quote:

---

This reminded me of the Click-Its things made by Lego, just for girls. Because, you know, girls would never play with regular Legos

---

I actually longed as a child to have a girl set of legos. Something in pink and white with which you could build a house with flower beds and trim, because that's what I was always trying to make with my brother's legos.

I think, despite all the talk to the contrary, gendered toys are really important for children. I used to spend all of my time at the toy store in the "pink aisle," longing for the dolls and the clothes and the fake plastic food.

On the other hand, I think you have really valid concerns about what we're saying with these toys. My little sisters love Bratz, and have posters on their walls of these incredibly thin, slutty teenage cartoons that they think they're going to grow up to look like.

I think when I have children, I'm only going to let them shop at those independent toy stores that have educational toys rather than corporate ones. I'll let the little girls have baby dolls and dress up clothes and plastic food, and the boys can have building sets and Playmobil knights and pirates and such, but no Bratz and no techno-monsters.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Well. maybe I should rephrase. It isn't the fact that we have toys for girls that disturbs me. It's the specific toys we are making for girls today. I can understand wanting some pink legos...I was also limited by the color choices as a child.

I had plenty of "girly" and "neutral" toys as a child, but nothing that was marketed the way these are. I mean, I had "Sweet Secrets" and "My Little Pony" which didn't really have any particular value set attached. The worst thing might be that they offered "Sweet Secrets" that turned into make-up, but I can't remember. None of mine did that.

Oh, and Click-Its aren't girly Legos. They are nothing like Legos. They are hair clips and things. The idea seems to be that most Legos are marketed to boys (ie Space stations, knights, etc) and they have this alternative for girls, because I'm guessing they are trying to hit a different group of consumers to make a bigger profit. So they made Lego "jewelry".

[ September 11, 2004, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
What's wrong with techno-monsters? I loved them as a kid..

I use to play a high-tech cops and robbers with them....

Basically, almost all boy games can be broken into cops and robbers, or a varient...

Cowboys and Indians
Spacemen vs Aliens
Adventur Man vs Evil Minions

You get the idea....

And sometimes the fun part was being the "bad" guys....because they weren't "bad" themselves, they were just....well.. me...

Kwea

[ September 11, 2004, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"I think, despite all the talk to the contrary, gendered toys are really important for children."

If you want to acculturate your children into traditional gender roles, yeah, they would be.
 

---

Posted by WishfulWiggin (Member # 6823) on :
 
I agree, PSI.

Lucky for me, I grew up with a twin brother. I was able to play with all his toys too. When he got legos, he sold them to me. We tried to make boats with my Barbie houses.

What annoys me is that it is still not appropriate for girls to play will boys toys. It is still not socially exceptable. You cannot buy a girl legos or toy cars for her birthday.

There are also still fields that are controlled by men, such as engineering and math. I think that if more girls were able to play with "boy toys", there would be more woman in those fields.

-liz
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
How about this, Tom? It's important to have them so that kids can choose to play with them if they want?

I don't know about it not being acceptable...my parents got me Legos every year for Christmas. Yay for parents who get kids what they actually want to play with.

[ September 11, 2004, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
I think they are important, and those roles are too. I don't think the roles are restrictive in and of themselves. They are a motivating factor for specific behaviors.

Now, I had a doll when I was a kid. That's right, a doll. Not an action figure, a real baby doll named Daisy. My grandma bought it for me, and eventually my sister inherited it.

My mom said that she always thought it was sort of sad that most guys were uncomfortable back then when first holding their newborn babies, and that most men (back then) had no clue how to hold them, and felt very uncomfortable doing so.
She thought it was because they never played with dolls, so for a lot of them the first time they ever tried to hold a baby was a real one, and they felt awkward because they had no practice at it.

Whereas women had been practicing for it their whole lives.

And you know, it worked. I LOVE kids, and am not shy about holding even newborns. I got to hole my cousin when he was 4 days old, and I held my niece the very first day anyone was allowed to do so( ). I babysat as a young boy(9-12 years old), and when I became a teen I was really hurt when the parents who I had been babysitting for decided that they didn't want a young teenage boy babysitting their kids. I understood what they were uncomfortable about, but it really hurt all the same.

To this day nothing makes me smile faster than 2 things....babies and dogs.

I think gender roles are very important, as long as they aren't carved in stone. They are tools to teach specific behaviors, and very useful ones at that.

Kwea
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"It's important to have them so that kids can choose to play with them if they want?"

Sure. Although I'm not sure that I'd define "important" that loosely; it's like saying that strawberry milk is "important" because some people like to drink it.
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
I loved the toys we made for ourselves. OTOH, we didn't have much money at all, so when we did get commercial toys, they were usually second-hand and missing some parts here and there.

But making your own paddle wheel, origami, cooking blancmange just like in Little Women, science experiments with baking soda and vinegar ... cool stuff.

[Edit: admittedly, it was a lifestyle made possible by having two stay-at-home parents. My father couldn't walk or feed himself after his stroke at 68 yrs old, so mom quit her RN job to nurse him and we lived on the meager pension, duct tape, spit and promises. ]

[ September 11, 2004, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 

quote:

---

Toys for girls make me nauseous.

---

I totally agree.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Kwea: I bought my son a doll when I was expecting my daughter. It's a little boy named Baby Jay. Jesse doesn't play with it much, but he does every once in a while. He tucks it in and sings it a song and tells it a story. He likes to do a sort of roleplaying thing where he's the parent and the baby is himself.

Of course, most of the time he's threatening his little sister with a plastic sword.

Kids are so multi-faceted.

-----

Tom: That's fair.
 

---

Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
 
PSI Teleport:

quote:

---

How about this, Tom? It's important to have them so that kids can choose to play with them if they want?

---

quote:

---

Of course, most of the time he's threatening his little sister with a plastic sword.

Kids are so multi-faceted.

---

 

---

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
Why are we so sure that gender roles are culturally-induced? I mean, I'm not going to argue that they're totally inherent, either, but why can't we accept that most likely, nature and nurture are contributing?

I say this as the oldest of six children. My youngest brother is 5, and lives in a household with 4 females. He's allowed to be a boy as much as is possible, but frankly, when your playmates are two little girls and your parent figure a mother, you're going to get a lot of girl culturing. In his case, it doesn't make the least amount of difference. He is most definitely a little boy and he'll play with his sisters' Barbie car, making it race and crash all over the room while they and their dolls practice social pleasantries in the background.

We had a friend of the family who decided to have only gender-neutral toys for her children (a boy and a girl) to be exposed to. She was explaining her rationale for this to us one evening in the living room when her little boy ran in, picked up a stuffed rabbit, held it with one ear extended like a machine gun and yelled "bam bam bam bam bam!" She paused and reflected, and said, "and apparently, my ideas only apply to a certain extent."

