Are gender specific toys a hazard to children? | FACTUAL FEMINIST

Are gender specific toys a hazard to children? | FACTUAL FEMINIST

If you’re tempted to buy a Hello Kitty
set for a little girl, or a Transformer for a young boy, the White House wants
you to reconsider. The administration recently hosted a day-long summit on the
hazards of gender-specific toys, which apparently limit a child’s life
prospects, and may even endanger our economy. Well could they be right? That’s
coming up next on The Factual Feminist. Though it began as a kind of fringe
Internet movement, the crusade to abolish the pink/blue divide in children’s
toys is gaining power. Last year, Target announced that it would remove gender
labeling in toy aisles, and now the Obama administration has joined the
bandwagon. Valerie Jarrett, Senior Advisor to President Obama, opened the White House
gathering by saying, “Changing culture is not necessarily easy and doesn’t happen
overnight, but we can do it if we work together.” Well, gender scholars and
activists discussed the need to redefine boyhood and weaken gender norms.
Representatives from companies like Mattel, Disney, and Lego were there. Their job was to absorb the lessons on
gender neutrality, and explain how their companies plan to meet the new demands.
Now, this summit was not a response to widespread public outcry. A 2015 market
research survey found that about twenty-eight percent of americans agree
that quote, “The toy industry perpetuates gender stereotypes and should be
marketing every toy to both boys and girls.” Well, public opinion may be changing.
Among millennials, 40-percent agreed with the proposition. Many in the media are
excited by the gender revolution they believe is afoot, and a recent article in
Time declared that, “The next generation of kids will play with gender neutral
toys.” Well, The Factual Feminist is skeptical. Now I agree that parents should expose
their kids to a wide range of toys and play activities, and of course they
should teach them to be accepting of kids who enjoy gender non-conforming
toys. But the activists are less interested in tolerance than they are in
changing boys and girls elemental preferences. Not many boys want doll houses and not
many girls want dump trucks. When my granddaughter Eliza was given a toy train, she placed in a baby
carriage and tucked in with a blanket so it could get some sleep. Children are not gender neutral. And if
40 percent of millennials believe otherwise, that’s probably because most of them
have not yet had kids. The White House summit was heavy on activists and
motivational speakers and thought leaders, but light on evidence. Thanks to toy manufacturers themselves,
whose survival depends on understanding their customers, solid research exists,
but its conclusions don’t fit the movement’s narrative. Consider what Lego
discovered after four years of investigating and interviewing thousands
of children to figure out what it would take to get girls to buy construction
blocks. In one experiment, boys and girls were asked to build a castle. Now for the
boys, the castle was just the hastily
constructed scene in which the main event – the battle between the Lego
figures – took place. For girls, the castle was central, and they wanted to know what was going on
inside! Unlike the boys, the girls wanted
detailed and personalized characters so that they could imagine them as friends. Trigger warning! Here is a toy that
captures the imagination of vast numbers of little boys. And here is what works
for little girls. And girls and their parents, they rewarded Lego for figuring
out what they wanted! And they purchased millions of sets! But the gender-neutralists were very unhappy. Elizabeth Sweet, a feminist sociologist and presenter at
the White House summit, told the Wall Street Journal that quote, “Pinkified
building sets send a clear message that girls are fundamentally less capable
than boys when it comes to building.” Major protests ensued, including an
online petition with nearly seventy thousand signatures, accusing Lego of
selling out girls. In my view, Lego isn’t selling out girls, but the
advocates and petitioners and the White House are under estimating them. More
than 30 years ago, Vivian Gussin Paley, a beloved
kindergarten teacher at the Chicago Lab School, worried that girls might be
missing out on the benefits of the boys’ superhero play. But her observations of the
doll corner assuaged her fears. Though on the surface, typical girl play seemed
relatively calm and passive, Paley learned that girls are as interested in
domination as boys. Their play is full of conflict and imaginary power struggles.
Their fantasies are just as complex and inventive as the boys’, though manifestly
different. As Paley explained, “Mothers and princesses are as powerful as any
superheroes the boys devise.” Now, these choices weren’t foisted on the girls –
they were self-imposed. And as Paley said, “No amount of adult subterfuge or
propaganda deflects the five-year-old’s passion for segregation by sex.” Paley
grasped a simple truth that many today are forgetting: ignoring genuine differences
between boys and girls is just as misguided as creating them where
none exist. And a final point: Lego did test-market a set featuring
female scientists, and I have to say I found it quite affirming to see
middle-aged, responsibly proportioned, professional women finally given their
due. But it remains to be seen if this will capture the imagination of little
girls. Of course, the activists were still not satisfied. “Why are they wearing lipstick!?” they asked.
Do you think the White House should be promoting toy neutrality? Let me know in
the comments section. And if you found this video valuable, please subscribe to
the series, follow me on Twitter and Facebook. And one more thing: this is the last time we will be filming
in this set. We’re moving to state-of-the-art
facility! Stay tuned, and thank you for watching
The Factual Feminist.

