Feminism and the emasculation of men

Bannasidhe

ppars wrote: »

Specifically why is it seemingly more relevant to you than her gender to the discussion ?

It isn't.

You are the one harping on about it.

I have explained several times why I used that term. Obliq has explained several times why I used that term. You seem to have a problem with that term.

Children have genitalia. It is used when they are born to determine what gender they are as it is the most obvious difference!

Then depending on the genitalia we go blue or pink/doll or truck/ nurse or firefighter etc etc while knowing absolutely nothing about what the actual child prefers or is actually interested in...!

Dude - build a gender neutral lego bridge and get over it.

lufties

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

If he was six or seven yeh, but at two or three it might not be indicative of anything; just a toy he likes playing with.

When I was 4 years old all I wanted to have was a he-man figure, I eventually got it and it would have been a very special treat because my parents didn't have much at the time. I would have gotten the idea for this toy on TV probably amongst others, my little pony etc.

ppars

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It isn't.

You are the one harping on about it.

I think you'll find that's you. You introduced it, and you're still on about it, I'd get over it if I were you.

Obliq

lufties wrote: »

I'm not a parent, but if I saw a young boy playing with barbie dolls it would indicate to me a more effeminate child. Perhaps I'm just a dinosaur.

It wouldn't indicate that to me at all.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

5 year old boy = would watch TV all day if you left him unless there is an opportunity to bake something. Prone to emotional outbursts.

Totally my youngest. Wanted, and got at toy cooker when he was little. Unfortunately, it only came in pink but he didn't mind but it only lasted as long as discovering you couldn't actually cook with it.

Obliq

lufties wrote: »

When I was 4 years old all I wanted to have was a he-man figure, I eventually got it and it would have been a very special treat because my parents didn't have much at the time. I would have gotten the idea for this toy on TV probably amongst others, my little pony etc.

I always wanted a Sindy, and eventually got one (I think it was a friend's spare one out of the 10 or so she had!). My mother reminded me years later that I cut off her hair into a fetching mohican and died it with green food colouring, when I arrived back from the UK with the same hair do one time

lufties

Obliq wrote: »

I always wanted a Sindy, and eventually got one (I think it was a friend's spare one out of the 10 or so she had!). My mother reminded me years later that I cut off her hair into a fetching mohican and died it with green food colouring, when I arrived back from the UK with the same hair do one time

That's funny, I used to have 'westlife' style highlights in my hair for years :pac:

Aineoil

lufties wrote: »

I'm not a parent, but if I saw a young boy playing with barbie dolls it would indicate to me a more effeminate child. Perhaps I'm just a dinosaur.

What toys a child plays with is completely irrelevant. It is most important, however, that they play. Children learn through play.

RDM_83 again

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I knew I was gay when I was seven.

Of course back in the sexist Seventies ironically there were a huge range of gender neutral toys and toys....my 3 months older then I male cousin had the exact same bike as me and we wore the same clothes - jeans/t-shirts and what we in Cork called Rubber Dollies (known to the rest of the world as plimsolls) or wellys depending on climate/location.

Interesting I had no idea of my sexuality at that stage I have always presumed that attraction was always "expressed/differentiated" in very early puberty and most of what happens before then is more to do with "gender" (in the social construct meaning e.g mimicking older peoples relationships) though I suppose since sexuality is considered to be influenced at the in-vitro stage it makes sense.

Actually if we're considering this where I can see the boys/girls sections possibly being harmful as it creates a perception of whats normal, what difference does the coloration of a toy make, pink isn't some inherently female characteristic, if the toy tool set is pink or blue it does it make a difference.

As an aside can you still buy chemistry sets containing random fairly unsafe things or have they disappeared.

Obliq

lufties wrote: »

That's funny, I used to have 'westlife' style highlights in my hair for years :pac:

See? Not such a big divide after all ;-) I'm still dying my hair age inappropriate colours though....

lufties

Aineoil wrote: »

What toys a child plays with is completely irrelevant. It is most important, however, that they play. Children learn through play.

Ok then, let me re-phrase it, I I had a young son who constantly played with barbie dolls, pink combs and hair dryers over cars, GI joe's etc, Then it would indicate an effeminate child to me.

Pug160

There are a few factors at play I feel. The PC brigade and certain types of feminism may have something to do with it, but in my opinion, other men emasculate other men more than women do. It's a bit like what you see on those wildlife programmes, where the insecure beta males pick fights with the other perceived betas, while the alphas just go about their business. Modern society has created a dog eat dog environment with winners and losers. But the good news is that you can be who you want to be within reason.

lufties

Obliq wrote: »

See? Not such a big divide after all ;-) I'm still dying my hair age inappropriate colours though....

I'm starting to get a bit of a tax disc on the top of my head, so I'll prob be going for the 3 all over sooner rather than later lol.