(edit: having some serious spelling issues this morning)

[ September 11, 2004, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: Annie ]
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
I don't think it's culturally induced at all. I think boys are innately little boys and girls are innately little girls. I say this not as a degreed psychologist or anything but as a mother of boy/girl twins.

My kids were treated exactly the same during the first year. they had to be, it was the only way to survive. They ate at the same time, dressed in neutral clothing (I only bought stuff that both could wear, seemed silly to have two sets of clothing. So they dressed in overalls and t-shirts, in sleepers that were white or yellow or green) They shared the same toys.

ONe glaring example is when my brother gave Daniel a baby baseball set with a big plastic bat and all. Abigail picked up the bat and pretended to be brushing her hair with it. When she put it down, Daniel picked it up and started whacking things with it.

Now, they are old enough to articulate their wants, and choose things, and they choose total opposites. In the library, Daniel looks for books with Spiderman, Bob the Builder, and space stuff. Abigail looks for stories about babies and ponies and kittens.

What's wrong with letting our boys be boys and our girls be girls? Let's face it - they ARE different.

As to the disgust with many toys offered for girsl - I agree. Not a fan of barbie or Bratz.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
The thing is, all the evidence people use to point to gender differences being genetically based is inconclusive to me, because our definitions of gender are so pervasive they are inescapable. Did your kids ever watch TV? Did they ever socialize with other kids?

I lean against the thought that the differences we see between the genders are intrinsic, because I am an exception to so many of those generalizations, as is Cor. Yet, despite my hatred for Barbie, and my refusal to ever pay for anything with her name on it, I have been unable to keep her out of my house. And my kids refer to other dolls, dolls not made by Mattell, as "Barbies," which shows, I think, how far her reach is. If she is so influential as to be synonymous with "doll" for my kids, how could her definition of womanhood not be imprinted on them, despite my best efforts?
 

---

Posted by Christy (Member # 4397) on :
 
I think what I find disturbing is that most "girl" toys recently have taken more and more focus on "being beautiful"

Sara and I were at Toys 'R Us and there were girl and boy toy kits. The boys were doctors and tools, the girls were salon kits. I don't mind pink and blue toys, or girl and boy-oriented toys like dolls and action figures, and I love the idea of dress up for both boys and girls, but there are definitely some that disgust me. I think we'll stick to more gender-neutral toys.

Actually, I have been really impressed by the educational toy market. Although, sadly, the smaller stores tend to be driven out by the larger box stores and the prices tend to be a bit high. We visited a store called Giggles in Stoughton yesterday and really loved the selection -- kitchen science kits, archaeology digs, fun new polymer balls that are easier to catch, puppets, dress-up gear etc. Very neat.

[ September 11, 2004, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: Christy ]
 

---

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
My other argument for intrinsic gender is the nearly universal nature of the most basic gender roles. Yes, there are matrarchal societies, but they are the minority. In nearly every human culture, women are responsible for domestic work and their cultural "interests" tend to lie in cooking and sewing and children. How can it be artificial when it's ubiquitous?
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 

quote:

---

What's wrong with letting our boys be boys and our girls be girls? Let's face it - they ARE different.

---

quote:

---

My other argument for intrinsic gender is the nearly universal nature of the most basic gender roles. Yes, there are matrarchal societies, but they are the minority. In nearly every human culture, women are responsible for domestic work and their cultural "interests" tend to lie in cooking and sewing and children. How can it be artificial when it's ubiquitous?

---

quote:

---

And my kids refer to other dolls, dolls not made by Mattell, as "Barbies," which shows, I think, how far her reach is. If she is so influential as to be synonymous with "doll" for my kids, how could her definition of womanhood not be imprinted on them, despite my best efforts?

---

quote:

---

I think what I find disturbing is that most "girl" toys recently have taken more and more focus on "being beautiful"

Sara and I were at Toys 'R Us and there were girl and boy toy kits. The boys were doctors and tools, the girls were salon kits.

---

quote:

---

But regardless, why not ammend that statement to:

What's wrong with letting our boys and our girls be whatever they want?

---

quote:

---

There are other choices between artificual and genetic. Maybe there was a historical time when certain roles just made more sense, based on what the world was like and what was needed for survival, and we have held onto these definitions as a cultural relic, when they no longer have any survival benefit.

---

quote:

---

Not all toys for girls suck. The Easy Bake Oven rocked, and the pre-Barbie doll houses were cool, too.

---

quote:

---

Yes. And it's also possible that the balance of nature/nurture differs amongst children; that is, some of them may bring more nature to the table than others do.

---

Look, I got the acorns and the two rodents, would you stop pestering me about billy? I don't care if he brought mother nature herself! How ar you going to eat her anyways?

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Actually, it would make more sense for a matriarchial society as the women stayed at home and lived long enough (in theory) to develop wisdom and learning, whereas the men did the dangerous stuff and probably had a pretty respectable mortality rate.

However, rule tends to come through force. People who are in charge are usually capable of wielding force. Which, typically, is a male attribute. Mao said all political power comes from the barrel of a gun.

Gender-neutral toys are fine, but keep in mind that kids will develop habits from their environment every bit as much as the toys they have to play with. Their toys are only one aspect of their environment.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Goat:

re: Easy Bake Oven

I never saw that as a toy for girls, despite the commercials. I knew boys that used them. who doesn't like brownies cooked by a lightbulb?
 

---

Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
 
I always felt open-minded when I used it because it was pink and girls were in the commercials. But now you're telling me it was a universally-appealing toy, which means my first attempt at being free-thinking was in vain.

*sigh*

[ September 11, 2004, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: Da_Goat ]
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
When I was a kid, any boy who admitted to using one would have instantly and irrevocably been labelled a "fag."

You are courageous, Goat. You are my hero.

Goat.

(er, wait. Maybe I shouldn't do that around you.)
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
O_O

(Nevermind, Goat. It just shows how old Icarus is, compared to us.)

[ September 11, 2004, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
 

---

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 

quote:

---

Because men, for the most part, have been the physically stronger sex, and as such has done the hunter role....which doesn't leave a lot of time of energy for domestic duties.

So in many (but not all) societies the roles developed that way.

Also, women, are "physically equipted", so to speak, to care for children. Men can't breast feed, so women took over the role of childcare.

And men don't always stick around, or survive the hunts.

---

Is this not, then, a good example of the biological factors in gender roles? Are not women still "physically equipped" to be child-rearers? Little girls will pick up a corn husk and pretend it's a baby - you have to acknowledge the biological factors there.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
No, that's not the point. The point is that we made up a whole bunch of non-inherent tendencies, attitudes, whatever, because they went hand in hand with a division of labor that was once natural.

Women are physically equipped to be child-bearers, as well as infant-feeders. I do not agree that they are inherently better equipped to be child-rearers, and it's that specific stereotype that most gets my dander up when it comes to gender-role debates.