100 thoughts on “Are gender specific toys a hazard to children? | FACTUAL FEMINIST”

  1. Any intelligent child will ignore the path that the psycho-babble idiots are designing for them and find their own way in life.

  2. I'm what they call "the anti- kid" if it's the popular view I'm probably against it you like going outside nope

  3. When I was a kid in the 70s I remember a woman was on the news in tears because she had insisted her little boy play with a Barbie doll and he turned its legs into a slingshot, killing a bird. I'm a mom of four and childcare professional, and in my experience kids like to play with all kinds of toys, but typically boys like action toys and girls prefer toys that pertain to the household, relationships and creating detail, whether in hairstyles or decor. Of course there is some cross over and I think all kids like certain toys, such as blocks. With all the things to worry about, this one is really stupid.

  4. As a girl who enjoyed playing with traditionally boy centered toys, I think people should just let the kid choose the toys they wanna play with. There will be boys who want to play with girl's toys and girls who want to play with boy's toys, and it's their preference, but for the most part, kids like playing with toys that traditionally align with their gender and that ain't bad at all.

  5. I really agree with this. The way boys and girls play is simply different, even if they use the same toys, as my brother and I did. If we played with lego, I ( a girl) would always want to build intricate scenes and give every lego character a name, and my brother would be impatient to bring the lego people on adventures. I had many dolls, and, like most girls, loved dressing them up. My brother took one of my dolls enough that he got his own for a birthday, and he made his baby doll into a baby superhero, perfect for throwing around the house. Of course boys and girls can play with the same toys, I played happily with my brother's Hotwheels (after carefully setting up the track), and my brother happily played with my dolls, but this doesn't mean that boys and girls have the exact same preferences. I would never have been as happy to receive superhero toys as my brother was, nor would he be as happy as I was to receive new dresses for dolls. Boys and girls are simply different.

  6. I'm so glad we now have a President who — while far from perfect — would laugh this kind of utter garbage out of the room.

  7. I played with Star Wars and had dolls. But was a tomboy in some ways. I grew up to be a feminine woman (not feminist). Who really cares about labels. Lets focus on real issues in society

  8. When my sisters and I played with dolls. My ken doll always went off to war to kill the bad guys and drove fast cars. My sister's dolls stayed at home keeping house……….

  9. Unless grandma is like “oh silly granddaughter, that’s a boys toy you can’t have that!” Then it’s not an issue to me. It’s not a parents choice what their child wants to play with, it’s their role to enable them to play with what they want, regardless of if it’s blue or pink.

  10. The only thing that making neutral toys (and forcing them) will accomplish, is having every child unsatisfied with their toys. The differences between the children should be celebrated. Neither girls nor boys are more important than each other. They may be different, and have different interests and strengths. I see that as a strength. It's part of why men and women compliment each other. Understanding and celebrating these differences is how society can evolve and grow in positive ways where both are free to be happy with their lives.
    Children should be exposed to as many things as possible so they can get a better idea of what they want to pursue in life. If you have a girl who wants to play with trucks, by all means, encourage them, but don't force them to go against their own personal nature.

  11. Why were they wearing lipstick? Maybe to look amazing while saving the lives of billions with just a simple cure? Who the fuck cares lol

  12. In my opinion, it's ALWAYS an interplay between society and biology (or even religion, since both support deterministic arguments).