SYT2000

Obliq wrote: »

That's a maybe so, but not so differently that when they get born they have immediate preferences for pink or blue. Can't take the point on that at all, no? How about when you go shopping for a boy OR a girl, and you want to get an age appropriate toy that doesn't look like it's for either - reckon you'd have much luck? I'm not being at all sarcastic.....just a little despairing about what we get sold at an early age.

Companies can sell what they want.

Obliq

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Actually if we're considering this where I can see the boys/girls sections possibly being harmful as it creates a perception of whats normal, what difference does the coloration of a toy make, pink isn't some inherently female characteristic, if the toy tool set is pink or blue it does it make a difference.

As an aside can you still buy chemistry sets containing random fairly unsafe things or have they disappeared.

Yes, they're still around! I have miscellaneous chemicals currently leaking into the youngest's toy cupboard as we speak. You can get some ace soldering sets these days too, with robots and awful bagpipe simulators to solder.

Was that a question, about whether it makes a difference what colour the toy is? I think it does, and in the way you mention - where gender assigned colours are "normal", it restricts children from getting toys that "aren't for their gender".

Obliq

SYT2000 wrote: »

Companies can sell what they want.

We're the ones that buy into it. See my comment above. After all, it's we adults who don't buy the pink stuff for the boys, etc.

Links234

lufties wrote: »

Ok then, let me re-phrase it, I I had a young son who constantly played with barbie dolls, pink combs and hair dryers over cars, GI joe's etc, Then it would indicate an effeminate child to me.

and what's wrong with an effeminate child?

ppars

Links234 wrote: »

and what's wrong with an effeminate child?

Where did they say there was ?

Obliq

lufties wrote: »

I'm starting to get a bit of a tax disc on the top of my head, so I'll prob be going for the 3 all over sooner rather than later lol.

I like the all over 3, although I prefer my fella's blade 0!

Links234 wrote: »

and what's wrong with an effeminate child?

Good question. And related to that point by another poster recently about men "emasculating" men. Is it that men still are unwilling to accept the less hard/tough/"real" men? I think that whole "be a man" thing (as in, don't cry, you sissy) is so damaging to boys growing up.

Bannasidhe

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Interesting I had no idea of my sexuality at that stage I have always presumed that attraction was always "expressed/differentiated" in very early puberty and most of what happens before then is more to do with "gender" (in the social construct meaning e.g mimicking older peoples relationships) though I suppose since sexuality is considered to be influenced at the in-vitro stage it makes sense.

Actually if we're considering this where I can see the boys/girls sections possibly being harmful as it creates a perception of whats normal, what difference does the coloration of a toy make, pink isn't some inherently female characteristic, if the toy tool set is pink or blue it does it make a difference.

As an aside can you still buy chemistry sets containing random fairly unsafe things or have they disappeared.

I think it varies from person to person. For me it was seeing a neighbouring tomboy and thinking 'hello...!' I knew she was a girl. And obviously I knew I was a girl. I also realised I 'liked' the kind of girl she was in a way that I did not 'like' boys (they were de lads like) or the 'girly' girls - they were annoying like

I think the false gender differentiations are incredibly harmful and create a 'tunnel' of narrowed options. They close children's minds at the exact moment we should be encouraging them to be open. I have even had to intervene when grand kids are bickering about 'boy' music and 'girl' music - music is music - it has no bloody gender.

Look at dolls - the theory behind dolls was so girls could play at being 'mommy' - a lot of children's play is mimicking adults while they try and find their place in the world - and there was a time when that was seen as the main role girls would assume when adult. Boys would be bread winners not the primary carers for small babies so they did not 'need' that area of role play.

But the OP said a few posts back that if he saw a 7 year old boy with a doll he would think him effeminate (although why that is a 'bad' thing is beyond me) yet - men do care for small babies and in that context it is perfectly natural that a boy who will grow up to be a parent role plays being a parent by caring for a little replica baby.

Daveysil15

lufties wrote: »

Fair enough, I suppose now I think of it, a mate of mine had a swedish girlfriend who might typify that neutral gender thing. She worked as a labourer on building sites no bother to her. Then other days she'd be wearing a nice dress with make up looking very feminine. Sometimes then we'd be sitting around and she'd let farts rip like it's nobody's business lol. Interesting concept.

Well she's hardly going to wear the hi-vis jacket and hard hat when going to the pub. Unless its a Village People night.

RDM_83 again

Obliq wrote: »

Was that a question, about whether it makes a difference what colour the toy is? I think it does, and in the way you mention - where gender assigned colours are "normal", it restricts children from getting toys that "aren't for their gender".

True but (keeping in mind I have no kids) aren't younger children fairly independently minded in that their "roles" aren't deeply associated. My other point in that post was that "if a toy tool set is pink or blue does it make a difference" meaning that even if the colouration is "gender specific" if the toys are available in pink I can't see how that implies those toys and the role-playing for careers/activities aren't gender exclusive.