Once upon a time being the child-bearer, and the one who was temporarily incapacitated from the hunt, and the one who was physically less suited for the hunt anyway, led to women being the natural child-rearers. But there's not a lot of hunting going on nowadays anyway, so there's no inherent need for men to be trained to be aggressive while women are trained to be domestic and child-centered.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"Little girls will pick up a corn husk and pretend it's a baby - you have to acknowledge the biological factors there."

Why?
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
When I went to a Baptist after school care program in elementary school, we were not allowed to bring or play with toy guns. So we held pencils in our fists and made gun noises while we played cops and robbers. Does this prove something? Well, yes, but given that the girls did this as well as the boys, what it seems to prove is simply that the best wishes of our elders and authority figures were unable to prevent cultural norms from impressing themselves upon us.
 

---

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
Because I say so.

Well, for me, the simple fact that the majority of girls would do such a thing whereas the majority of boys would not is an indication that it must be inherent in the gender of the child. The fact that foreign cultures seem to have roughly the same results would reinforce that for me.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I have never known somebody that has raised both a boy and a girl who has doubted that there are intrinsic differences between the genders that follow the traditional gender roles (for example, aggression for boys and nurturing for girls).
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I would agree with that if you put things like "can be" and "often" and "sometimes" in it. It isn't that black and white - it simply. It doesn't take into account the variations in people and humanity.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Hmm. What would happen if we took children and put them in an isolated environment? Where all environmental factors are controlled and any background input is monitored for the information.

I'm sure it would be a fascinating experiment.

And I'm sorry I didn't read Kwea's post a tad more thoroughly - I re-posted the same ideas he mentioned previously.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
My argument to that, Porter, is simply that the imprinting our culture does is so subtle that parents are virtually powerless to prevent it.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
We can also attribute certain biological factors to manifested behaviors - nesting, for example. Territoriality for another.

This is not to say that women are prohibited from expressing aggressive qualities, but generalizations that hold true in abstract terms.

-Trevor

Edit: I just realized this post has no value whatsoever.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Of course, the imprinting of genetics could be as subtle as cultural imprinting, and the two could reinforce each other.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Yes. I can't counter that.

So what it comes down to is we all have our individual beliefs, based on our anecdotal experiences, and we won't know until we kidnap some third-world kids and raise them in a lab somewhere.

So, um . . . Look! Nazis!
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I still like your ideas on child-rearing.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Genetic imprinting?

Certain traits as manifested by biological components would be deemed as valuable or attractive in the selective breeding ritual we call procreation.

What is or is not valuable is subject to the cultural values of the time.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 

quote:

---

Once upon a time being the child-bearer, and the one who was temporarily incapacitated from the hunt, and the one who was physically less suited for the hunt anyway, led to women being the natural child-rearers.

---

I wonder why one would say women are less suited for the hunt. We may be smaller, but that doesn't stop lionesses. We may be weaker, but that's not something we're born with...we are born with the ability to train ourselves to be strong, lithe, and fast. Why are men the natural hunters for humans, but not for lions? Physically speaking?

[ September 11, 2004, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Because they (women) are more valuable and important for what men can't do - we can't become pregnant and we can't nurse.

Women are inherently more valuable to the survival of the tribe, so it is paramount we keep them (women) safe and protected while they continue to replenish the tribe.

Men, by comparison, are only really needed for the five minutes of actual coupling and contrary to popular belief, flowers and expensive dinners are not a required part of producing offspring.

Which in turn means the man is more expendable, but the woman is more valuable in terms of survival because they can do the one thing we (men) can't. So women might be effective and proficient hunters, but the tribe cannot afford to lose even one source of children, given the mortality rate of infants and women during childbirth.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
 
I had one Barbie doll when I was a kid, and two My Little Ponies. I don't think I played with them very much. I do remember playing with Legos a lot when I was a kid. We also played with play dough that Mom made herself (that was always fun to watch). Probably the thing I did most was read books. Mom says that I didn't do the domestic type role-playing very much. Playing house just isn't in my nature.

It's hard to say whether it's nature or nurture. As far as I know, my parents weren't really trying to reinforce either gender role; they were just trying to give us toys we liked. I suspect they let me develop in my own way as much as possible--they didn't try to put eating and writing utensils in my right hand, so they knew pretty early that I was left-handed because that's the hand I picked them up with. I suppose that growing up with two engineer parents, two brothers, and no sisters may have brought out my masculine side a bit more as well. Not to mention the fact that half my friends were boys when I was a little kid. So I guess I was either "boyish" to begin with, by nature, or I'm a counter-example to Annie's brother. Maybe some of both.

quote:

---

What annoys me is that it is still not appropriate for girls to play will boys toys. It is still not socially exceptable. You cannot buy a girl legos or toy cars for her birthday.

There are also still fields that are controlled by men, such as engineering and math. I think that if more girls were able to play with "boy toys", there would be more woman in those fields.

---

I don't remember ever being made fun of for playing with boy toys (I suspect it's far worse for boys who play with girl toys), and I probably did get legos at some point. Actually, it's interesting to see what my cousins and I get for Christmas. My male cousins often get Legos, computer games, toy cars, movies, and music. My female cousins get scented bath products and makeup. My younger female cousin (eight years old, I think) gets toys that come in pink boxes. I get magazine subscriptions, chocolate, books, CDs, and movies. Everyone gets gender-stereotypical things except for me.

I'm not sure that giving girls boy toys will cause them to become engineers and mathematicians though. Most of the female engineers around here are a lot girlier than I am. I think what is important is to separate gender from occupations. Boys can be nurses and teachers, and girls can be doctors and engineers. Exposing a child to this idea early on is a lot more helpful than giving him a doll or giving her an Erector Set.

Oh, yeah, and I saw those Bratz toys once in a store. I was disgusted and amazed that such things could even exist. If I had children, I would never never never in a million years let them have such things.

[ September 11, 2004, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: Shigosei ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
(To Trevor)

Sounds like OSC's recent short story in "First Meetings" (can't remember the title, but it's where Ender's parents meet.)

[ September 11, 2004, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Trevor:

Why don't we just mass-produce females like the lions do, and leave the male home while the women do all the work?

----

I think my husband is a really interesting specimen as far as gender roles go. He was raised with no males to watch, and no male role models, in Taiwan. he had little to no access to TV, and expecially no American TV. (I remember the look of confusion on his face at my references to "Happy Days" and "Grease".)

He grew up with none of the aggression that most males demonstrate. He's pretty good at nurturing the kids and is better at cooking and cleaning than I am.

But he still blows things up. There are old home movies of him that he took himself with a crappy old camcorder. They are all of him playing by himself in an empty apartment. He carefully built models of robots, cars, and spaceships, then video taped himself blowing them up on the "porch"/"balcony".

Anyway, I think he's an interesting piece of work.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
That's a good question - and not one I could answer.