    Ideologues want to have it one way or the other, whether that's all society (and thus THIS IS WRONG/THIS IS HURTFUL) or all biology (and thus CHANGING THIS IS STUPID/THESE SJWS ARE DUMB). But it's not one or the other. It's both, and both sides make valid points.

    Also, whilst ostensibly factual, I think it's important to remember that research is not infallible. Imo, we need people who question researched findings, or else we can create a canon of social "science" that is unknowingly biased towards one's ideology. Again, this is on both sides… and we have a stronger tendency to question the methods of studies we disagree with, whilst being less inclined to devote our skeptical rigour to studies that serve our beliefs..

  13. I grew up on a farm, out in the middle of nowhere and had no one to play with except my sister and brother. When I was 3, my sister 2 and my brother was still crawling, my cousin would come visit with the family. She was 3, like myself, and all she wanted to do was play house. I didn't want to play but she needed me to play the father and my brother was supposed to be the baby and my sister was to be one of our kids. I refused by she'd run crying to her dad that I wouldn't play house with them. He'd force me to play and my parents would tell me to smarten up and play nice.

    If it was summer, first chance I got, I'd made a run for it. I'd hide in the barn and wait for her to get tired of looking for me. I remember peeking out between the boards of the haymow and watching her walking around outside the house, crying and calling out for me, but I wasn't leaving my hiding spot. Eventually the adults would start looking and I'd have to come out. My parents would get mad and send me to my room which suited my just fine. This happened almost every time they visited.

    I knew what I liked and it wasn't playing house.

  14. I honestly love the calm and well informed way she made her points in this particular video. I'm by no means an expert on Christina, but I think more people on both sides need to take her approach when it comes to these discussions. to me well calm well informed discussion trumps passionately vitriolic attacks (when done outside of satire, there's a time an place for everything after all)

  15. I was a tomboy. Are you saying I didn’t exist? I was given a baby carriage and I used it to store blocks. I was given a toy kitchen and I used it as a workbench. I had short hair when I was 5 and used to torture any doll given to me with T. rex figures. I loved science and read science books all by myself since I was 3.(I was reading early) I played Nintendo Entertainment System, watched He man, and did math for fun. I did science experiments. I hated the colour pink. I love blue to this day. I don’t shop for fun. I hate fashion. Pop music is trash. I don’t gossip or care about celebrities. I am working on a Biology degree.And I never married and never will because men are friggin ugly and I’ll pretend to be an idiot to get male attention when pigs fly. I want to be a laboratory taxonomist, not a sissy homemaker. I never liked girly shit still don’t.( it is superficial and stupid) You are erasing who I am and everything I ever was. Fuck you. I need feminism because morons like this lady still think that the gender binary (female/feminine/androphilic or male/masculine/gynophilic) still applies. Not every kid with two X chromosomes likes dollies and princess shit. I sure as hell didn’t!

  16. I will never forget the day my daugther got her first puppet. She just turned 2 years. She screamed and cried of joy. Clapping her hands. Overwhelmed. Oh was för 10 years her toy. I hate that feminism made of us.

  17. The sets are like that because that's what girls enjoy. These people are so sensitive when it comes to this stuff. If you don't like the Legos, then don't get them! Stop making up more bullshit to get the community rattled. I get sick of hearing this. I used to love going to the toy store and looking at all the military images on the toy soldiers! It was great! And then you always had the girl section full of pink because that's what GIRLS LIKE!!! At least, most of girls like that stuff. Again, if ur child doesn't want a specific toy because it looks too male or too female, THEN DON'T F**** GET IT!!!!!! Simple as that! Period!

  18. Interesting. My childhood wasn't gender-neutral, but I definitely preferred Lego to dolls, enjoyed playing Superheros (in fact, any 'dress-up' or 'character' type play), and was bored to death by Mummies and Daddies, or any kind of real-life keeping house stuff. However, I loved pink and my soft toy cats. I'm glad to say that nobody forced me to play with so-called girls' toys, or discouraged me from playing with so-called boys' toys. Having said all this, I agree that there are some differences between the way girls and boys play and interact. These differences are neither bad, nor good, but just part of life. As long as nobody is being forced to confirm to stereotypes, or prevented from having fun and expanding their minds through play, then who cares?

