and off-putting, but because that character is just straight up Satan. The joke there is that the devil is flaming, that evil is gay. Maybe it doesn't hold that reciprocal is also true, but dang, ain't that a fine line to be walking.

Plus South Park made the same joke a few years later, a clear sign it is time to reevaluate one's life choices.

 

[Urameshi13]

When I was in middle school, taking shop and sewing/home economics were required courses for both boys and girls. Contrast that with when my mom was in school and only the boys got to take shop while the girls were relegated to classes forcing them to be housewives.

Of course these days NO ONE gets to take Shop because that got tossed right out the window.

 

[Farther than stars]

It is possible that the reason why male and female brains are "wired differently" could be argued to be the result of environmental and/or socialization differences, and not the result of a inherent biological difference. That, however, still makes all the effort to "smash teh gender roles" fruitless, because it is literally thousands of years of social programming at work and will take at least half as long to break it.

This is too simplistic an attitude to the nature-nurture debate when evolutionary biology is still a rapidly developing field. I don't really have time to delve into this right now, but I recommend researching the concepts of 'Swiss Army knife psychology' and 'epigenetics', in combination with learning. From an illustrative point of view: there are people in Pakistan who are being trained to carry out suicide bombings because of religious fundamentalism, while they live in the same country with genetically equivalent secularists.
It might be important to consider that being man or woman is both biological and social. Your basic argument might hold more water if human society was closely related to our biology, like that of ants, but, as it stands, there is no research to suggest that.

 

[Urameshi13]

One thing I found interesting during this video. You said, and I'm paraphrasing, stuff is just stuff. It is the purpose that stuff is used for that can be good or bad.

I think that's a great point. However, I think you should also consider that frame of reference when speaking on guns and gun violence. A gun can be used to harm or protect. It can also be used to take out to a range and have target practice.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to plant the NRA flag here. You provide a unique perspective in your videos and columns which get me thinking. Just trying to return the favor.

 

[Gorbachof]

I'd love to know how Bob does his research. I mean he goes in depth with such a broad range of topics it makes me believe there's a cloned army of him on computers and university libraries 24-7. Is there like a website somewhere called "in depth analysis of slightly random trending topics."? Seriously though, whats his method?

 

[Farther than stars]

One thing I found interesting during this video. You said, and I'm paraphrasing, stuff is just stuff. It is the purpose that stuff is used for that can be good or bad.

I think that's a great point. However, I think you should also consider that frame of reference when speaking on guns and gun violence. A gun can be used to harm or protect. It can also be used to take out to a range and have target practice.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to plant the NRA flag here. You provide a unique perspective in your videos and columns which get me thinking. Just trying to return the favor.

The difference being, of course, that it's not so easy to kill someone with a Barbie doll, hence there's no/less collateral damage coming from the 'pink aisle'. Criminals with guns, however, outnumber vigilantes with guns, so there's more damage to third parties. Even libertarianism needs the second limit laid upon it by John Locke and Ayn Rand: the freedom in question should not cause harm to someone else, otherwise: Rapture.

 

[MegaSuperUberMe]

It is possible that the reason why male and female brains are "wired differently" could be argued to be the result of environmental and/or socialization differences, and not the result of a inherent biological difference. That, however, still makes all the effort to "smash teh gender roles" fruitless, because it is literally thousands of years of social programming at work and will take at least half as long to break it.

This is too simplistic an attitude to the nature-nurture debate when evolutionary biology is still a rapidly developing field. I don't really have time to delve into this right now, but I recommend researching the concepts of 'Swiss Army knife psychology' and 'epigenetics', in combination with learning. From an illustrative point of view: there are people in Pakistan who are being trained to carry out suicide bombings because of religious fundamentalism, while they live in the same country with genetically equivalent secularists.
It might be important to consider that being man or woman is both biological and social. Your basic argument might hold more water if human society was closely related to our biology, like that of ants, but, as it stands, there is no research to suggest that.

Actually there is a few researches that clearly show that male and female brains develop in adolescence and react differently to different stimuli differently. Your "illustrative point" does not really apply to this particular situation (or maybe I understood it wrongly, due to a language barrier, English is my fourth language and still struggle with it from time to time). Simply because sex is tied to biology (and gender is more likely tied to sex than social construct) and to assume that two mammals that had completely different roles in society, means to achieve status,a better mate and are even psychophysically different somehow stopped evolution at the neck is quite bogus. I also really fail to see how religious fanatics and secularist can translate to physical and neurological differences in males and female. The lack of research in to secularist and highly religious fundamentalist is also not helping the case.