Lions defy this particular model of thought.

I could say it's the danger of letting animals learn how to think, but that would be rude and cynical of me.

I suspect the pattern developed as being the most successful and primitive tribes didn't see any point in changing it.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Our first child (boy) and second (girl) really follow the stereotypes for their gender. But not in every way. Our good friend's first child (girl) and second child (boy) also follow the stereotypes, but in different ways. Both of us were talking recently and expressed amazement at how much our girls are girls and how much our boys are boys especially since we aren't the sorts to accentuate that.

But in both cases, neither child is exactly the stereotype. For instance, our son is far more verbally expressive than our daughter. The stereotype is that male children will "do" rather than "talk" and girls will learn and be adept with verbal skills early. On the other hand, our son is very much into destructive and violent forces, their son not so much.

Being a "non-normal-female" myself, I know that there is a spectrum here. I had two older brothers and the boyish stuff they did was far more fascinating to me than the silly girl stuff. I was *naturally* drawn to that, just as my daughter is *naturally* drawn to being AMAZINGLY nurturing. (Earlier today, she was nurturing some D batteries!)

I believe the "stereotype" tends to represent what is most common. I know that we could easily have had a son that was "less boy" or a daughter that was "less girl" than these two are. But this is what we got. We did not make them this way. Society did not make them this way. This is what they are in their raw essence. We *know* this because we are their parents. And we know that we have done nothing to encourage this behavior.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Those lazy, piggish male lions.

To be fair, nature is *full* of models that do not match our own. Males that carry the babies within their bodies, hive models of polyandry. Just about any form of society you can imagine, it is out there in nature.

[ September 11, 2004, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
whether or not little girls prefer playing with dolls because of nature or nuture is a fun argument.

Either way, why do the modern toy producers assume that they, and their parents, want the to play and dress like snobby sluts?

Why do they assume little boys want to mostly kill things?
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
There are enough factors involved that it would be hard to isolate each element and what role it played, if any, in the character development.

Theories abound and personal experiences differ from one group to the next.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Sometimes personal experience is far more convincing to the individual than statistics.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Why do they assume little boys want to mostly kill things?

---

quote:

---

We did not make them this way. Society did not make them this way. This is what they are in their raw essence. We *know* this because we are their parents. And we know that we have done nothing to encourage this behavior.

---

quote:

---

As for personal experiences - they can be quite powerful, but it's difficult to use that in evaluating and determining a hypothesis to encompass a broad collective.

---

I agree with that. But it's like religious beliefs and any other paradigms we create about the world. They are based on our personal experience. They are ultimately convincing for us, but they serve only as anecdotal evidence for anyone else.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Chicken! Squawk! Squawk!

I saw that post.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

I don't see how you can possibly *know* any such thing, unless you have raised them in utter isolation from pop culture, and also without friends who are not similarly isolated.

---

I couldn't *know* it enough to convince another, but I am wholely convinced. It would take some amazing evidence to get me to believe otherwise. It is my personal belief that a great many of our most powerful paradigms are not based on what we learn in class or scientific evidence but our own day-to-day experience. Is that the best way to form "knowledge"? I don't know. But I don't think we could function without doing that to some extent.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Trevor: I don't often delete my posts, but I did there because I thought Icarus was talking about *my* husband. After posting (maybe he edited it) I realized he was talking about PSI's. Made a *whole* lot more sense that way!
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Icarus, I have a second daughter, and she doesn't seem nearly so "girlish" as our first daughter. I think that is just the way she is. I am totally convinced in her case also.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Nope, I haven't edited that post.

Now you have me curious . . .
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Yeah, I saw that you didn't. You are absolved of any fault. It was my fault for reading too fast. I was the "chicken" for deleting my post.
 

---

Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
 
My children fall boy-7, girl-5 and boy-2. The older two fall neatly into gender roles. The Boy loves Harry Potter, dragons, sword fighting, battle compouter games... HRH the Faory Princess is in ballet, collects MY Little Ponies, and plays dress up and kitchen. The two year old though... the confluence of influences is so obvious that a freind recently told me "You have three- one of each. He's the most metrosexual toddler I've ever seen". He loves swords and dragons and babies and tutus. We are planning to put him in ballet in 1 1/2 years.

As for Barbies, Bratz...no way that carp will enter my house. Girls toys just disgust me too. Olivia actually has Legos ( with purple pieces) and can beat her older brother in a duel.
My hubby wanted an Easy Bake as a kid, but his dad never let him get one.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
It's funny how often I hear that among younger kids the girl can beat up her brother.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
 
Annie, if there's a biological reason that most little girls want to play with domestic toys and most little boys want to play with more violent toys, what is the biological explanation for people that don't fit these norms?

Is there something wrong with them?
 

---

Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
 
OK, now THIS is disturbing.

http://shop.store.yahoo.com/brandsonsale-store/51104-costumes.html
 

---

Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
 

quote:

---

Annie, if there's a biological reason that most little girls want to play with domestic toys and most little boys want to play with more violent toys, what is the biological explanation for people that don't fit these norms?

Is there something wrong with them?

---

quote:

---

I wonder why one would say women are less suited for the hunt.

---

quote:

---

Annie, if there's a biological reason that most little girls want to play with domestic toys and most little boys want to play with more violent toys, what is the biological explanation for people that don't fit these norms?

---

quote:

---

Hmm. What would happen if we took children and put them in an isolated environment?

---

Lord of the Flies.

quote:

---

We may be weaker, but that's not something we're born with...we are born with the ability to train ourselves to be strong, lithe, and fast.

---

quote:

---

Why are men the natural hunters for humans, but not for lions? Physically speaking?

---

Um, at the risk of sounding crude, I'd like to make a point that I'm always dying to make in discussions like this but usually end up euphemizing: have you ever gone camping while on the rag? Yeah, it sucks. Imagine it without tampons or Advil.

There are plenty of biological reasons that women are homebodies. The reason they don't apply as much in the animal world is that humans are the only species that menstruate externally.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Convenient since we are the only "animals" who wear clothing.

I'd always wondered about that. Are we the only ones who menstrate externally? Why? How do other animals sluff their uterine lining? Do they?

It is too bad this is such an "untouchable" topic. Nobody wants to discuss it in mixed company.
 

---

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
As far as I understand, other mammals go into heat, which means that the uterine lining is just absorbed back into the body. Why on earth did we have to evolve such an obnoxious variation on that one?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I was wondering why it would evolve also. How in the world is that an advantage? How would such a bizarre variation become the norm in a society of species? Unless there really was an Eve that we all came from....

Of course, you don't have to be religious to believe in an "Eve" of humanity. It is an interesting question.

Edit: Is heat their time of reabsorbing the uterine lining? Isn't it when they are most fertile?