  19. It's all so silly. Kids should play with whatever kinds of toys they like. As a little girl, I played with dolls and had tons of Barbie stuff, but I also liked toy cars and army men. My parents let me play with whatever toy made me happy.

  20. I don’t even think boys want toys to keep for longevity. Boys destroy things. We will build a city out of LEGO and lay out our hot wheels and pretend to be Godzilla.

    To be honest, boys need to build models (anything from Japanese mechs to model rockets) and play video games to have toys they truly respect. One is a build of the boys creation, the other needs to be in working order to play again. Of course these are for everyone, and there are many other examples that come to mind.

    I know this, because this continues into adulthood. Cars, guns, sports equipment, garage tools. These are for everyone but they are so ubiquitous with men for a reason. They’re tools formed from toys that require respect, though they are often capable of destruction.

  21. Boys know what they want to play with however girls do not; that is what women say. They see how men are more Successful in carres well paid than women are, so they think that little girls should be raised as little boys.

  22. I found this very interesting. Something that I have hear a lot is that the reason more guys play video games is because it was marketed to them more than girls. It would have been a nice point to cover. Love the videos.

  23. A telling comment was the White House's statement that "Cultural change takes time." Whenever you hear a politician talk about cultural change, your alarm bells should ring. Culture is essentially what we want to do. What the politicians are saying is that they want to be our masters, not our representatives, and change us.

  24. It's all good having masculine and feminine toys just don't write FOR GIRLS or FOR BOYS on them. Let the kid decide what they want to play with. If a girl wants to play with a Barbie that's cool, if a boy wants to play with a Barbie that's cool. I think this is more what the government is talking about. People are freaking out that gender-neutral means girls are only allowed to play with building blocks and boys with dolls where that's not it at all. It means they can play with whatever they like regardless of gender. Taking those labels off toys will mean kids won't be discouraged or made fun off for playing with them. There's no harm on removing labels. It may not mean more boys play with dolls (because eqaul oppurtunity does not mean eqaul outcome) but it could mean they wont be scared of doing so if they would like too

  25. I work in the toy industry.
    It is every toy company's DREAM to create a toy that appeals to both boys AND girls- it doubles your market!
    The idea that a toy company would hamstring itself by purposefully alienating half of their market is bizarre and laughable.

  26. Good luck trying to get five-year-old me to play with a toy truck. I was only interested in the Barbie. That's a feat you couldn't accomplish.

  27. People in this comment section need to stop acting like kids totally have no influence about what they like by seeing what kids their age play with and what they automatically received from their parents growing up. Girls aren't biologically inclined to like barbies lol. I think this woman conveniently left out a huge chunk of the discussion.

  28. I said in my class that if you ask all the younger girls in our school the majority of them would like playing with dolls or like the color pink? The sjw females in my class instantly started yelling at me that it wasn't true? But it is true in my class the girls make assumptions without any basis and intantly gang up on you and scream at you if you disagree

  29. I think this debate has far less to do with feminism than mens'/boys' rights. Certainly historically boys have been abused (sissy, girly-boy) for wanting to play with girls' toys. Girls playing with boys' toys has never been a problem. So removing gender bias from toys is a good thing.

  30. The toy companies would be overjoyed if both boys and girls wanted a certain toy. More profit for them. But it doesn't work that way. Girls are not forced to ask for baby dolls and boys construction sets: but it tends to come out that way.

  31. Nature vs Nurture, in the context of gender being a "social construct," isn't even a thing anymore. Dr. John Money LIED! We've known he lied about the John/Joan case since 1997! Gender is innate.

  32. Ironic considering that before the 1940s-50s, pink was for boys and blue was for girls. Ironic I mean for the activists.

  33. The question should be: Is a mother and father who shame their son for wanting a face paint of a blue butterfly harmful? Is them forcing him to get a skull face paint instead and the fact that stories like these are factual and all too common a problem? What effect do you think this might have on how they view masculinity? Is it rational to shame a child for showing traits that are deemed "too feminine"?

    Another good question for you to ask yourself would be: How is it harmful for kids to see LGBTQ individuals represented in media? How is it harmful in any way to tell a child that there are people who don't identify as male or female? If it were harmful, wouldn't it be just as harmful to show them or tell them about hetero cis gendered people?