I presume the apparent changes with toys becoming more gendered must be led by (adult) consumer choice because one thing we haven't got worse at in the last 20 years is consumer modeling/marketing and I don't see some "evil patriachal conspiracy" ever coming before profit margins.

Aineoil

lufties wrote: »

Ok then, let me re-phrase it, I I had a young son who constantly played with barbie dolls, pink combs and hair dryers over cars, GI joe's etc, Then it would indicate an effeminate child to me.

It might, maybe. Nobody knows that for certain, it's still irrelevant.
Children should be allowed to play with whatever toys that appeal to them.

Bannasidhe

Daveysil15 wrote: »

Well she's hardly going to wear the hi-vis jacket and hard hat when going to the pub. Unless its a Village People night.

Or a free in if you are in 70s Fancy Dress and no way are you prepared to do 'disco'....or pay to get in...


Or so I heard.....




won first prize but me fake moustache was stolen by a bottle of smirnoff ice

lufties

Daveysil15 wrote: »

Well she's hardly going to wear the hi-vis jacket and hard hat when going to the pub. Unless its a Village People night.

you never know..pints on a friday with the breakfast roll men. A less hairy arse crack hangin over the bar stool :pac:

lufties

Aineoil wrote: »

It might, maybe. Nobody knows that for certain, it's still irrelevant.
Children should be allowed to play with whatever toys that appeal to them.

when did I once say they shouldn't be

Aineoil

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I think it varies from person to person. For me it was seeing a neighbouring tomboy and thinking 'hello...!' I knew she was a girl. And obviously I knew I was a girl. I also realised I 'liked' the kind of girl she was in a way that I did not 'like' boys (they were de lads like) or the 'girly' girls - they were annoying like

I think the false gender differentiations are incredibly harmful and create a 'tunnel' of narrowed options. They close children's minds at the exact moment we should be encouraging them to be open. I have even had to intervene when grand kids are bickering about 'boy' music and 'girl' music - music is music - it has no bloody gender.

Look at dolls - the theory behind dolls was so girls could play at being 'mommy' - a lot of children's play is mimicking adults while they try and find their place in the world - and there was a time when that was seen as the main role girls would assume when adult. Boys would be bread winners not the primary carers for small babies so they did not 'need' that area of role play.

But the OP said a few posts back that if he saw a 7 year old boy with a doll he would think him effeminate (although why that is a 'bad' thing is beyond me) yet - men do care for small babies and in that context it is perfectly natural that a boy who will grow up to be a parent role plays being a parent by caring for a little replica baby.

Well said. I agree with you totally.

willfarmerman

Mcdonalds ad sums it up the way society is heading

Pug160

The colour pink is an interesting one: is it really an innately feminine colour? I've read articles that state pink was the colour for baby boys in America a couple of hundred years ago. But then again, pink is a warm colour and it has been said that girls are drawn to warm colours more than boys. Then there was the pink triangle in the Nazi prison camps. I remember wearing a pink shirt years ago and it got a few laughs, even from a girl.

Obliq

RDM_83 again wrote: »

True but (keeping in mind I have no kids) aren't younger children fairly independently minded in that their "roles" aren't deeply associated. My other point in that post was that "if a toy tool set is pink or blue does it make a difference" meaning that even if the colouration is "gender specific" if the toys are available in pink I can't see how that implies those toys and the role-playing for careers/activities aren't gender exclusive.

I presume the apparent changes with toys becoming more gendered must be led by (adult) consumer choice because one thing we haven't got worse at in the last 20 years is consumer modeling/marketing and I don't see some "evil patriachal conspiracy" ever coming before profit margins.

I agree that it's led by adult consumer choice, and with pink they've definitely been onto a winner. Just walk down the dolls aisle in Smyths, or glance around a children's clothes section in Dunnes.

I think the problem with boys having pink toys is that their peers can already be conditioned to laugh and point the finger - ha ha, you have girls stuff! and ditto with the camo clothes in blue/grey on girls. We (adults) have assigned these roles to our kids. Ain't no one else doing it.

As Banna says, in the 70's (when I grew up too) there was way more gender unassigned gear. Hell, the lego was multicoloured and not marketed towards a tv show or cartoon. The jumpers were interchangeable (I remember a stripey velour top in brown, orange and red, that both me and my little bro loved). Yes, I wanted girl stuff too cos my friends had it and I saw it on tv - the hair dressing head (what was that called) I never got, for example.

I definitely think we adults do this to ourselves by selling out the next generation though. For example, I'm the only woman I know whose father gave her lessons in power tools from age 8 or 10. Know any yourself? If we all want to change this notion that women are only good at/for some stuff, and men are only good at/for other stuff, and both genders are that defined, we have got to stop defining them that way ourselves. In every way -even the way we're generalising about feminism/masculinity on this thread.

ppars

Aineoil wrote: »

It might, maybe. Nobody knows that for certain, it's still irrelevant.
Children should be allowed to play with whatever toys that appeal to them.

What happens then when a girl choses pink and playing with a dolls ? Does it still hold then ?