[ September 11, 2004, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
 
I babysit a little girl that was adopted from Guatamala when she was 11 months old. She had had very little socialization prior to this, pretty much dressed in white and shoved in a crib. Her mother didn't know when she left if she would be adopting a girl or a boy so they were just using the 6 year old son's outgrown clothes and toys. But on their first shopping trip, she reached reached for pink lacy glittery things. Sophia is now two and totally the perfect little girl even if her mom hasn't tried for that.

I agree that most girly toys are gross. As a kid I got a dump truck, with a doll in the bed one year for christmas. Whenever I would get a barbie her clothes would be thrown away and grandma would knit or crochet a gown or snowsuit, totally covering. I still wish I could have my own knit wedding dress like my barbie had. My dolls were never the betsy wetsy types that had an induvidual purpose but just a plain baby doll. The toys I played with most were a set of knock off lego's that were greys and browns, made perfect dream houses. But this is the girl who every time dad talks about painting a Volkswagen he is restoring, begs for barbie pink.
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 

quote:

---

Hmm. What would happen if we took children and put them in an isolated environment?

---

quote:

---

Hmm. What would happen if we took children and put them in an isolated environment?

---

Then we would be evil, evil people.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
That is fascinating. We discussed many similar topics in my ASL, Audiology, and Speech Pathology college classes. We do depend so much on society to become what we are!

But also, keep in mind that animals raised in human society do not grow up to act like humans. As much as we like to think of our dogs acting like people, they still are very much dogs. We can apply this to apes raised by humans also.

There is a huge difference in potential.

[ September 11, 2004, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
They have A/S/L classes now?!


 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
wizened/female/out there
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I took 4 semesters of American Sign Language at BYU university, fulfilling the language requirement to graduate. It was wonderful!
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Cool.
 

---

Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
 
a) Let's be reasonable. Gender roles are both genetic and societial.

b) Societial programming has a much larger role than many would like to admit. For instance, the will to life is inherent in everyone, no? Say that to a suicide bomber.

The truth is that we can pretty much program people to follow certain paths.

Another truth (very amazing one) is that people will somehow resist all our programing and develop unique characteristics.

Anyway, the debate is an eternal one. NOt fruitless, of course not. Every time we have it more points are fleshed out, debated, discussed.

c) I do not beleive that any behaviors are more strongly genetic than socetial. IT seems to be that enviroment defines character and mannerisms.

d) The above is violated rarely. It is violated, yes. But rarely.

e) I'm not expressing myself too clearly...what a shame.

f) Testosterone does give men as a group a stronger body than women as a group.

[ September 11, 2004, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: Phanto ]
 

---

Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
 

quote:

---

In every case, the sister can beat up the older brother. In every case, the brother is only slightly interested in defending himself.

---

quote:

---

As far as I understand, other mammals go into heat, which means that the uterine lining is just absorbed back into the body.

---

Actually, other primates have menstrual cycles as well.

Also, I know from personal experience that when dogs go into estrus, they do bleed. The bleeding happens right before the fertile period, and serves as a sign to males that the female will soon be "ready." Before we had our dog Mishka spayed, she went into season twice a year, during which time she needed several maxi pads a day for about a week. (My husband was generally the person who had to change them for her.)
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Thanks for the info Yozhik! I thought I heard something about dogs bleeding, but I wasn't sure. So primates and dogs just get all messy once a month? I think I speak for all of us when I say YUK!
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Much less often for dogs.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Since I was the one being quoted, when I said an "isolated environment," I meant one isolated from what we define as "mainstream American culture."

Which means we would have to generate what we think is a "neutral" environment and see how the character develops. A controlled setting, much like the Jim Carrey movie.

And Bev - I know what you mean. I didn't grow up with sisters, nor do I have any experience with female children, so I always feel awkward and self-conscious when I'm interacting with my nieces and to a lesser extent other children.

Unfortunately, it's a default setting that I'm always peripherally aware of and I find it difficult to gauge what is and is not appropriate.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Hey, Trevor! My hubby grew up in a family of all boys too. I always tell him he is warped because of it.
 

---

Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
As a little person I had the added bonus of having a not-that-much-older brother. The girliest thing I played with were playmobil (and this is before pink playmobil, this is the reds and greens and yellows and blues) and soft toys, which I rarely played with.

Lego was my best friend, as was a model railway, (both electric and the wooden kind), metal cars, the swingset in the garden, the garden itself, the road outside and my bike.

Toys for girlz (intentional) also make me nauseous. I owned a sylvia doll with a missing arm, and that was the closest I got to barbie. I wore many of my brothers clothes. It never occured to me to be "girly"- the pink isle is oppresive and ugly.

But then a lot of toys are now marketed for boys too, as if boys can't play with anything that isn't boy-ish. Lego comes, not in bricks, but in slabs for quick assemblage and a complete lack of imaginative building.

Children are at a loss when you give them blank wooden blocks and say "play"- they say they have nothing to play with. They're not colourful, they don't talk or move, they are not a recognisable entity. They are actually castles and temples and houses and mazes and countless other structures hidden in those blocks.

Heck, I have memories of building endless card houses on my carpets and letting my happt family card-people live in them.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
*wants wooden blocks*
When I was a kid I played with stuffed animals and diapered them. I also loved the Incredible Hulk and carried around a toy of him I got from my cousin.
I stuffed tiny tea cups into cars and pushed them around.
I had a plastic doll house I liked to play with as well.
I also sort of thought I was a boy and hated to wear dresses and skirts.
I liked to play in the dirt and to dump about 10 or 15 hand-me-down toys into the bathtub.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
It's kinda funny - I became the default nanny for the neighborhood kids during my cousin's neighborhood party.

Five little girls doing the choo-choo train from my niece's room to my cousin's office, at which point I was obligated to pick them up two at a time, run back to my niece's bedroom and throw them on afore-mentioned niece's bed.

Apparently it has been decreed I must show up to the neighborhood Halloween party because my presence has been requested by the children and the less-than-sober parents of the kids.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Toys for girls make me nauseous too. That's why I finally stopped eating them.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 

quote:

---

Um, yes it is. Women, on average, cannot become as strong as men. You can become stronger, but not as strong as men can become.

---

quote:

---

Which means we would have to generate what we think is a "neutral" environment and see how the character develops.

---

There is no such thing as a "neutral" environment.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Not naturally occuring, no.

But that's the point of manufacturing one, or at least trying to. The scientists would have to evaluate everything that could possibly factor into the child's development and, to quote the phrase that has marked every scientific advancement in human history, "let's see what happens."

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

I'm not comparing the women to the men, I'm comparing them to whatever they'd have to hunt.

---

But when the males are *so* much better adapted for the task, it makes sense in primitive societies to have them do it.