  34. When I was a kid I was pretty tomboyish, I played with Transformers, Dragons, Mega Blocks in general, but I'd also pick up dolls sometimes tho very rarely. No one is stopping girl and boys from buying "gendered" toys. In my eyes, toys are all gender neutral because everyone can play with them. My cousin who is a straight teen male now he used to paint his nails, play with Barbies and watched girl cartoons. No need to force these stuff onto children, they know what they want and will be more happier with toys they prefer.

  35. What even are "gender neutral toys"?

    All I can think of is grey blobs, because colors could offend someone or be "ableist", and shapes could cause the same reaction. No child will want to play with that.

    Mind you, I'm a child of the 80s. I had Masters of the Universe. But oddly enough, the cartoon? Boys and girls watched it. My female friends played with my MotU figures.

    With my cousins (all girls) it was easy to mix their Barbie with my Skeletor (and I tell you, Skeletor looked stunning in a Barbie dress.)

    There were no issues, no problems whatsoever. We had fun.

    That might be the issue: kids having fun. We can't have that! We must rather fill the brains of children with made up problems that stem from idle, over-privileged minds.

    I feel sorry for the kids who end up as lab rats for these lunatics.

  36. I'm definitely female and I played with Matchbox cars and model horses. I didn't own dolls or more "feminine" toys. I didn't want them. I had no idea what to do with them. But I'm not "transgender" – I was just a girl playing with cool toys in the early 1970s.

  37. Let’s see:
    Marvel Comics sales are dropping.
    Matel sales are dropping.
    Toys R Us closed.
    Yeah it is dangerous to our economy, just not how they think.

  38. Wow, this is the first "Factual Feminist" video I've watched. Very thought provoking. Watched it by clicking the link you posted under the BBC video about #NoBoysOrGirls. Going to continue tuning in here.

  39. The government has NO business trying to puppet master what toys our kids play with. Even if it were helpful for society, which it isn’t, that is a major overstep of the wannabe totalitarian government. Governments are here to protect individual rights and that’s it.

  40. The russians tried to change culture by sending millions of people to the goulag for 80 years. They didn’t succeed.
    The arrogant western leftists will change the culture by forcing children to play with toys they don’t have any interest for. Yeah, for sure, good luck.

  41. The non factual feminist will never be happy. If the lego uses lipstick they'll be angry, if not, Lego is masculinizing their toys.

  42. This is getting ridiculous. The important thing is that children are allowed to play with whatever toy they want regardless of that toys suggestive gender.

  43. Ironic that liberals can support people who cross dress as opposite gender but want toys to be gender neutral. How about transexual dress in a gender neutral way and not put on any make up?

  44. The only opinion I took notice of with regard to toys for my sons, was that of the boys themselves. If they'd gone in for dolls and tea sets, then I'd have gone along with it happily. As it happens, they didn't. But that's good too. I wasn't about to tell them how they should play and I wasn't letting anyone else do it either.

  45. Girls don't want girly toys. A vast majority of girls want girly toys. Barbie, Lego Friends and so on never caught on with me, so please stop generalizing. I played with Lego, Playmobil, a wooden miniature train and watched my brother play GTA and Minecraft and play with Lego and Playmobil.

  46. Promoting gender neutrality is like promoting a gender stereotype onto any gender. Instead, let the kids decide what they want to play whether its for boys or girls. LET THE CHILDREN DECIDE, NOT THE ACTIVISTS.

  47. Yet another reason why I am moving more to the center, and away from the left.
    Honestly, they embarrass me. Whenever I identify as "liberal", everybody always just assumes that I believe that gender is a social construct, and that I want more gun control.
    Sure, I don't care about what others think about me, to be quite frank, but I just don't want to identify myself with that group. Plus, anyways, I don't agree with everything they rant and rave about. I have beliefs on both sides, although I may lean a bit more left than right.

  48. Feminist seem to think that typically feminine traits like being a caring person , motherhood etc. inferior and weak. As I think the qualities girls have like emphaty (still a generalisation) are important and crutial traits for a homan being. They are as virtuos as typically masculine traits.