Of course, in the "enlightened" hunter-gatherer society, women can choose to hunt or not hunt. Who cares if they aren't as well equipped as the males? Their own personal happiness is more important. Don't tell them their place is in the hut!
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 

quote:

---

Of course, in the "enlightened" hunter-gatherer society, women can choose to hunt or not hunt. Who cares if they aren't as well equipped as the males? Their own personal happiness is more important. Don't tell them their place is in the hut!

---

I know you're kidding, but I also know this at least parallels your beliefs. And that's the thing: I don't believe this is still true. My argument was that a division of labor arose as a result of primitive realities. Those realities are no longer true, but we have ingrained these roles in our culture and in our collective psyche. Is anne kate playing at being an engineer because it adds to her "personal happiness"? When I left work to be the primary caregiver for my daughters, was I?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Icarus, my statement above is an odd one because even I am not sure what I meant by it. It is pretty plain to anyone who is familiar with my posts that I favor the idea that motherhood complements womanhood. The other gender-roles arise out of that. While I believe in gender-roles, I also believe in flexibility. If a woman has the aptitude to be an engineer, more power to her.

But (there's always a but, isn't there?) I believe that if at some point she chooses to bear children, those children would be best served by her staying at home with them. I also dislike the way society favors women engineers to the extent that it will accept an inferior woman engineer over a superior male one. My husband graduated in mechanical engineering, and he and others were sickened at how easily women got the best opportunities even if they did not perform as well as the men. If they are getting opportunities because they are *good* I have no problem with that. If they are getting opportunities because they are *women*, that is discrimination.

As for stay-at-home fathers, I have seen many marriages where the woman was ambitious and career-minded and the husband was more nurturing. For their marriages it made more sense for the father to be a stay-at-home dad and the mother to be the breadwinner. It fit their situation. Certainly gender-roles should be flexible enough to allow for such situations!
 

---

Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
 

quote:

---

For their marriages it made more sense for the father to be a stay-at-home dad and the mother to be the breadwinner. It fit their situation. Certainly gender-roles should be flexible enough to allow for such situations!

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

There is no such thing as a "neutral" environment.

---

Not naturally occuring, no.

---

I mean that there is no such thing as a "neutral" envioronment, and there never can be.

Any environment that you create will reflect your biases and your belifs about what is correct.

By a neutral environment, I assume you mean one that isn't tainted by some XX factor in our environment.

But the only way to create an environment that isn't tainted in some way by XX is by having it built by people that also are not tained by XX. The only way to get people like that is if they grew up their whole lives in the neutral environment they are supposed to create. Bootstrap mania!

Concerning gender roles -- let's face it, no matter what the environment is like, there is going to be *some* difference between the sexes, even if it's nothing more than how they pee and reproduce. At the complete opposite end of the spectrum, one of the sexes could be virtual (or literal) slaves of the other.

But there is a line somewhere. If you created a "neutral" environment, all that would mean is that you placed the line where you wanted. This is not neutral. The line would be carefully placed by your opinion of what gender roles should be. And that has come about at least partially because of your experiences in this environment and the gender roles we have here.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Christy -- either those tendencies are inborn, or they are from society, but are so subtle that it is impossible to detect all of them and eliminate them.

Ockam's razor would say that the simpler answer, that it is simply inborn, is the true one.

Of course, I don't believe that Ockam's razor is a very useful tool in determining truth. I just wanted to share my observation.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
If you can't say for sure what characteristics are inborn and what are learned, then it is better for both the individual and society to assume that everything is learned and let the individual discover for themselves what their own strengths and weaknesses are. Thus, no culture or group within society should exclude someone based on their sex for a task, as long as that person shows that they are qualified to do that task.
 

---

Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
 
*deep breath*

Ok, I admit it - I like Barbie. Operaetta likes Barbie too. We have about a million of them, along with a big Barbie castle, an airplane, a travel train, and a car. Some of my favorite memories from my childhood are playing with my Barbies, and I'm pretty sure that Operaetta will recall her Barbies fondly too. Operaetta's Barbies usually go on long involved quests that involve rescuing each other from her brother's Pokemon monsters. Often the Barbies are wounded by her brother's army tanks. I don't see the harm in it. Operaetta plays with legoes and cars as well. What's so evil about Barbie?

space opera
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Thus, no culture or group within society should exclude someone based on their sex for a task, as long as that person shows that they are qualified to do that task.

---

quote:

---

What's so evil about Barbie?

---

Porter made an interesting point the other day. How is Barbie any more harmful to girls than ultra-muscled action figures are to boys? They both reflect unrealistic body ideals that simply cannot be.

My response was that Barbie would not be "evil" at all were it not for the pressures already existing in the society. The pressure is emphasis on girls looking a certain way. So toys that emphasize that are adding to the problem only because the problem already exists.

If we lived in a society where men's very value was placed on how muscled his body was, we might think those ultra-muscled action figures "evil" too.

Look at Hollywood. If you are male and you are ugly, you can still have a career in film/TV. You might be locked into certain roles, but you can make money. If you are a girl and you are ugly, you haven't a prayer of a career in film/TV. It doesn't matter how talented or brilliant you are. There has been so many times that Porter and I will discuss a certain man on TV and I would say, man, a woman that ugly would never make it. He agrees with me. It just isn't fair. That is the society we live in.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I think we basically agree and are saying the same things, Beverly. The problem is that I think many people in society are not nuanced enough in how they handle facts to not make unwarranted assumptions about someone. Sexism is quite strong in society as it is.
 

---

Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
 
I'm in a dark mood, today, so bear with me.

But, but...who wants to play with an ugly Barbie? And what little boy would want to play with a scrawny action figure? Isn't it just natural that we seek out attractive objects to surround ourselves with? I agree that a double standard exists as far as men and women's attractiveness. But when Operaetta wants to play with a doll, she wants it to be pretty. We have a wide range of Barbies with different skin colors and hair colors, so we have been careful about that. But seriously, if Barbie had buck teeth and a mullet who would play with her?

space opera

edit: spelling

[ September 13, 2004, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: Space Opera ]
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Actually, eating disorders are on the rise among young men.

The super-muscled characters of fiction didn't seem to impact the subject one way or the other, although with more men's magazines trying to address the narrowing gender gap in appearance and physical appeal, the subject of male appearance is becoming more of an issue than it has previously.

According to this link, men suffer from a distorted image of their own bodies rather than trying to reach an unrealistic ideal.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
SO, I understand. I am an artist. I love human beauty. If I draw a human, I am going to make it as beautiful and idealistic as possible.

As I said, the problem is not really with Barbie--it is with society.

Of course, there is the point PSI made about the skankiness. Barbie can be beautiful without being skanky.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 

quote:

---

Porter made an interesting point the other day. How is Barbie any more harmful to girls than ultra-muscled action figures are to boys? They both reflect unrealistic body ideals that simply cannot be.

---

quote:

---

My response was that Barbie would not be "evil" at all were it not for the pressures already existing in the society. The pressure is emphasis on girls looking a certain way. So toys that emphasize that are adding to the problem only because the problem already exists.