  49. Agreed on all points! My daughter and son always played with all of their toys together, because we have a toy room rather than separate toys. Whenever my daughter played with trucks, the biggest ones would be the Daddy & Mommy, and the smallest the babies. When my son played with dolls, the princesses and soldiers were all lumped together as winners or casualties of war. They didn't care about gender, they just wanted an outlet for their imaginations. Kudos to LEGO for not giving in to the bullies!

  50. At one time, I was babysitting several Dozen children, while a Women's Organization celebrated their birthday. I felt obligated to seperate the genders. The Girls decided to have a fashion parade(Their Mothers provided Lip stick and Makeup), while the boys decided to wrestle. It was true that 3 boys decided to the other side, but they came back quickly. One girl was curious as to what the boys were doing (Unfortunately, she witnessed one boy pulling another over his shoulder then pouncing on him for a pin.), so she refused to even consider participating.

    Surely, This shows a difference of opinion in play!

  51. As a kid my mother wanted me zo wear pants most of the time since they are more practical (easier to wash etc) but I still insisted to wear glittery skirts snd pink dresses. But was also interested in tech and science because of my dad. Kids are multidimensional, humans are multidimensional.

  52. I think it cones down to the advertising. Maybe if they removed the labels such "boys toys" or "girls toys" while keeping the toys the same. Everyone knows more or less who the toys are aimed for, but it allows the kids to make their own choices on the matters better.

  53. imo those isles of "toys for boys" and "toys for girls" are stupid, toys can come in pink and glitter if you want but why to segregate them if afterwards sane parents will allow their kids to pick from any isle anyways, and insane parents will not allow their kids to shop in the "wrong" isle. I really wanted a toy crossboy or a sword as a child, but mom prohobited to go anywhere near "boys isle", cause "those toys are not for you, lets look at baby dolls instead". why would a kid want a baby as a toy…

  54. "Why are the figures wearing lipstick?"


    I'm sorry, but that really angered me when you said they asked that. It's like, why WOULDN'T they wear lipstick? Also, it's such a small detail. Like, NO ONE CARES!!!!

  55. Put a group of 3 year old boys and girls,in a roomful of various toys; you will notice which toys each naturally gravitates towards – THAT'S NATURE, LEAVE IT BE !!

  56. Thank you !!
    Another fantastic analysis by Sommers.
    Truly grateful for these excellent videos. Hope they never stop!

  57. This is so typical of the way that feminists strain at gnats while swallowing camels. To take the last point that Hoff Sommers makes first, where is the logic of complaining about lipstick on girls' toys BUT NOT COMPLANING ABOUT THE LIPSTICK ON ADULT WOMEN, even though in our professions, our newsrooms, our universities, and our law-making bodies women continue to paint their faces or otherwise sexualize their bodies in stiletto heels and dresses?

    Feminists do this all the time. They attack all the safe, easy, soft targets. Yet they in no way compromise their real sexual status in society as sex objects.

    Thus, why attack gender toys but not attack gender clothes? Feminists have their priorities mixed.

    In the same way, one early Second Wave feminist made a greater issue of Miss and Mrs than she did of the miniskirt that she wore as she advocated the use of Ms. But we don't SEE Miss and Mrs.

    Yet we do see a woman's exposed legs in a miniskirt. So which is more important in combating sexism?

    Meghan Markle did the same thing when at 11 she protested a kitchen ad directed at women. But since then, though she has the ears of the world as part of British royalty, she has not once protested the use of beauty ads directed at women.

    Yet which sexualizes, thus objectifies, a woman more? A kitchen detergent or a slit dress and stiletto heels?

    Second Wave feminists especially have a perverse history of attacking only safe targets. So they attack a male scientist for wearing a shirt showing scantily clad female figures on it, but they never protest all the fetishistic exposure of their pop diva heroines.

    They'll attack Steve Martin for calling a woman pretty. But they won't attack the many magazines and articles devoted to the topic of female "beauty," as it's called in our sexist culture. As if women really are more beautiful than men, another fiction of feminism, and another hold-over from femininity.

    The goal of abolishing gender binaries is a legitimate goal. But it's got to be consistent and coherent.

    It's absurd for feminists to strain at gnats, like gendered toys, but swallow the mythology of women's beauty and sexual display in hot pants or nylons and stiletto heels and slit dresses.