---

quote:

---

If we lived in a society where men's very value was placed on how muscled his body was, we might think those ultra-muscled action figures "evil" too.

Look at Hollywood. If you are male and you are ugly, you can still have a career in film/TV. You might be locked into certain roles, but you can make money. If you are a girl and you are ugly, you haven't a prayer of a career in film/TV. It doesn't matter how talented or brilliant you are. There has been so many times that Porter and I will discuss a certain man on TV and I would say, man, a woman that ugly would never make it. He agrees with me. It just isn't fair. That is the society we live in.

---

quote:

---

So, I think there is a certain body image ideal that both men and women follow on television.

---

I agree with you. There is definitely a physical ideal for men.

The difference is that if a man doesn't fit it, he can still be famous.

Want proof? Woody Allen.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Ugly and beauty are supremely relative concepts - and while we may have certain underlying themes in most universally held concepts of beauty, the details will vary depending on the audience, professional and non.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
beverly, i'll see your woody allen and raise you a star jones.

Sometimes the exceptions just prove the rule.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
BTW, I had to do an internet search to find out who Star Jones is.

Hmmm, do you really think she is the female equivalent of Woody Allen? I think that just proves my point right there.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Actually, I have never held a He-man figure and wondered why I don't look more like him.

Granted, I have become more pre-occupied with my fitness level of late and to a certain my figure (as such), but I chalk that up mostly to a dissatisfaction with the rest of my life.

Bev, as to the increase in negative traits, I suspect an increase in the balancing of good traits is also present but just not as likely to be commented on. You can argue shows like "Queer Eye" is a guy's way of realizing he should be more than belches & beer and he is trying to figure out what that is, could be or even should be.

It's very confusing. The whole "being more sensitive to her needs" idea is still a little murky to most of us.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Er...maybe? I honestly am the wrong person to ask about this. For instance, I consider Pamela Anderson much more ugly than either Star Jones or Woody Allen.

I will grant you that there are probably a few more ugly men than women on TV, but I think that is because you have so few women calling the shots in the entertainment industry, which is a result of male and female sexism.

In any case, wouldn't you agree that there is definitely a dominant body type for men on television and in the movies?

From a financial standpoint, everything is driven by getting people in to see a movie. Wanting to see beautiful people is both somethign men and women want to do. So, you have a kind of positive feedback mechanism at work where people want to see beautiful people, hollywood often puts the most beautiful people on the screen to fullfil this desire, people want to be the 'most' beautiful they can be.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

It's very confusing. The whole "being more sensitive to her needs" idea is still a little murky to most of us. [Big Grin]

---

Perhaps it is because I am married to Porter, but I find this statement uproarously funny.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Going off of Trevor's post, I honestly consider shows like Queer Eye and the like to also feed into a shallow ideal. Men used to be satisfied with a shower, a clean shirt and pants, and a working pair of shoes. Now they're getting to be as bad as women.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
How many ugly men do you see on soaps? Or in leading roles?

Of course, opinions may vary on what is and is not beautiful in men. And women.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
You can argue both sides, but trying not to live like a slob does not mean "becoming as bad as women."

I mean c'mon - a shower and a clean pair of pants doesn't excuse an apartment that would give the CDC nightmares.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
 

quote:

---

It is marketed in the catalogs and magazines you recieve, the stores you shop in, the television shows you (and especially your children) watch, and it is marketed to other people as well and so it is marketed back to you and your child in your interactions with them.

---

quote:

---

I will grant you that there are probably a few more ugly men than women on TV, but I think that is because you have so few women calling the shots in the entertainment industry, which is a result of male and female sexism.

---

quote:

---

In any case, wouldn't you agree that there is definitely a dominant body type for men on television and in the movies?

---

Oh, definitely! (See my post above. )

quote:

---

From a financial standpoint, everything is driven by getting people in to see a movie. Wanting to see beautiful people is both somethign men and women want to do. So, you have a kind of positive feedback mechanism at work where people want to see beautiful people, hollywood often puts the most beautiful people on the screen to fullfil this desire, people want to be the 'most' beautiful they can be.

---

Yes, yes, but this doesn't justify the double standard. There can be the "beautiful women" who bring in the crowds. But there should also be the "talented but not beautiful women" who have careers and are valued for their talent.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
There are, Bev. And if you notice, I said that that fact was because of both male and female sexism.

Trevor, I was being a little intentionally inflammatory there.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
There are... what?

And what exactly do you mean by both male and female sexism? I didn't really understand what you meant.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
There are examples of 'non-beautiful' women in the movies and entertainment. I don't agree that there is a significant double standard.

Female sexism causes women to not be directors/producers/etc. because it tells women they should be mothers, then producers, etc., or that they should be mothers instead of working. The result is that the number of women trying to break into film and television in director or producer roles is less than men.

It's not just men keeping women out of certain fields.

On rereading your post, I think I went off into a tangent, responding to an argument you hadn't made yet. That is, the double standard exists primarily because of men being in positions of authority in Hollywood.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 

quote:

---

The really funny thing is that he has a tool set, and it has a little air-powered socket wrench . . . that he holds like a gun and makes little laser gun noises with. I mean, the kid is three years old, and his parents are obsessed with not letting him play with any aggressive toys or watch aggressive programs, and here he is toddling around going "PEEEW! PEEEW!" and pointing the thing at people, expecting that they play dead. It really seems to me that boys have SOME hardwired programming to act aggressive and turn things into weapons.

---

quote:

---

Christy -- either those tendencies are inborn, or they are from society, but are so subtle that it is impossible to detect all of them and eliminate them.

Ockam's razor would say that the simpler answer, that it is simply inborn, is the true one.

---

quote:

---

I think if you do look at TV, most men on TV are of a certain musculature. So, I think there is a certain body image ideal that both men and women follow on television.

---

quote:

---

There are examples of 'non-beautiful' women in the movies and entertainment. I don't agree that there is a significant double standard.

---

Hmmmm, I remain unconvinced.

quote:

---

Female sexism causes women to not be directors/producers/etc. because it tells women they should be mothers, then producers, etc., or that they should be mothers instead of working. The result is that the number of women trying to break into film and television in director or producer roles is less than men.

---

I dunno.... If there is anyplace where the "women should be mothers" philosophy is dead, it's in Hollywood. In Hollywood, women should be sex symbols first. If they have a child, their career comes first. If the woman gets old and ugly, she is forgotten. If she gets plastic surgery, she may be remembered and revered--slightly. Men age and they become "dignified". Women age, and their career in Hollywood is over. If there are exceptions, they are few.

I may be exaggerating--slightly. But I think there *definitely* is a double standard.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Do you seriously want to argue that boys instinctively know what a gun is?

---

quote:

---

By the "society only" standard, by all counts I should have played with dolls.

---

quote:

---

By the "genetics" standard, by all counts I should have played with dolls.

---

quote:

---

I rejected the very idea! I scoffed at my younger sister's girlishness! The tendancy in me to nurture had to be developed. It did not come naturally. I was drawn to the cool boyish stuff my older brothers did. My sister was repelled by that. She tried it out, in order to fit in with her three older siblings, but it just was not *her*.

It is all about these latent tendancies that society brings out in us. They are real, they exist!

---

So, um, you agree with me that these latent tendencies are not neessarily determined by gender?


 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Works either way. I don't think this is making your case.

---

quote:

---

As to women in hollywood, they have to get out of the house, first, to get to hollywood. They have to decide to put family second or juggle family and career or not have family at all if they want to come to hollywood and go up against the men and be producers or directors.

---

quote:

---

Easier just to satisfy one type of sexism and stay home and be mothers. No one will fault you for it and everyone will praise you for it.

---

quote:

---

Not quite sure what you are saying here. Many people fault stay-at-home-Moms for not having the much gloried career.

---

quote:

---

Many people feel your self worth is attached to how much money you make.

---

quote:

---

That is part of what bugs me about the "over correction" from the past sexism. Even if being a stay-at-home-Mom *is* the best for kids, no one wants to say so. First, it hurts the feelings of working Moms.

---

quote:

---

Secondly, those who choose to be homemakers are still often thought of as "oppressed" into such a path, unambitious, uneducated, or even lazy.

---

quote:

---

But don't you see? This is evidence for my position!

Do you seriously want to argue that boys instinctively know what a gun is? Before guns were invented did little Roman boys point rolls of papyrus at each other and go "PEEW! PEEEW!"? Did little Native American boys do this? Obviously this boy got the idea of guns from somewhere despite his parents' best efforts to prevent it. It's not unreasonable to presume that he also learned who was supposed to play with guns in the same way. All you have shown is how pervasive our culture and our gender definitions are.

---

No, those little Roman boys rolled up papyrus and hit things with it and went "CLANG! CLANG!" the point is not that he knew what a gun was, it's that he was so fascinated by the concept of a gun that he pretended anything that even looked like a gun was a gun. THAT's where I'm saying there's a difference--that boys are hardwired to be more interested in objects and weapons than girls.

Peace
policy
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
My parents moved to California for a few years. My mother was amazed that even within the relitively odd sub-culture of the LDS Church, there was the expectation that every woman needed to have a career. When people asked my mother what her career is and she said "Mother and housewife", she would just ge dumbfounded stares. Even in such a conservative sub-culture, there was a very negative stigma against somebody who was "just" a mother and housewife.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I recall Lalo making an extremely disparaging and bigoted remark about sahm's, but then that may not surprise anyone.

I face it everytime someone asks me "What do you do?" The judgement is there. On both sides. But it is mostly those involved who experience it.
 

---

Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
 
*nods* Bev, I know exactly what you mean.

space opera
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Porter, but we've had discussions around this subject in the past and, maybe I misunderstood or wasn't paying attention, but it was my understanding that many LDS women on this board have said that they felt stigmatized by LDS culture because they weren't married and/or with children. Too, most LDS women with children on this board are stay at home moms, as far as I know. edit: which would tend to bear out the idea that pressure within LDS society, at least, goes towards staying at home with the children.

edit some more: I am not making the argument that there isn't pressure from opposing ideologies. I am just telling you what I've observed. I am fully prepared to admit that someone else may have had different experiences with this than I have.

And, Bev, people have made disparaging remarks on this board about women who work while they are raising children, too.

[ September 13, 2004, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
SS -- that may be true. I'm just reporting that it sometimes, even inside Mormon culture, happens the other way.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
That's cool, mph.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

And, Bev, people have made disparaging remarks on this board about women who work while they are raising children, too.

---

quote:

---

I've heard of it. I've never seen it.

---

quote:

---

You see, I have articulated this out loud to my husband but not to anyone else. In my experience as a mother, I have thought that mother's are very intimately connected with their children, an intimacy that rivals sexual intimacy. Breastfeeding, bathing, diapering, among other things.

---

Of those items, the only one I did exclusively was breastfeeding. My husband did the diapering, when he was home, and he always gave the kids their evening baths, from infancy on up until the time that they were able to bath themselves.

Just for the record, I agree with Christy's post.
 

---

Posted by Christy (Member # 4397) on :
 
As a woman who is trying to decide whether to go back to work or to stay at home right now, I think there are social pressures from both sides.

The bias against staying at home is that you give up your life for your children and stay at home to cater to their needs and stop fulfilling your own or society's.

I don't believe that this has to be so. I think there are more opportunites to serve your community, yourself and your child while you are at home. If you can afford to do so, it can be very rewarding.

Sadly, the cost of living, saving for the future and lifestyle choices are big counters to this approach. Also, there is the mythical beast of the career, that you will lose status, essentially become idle in the eyes of any future employer, and this is a hard thing to combat.

The bias against working mothers is that you are not doing what is best for your child. That you are selfish and unmotherly for wanting a career, a different lifestyle than a stay at home mom. You are an outsider since you can not be at home during the day to go to mom's groups or playdates and meet other moms. Your child must be missing out on personal attention and the daycare is replacing you as mother and corrupting your child.

I don't believe any of this either. I think daycare can be (and often is) a very rewarding experience for your child. They have resources that many sahm's don't have (although there is becoming more available through the community, I find) and the socialization is good for your child. I think it is important to have a life outside of your child for your emotional well being and for some women work is the best way to get that sense of value and purpose.

*laugh* So I feel rather pushed and pulled at the moment from all sides and I appreciate the many factors that influence a woman's decision to stay at home or not.
 

---

Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
 
Christy- if you haven't done so already, make 4 lists. Pros and cons, of working, or staying home. Of course many parents toss out the lists and go with their heart, but it can help. Also, there are many in between options, and you really CAN change your mind at any time. Best of luck- it's a tough decision.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
"got such talent and intelligence and shouldn't waste it."

I've heard this statement applied to me many times. I've also been told, as if it were a compliment, that I was "Overqualified for being a stay-at-home Mom"

BS. Spending your talents and intelligence on your children is most definitely not wasting it.

And I think you can have both. I certainly plan to. I've been home for the kids early years, I've been home for the older kids when they get home from school, I've had the time in the afternoon to sit down and share homework woes, and read to the little ones, and just be there.

And, I'm planning on going back to school to complete my degree so I can start a new career.

My kids are still my primary concern here however. One, I'm choosing a career that will give me similar hours and off days as my kids by going into education. Two, my mother now lives with us, and when I finish my master's programs, she will be 65 and hopes to retire. So, that even if I'm not home for some things, she will be.

One can raise children and have a career. One may not be able to do both at the same time, or at least not do both to the extent you want to.
 

---