    Moreover, the enterprise in hominism is heuristic. That is, we must act AS IF gender was entirely arbitrary and unrelated to sex.

    Give it a try, as it were. And see what happens.

    But as with any social or physical experiment, there must be methodological rigor. One can't simply ban gendered toys but allow women to paint their faces and wear hot pants. Gender binaries must be banned at all levels.

    The arbitrary nature of gender should be clear at least on some levels. Early in the 20th century pink was considered a boys' color and blue was considered a girls' color.

    Later the colors were regenderd. Today pink seems "natural" to girls and women, while blue seems natural to boys. "Think Pink" as the fashion slogan goes in the musical "Funny Face."

    This is true not only of gender, of course. Black can be funereal, and it was once identified with elderly men and women. Later it became identified with sexy men and women.

    Women were supposed to look sexy in black leather and Elvis famously wore a black leather suit in his Singer Comeback Special that revitalized his career in the Beatles era. Johnny Cash also made black fashionably iconic in his Man in Black persona.

    Thus cultural meanings are relative. Apparently in Soviet Russia medicine was viewed as a women's profession, with typically reduced income and status. The word "secretary" changes meaning when applied to a woman or to a man, though, of course, today we have Secretaries of State, etc. who are women.

    Cursing was once identified with masculinity, as in the idiom, "cursing like a sailor." Today women curse so promiscuously so that even a woman speaking in a culinary video is bound to utter the F word sooner or later.

    Similarly, tweets by female pop divas sound denatured without the obligatory F word sprinkled throughout the tweet. In short, soon cursing will become so exclusively identified with women that men will stop cursing in order not to appear feminine.

    Once upon a time it seemed strange to see a female bus driver. Today there are probably as many or more female bus drivers as men. The word "nurse" is still primarily identified with women, though many men are taking up the profession and seem to be "natural" in that profession too.

    Thus there is a clear distinction between biology (male and female) and gender (masculine and feminine and their gender-appropriate behaviors). A hominist heuristics will never challenge the biological reality of male and female. Thus we have nothing to do with LBGTQ ideology in that regard.

    But we do challenge what is gender appropriate. The difference with feminism is that the challenge must first be heuristic and exploratory, and second, it must be both CONSISTENT AND COHERENT.

    It beggars logic to force toy companies to abandon gendered toys while not also forcing clothes companies to abandon gendered clothes, and also to close down the cosmetic companies and ban the beauty pages exclusively dedicated to women, or beauty contests also exclusively featuring women.

    Feminists cannot have it both ways. If gender binaries are wrong, as hominism believes, they must all be abolished, not just what feminists find convenient to abolish.

    Men raised on exclusive images of women as beautiful or sexy will develop low sex esteem just as surely as women raised on exclusive images of men as doctors and leaders will develop low social esteem.

    If gendering toys is injurious to girls' cognitive development, as the argument goes, then surely gendering dress so that it is sexy for women but professional for men is injurious to boys' sexual narcissism, thus impacting their sexual development.

  58. So Lego are sending the message that girls are less capable of building than boys by designing a pink house for those girls to.. well…. BUILD?
    Yea, ok.

  59. ALL of societies systems are built on each and every piece or person in the system fulfilling some role. We are not supposed therefore redefine what male is or what female is. We are born male and female, let that the be only deciding factor into what we gravitate to, stereotype or not.

  60. I let my kids have a choice of toys. It turned out that he was lost in a world of wheels, wings and machinery, and the two she were lost in a world of socialization of toys with personalities, you know more human. While I think that the colours could be changed, but why would you take pink away from a child that feels great with it or take away blue. Given that the two sexes are different as confirmed by leftists and Antifa, forcing children to play with toys for political reasons to me is abuse.

  61. I was fascinated with dollhouses as a boy, but not with dolls (intact, dolls scared me!). At age 6 we moved into a house that happened to have a pile of bricks in the back yard. I immediately started building a miniature city. So it turns out it was just the architectural aspect that interested me, though some might have been concerned about my interest in the dollhouse as being "non-boy". In any case, I believe kids will eventually find their niche, and giving them "inappropriate" toys is just one way that they learn to identify themselves. What are we trying to protect them from??

  62. I dont need to have kids to understand the nonsense that's going wrong with kids because of parents forcing crap on them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *