User Tag List

First 234

Results 31 to 35 of 35

  1. #31
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    If you left them entirely to themselves. I.e. prevented all exposure to gendered advertising and other messages from media/society about what they ought to do/how they ought to be. Easier said than done.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  2. #32
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    If you left them entirely to themselves. I.e. prevented all exposure to gendered advertising and other messages from media/society about what they ought to do/how they ought to be. Easier said than done.
    I stand corrected. Good video.

  3. #33
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    No. I think it's stupid. I would have refused to play with a product reinvented to further reinforce idiotic gender stereotypes in the service of cynical commercialism.
    "You're a girl, only pink Legos for you!" Fuck off, space stations aren't pink. No, I don't want to build a stable for My Little Pony instead.
    In my day, Lego didn't discriminate.
    Gee, way to get hung up on the sensory cues and miss the big picture.

    The colors don't mean shit, obviously; they're arbitrary. There was a time when pink and blue meant the opposite of what they mean today. So they're just using the currently accepted cues to state, "it's okay for girls to play with Legos." It's a message being sent out through social media, rather than whatever language you're parsing it through.

    Instead, you're bitching about them reinforcing the color "pink" and other irrelevant sensory aspects.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  4. #34
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Gee, way to get hung up on the sensory cues and miss the big picture.

    The colors don't mean shit, obviously; they're arbitrary. There was a time when pink and blue meant the opposite of what they mean today. So they're just using the currently accepted cues to state, "it's okay for girls to play with Legos." It's a message being sent out through social media, rather than whatever language you're parsing it through.

    Instead, you're bitching about them reinforcing the color "pink" and other irrelevant sensory aspects.
    I think it's you who is missing the bigger picture...
    First of all, this is not about opening up new worlds to girls, it's about reinvigorating an old market, so let's not pretend the decision is motivated by anything other than commerce. Or that the outcome will be anything other than more of the same old passive pink princess bullshit.
    Of course it's arbitrary. That's the point. There is no objective standard to determine whether something is more suited to one gender or the other, beyond convention. This is yet another exercise in reinforcing those arbitrary conventions. You might buy into the marketing campaign's claim that it is restoring some kind of balance. Those of a more skeptical nature will understand it is actually doing just the opposite.
    We don't need messages that say "it's ok for girls to play with Lego". That should be the default. Girls don't need permission to play with a toy that isn't directly marketed at them. They don't need their own versions of toys in "girl-friendly" colours and with softer edges. It's beyond absurd that we proscribe activities by gender in the way we do. It is nothing more than gender apartheid. Of course, most people don't understand this because they don't question all the ridiculous assumptions of their culture. Which is how and why we got to this fucked up place, itfp. And if adults like you don't, you can be sure their kids don't.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  5. #35
    Senior Member Bamboo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    XXFP
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    It's good they are getting girls to use a "building" toy, but I don't think that is going to get girls into math and science or solve body image issues.

    In the past girls did learn how to build things. It was called "sewing." All the basic principles of project planning, design, layout, picking out and altering material, and working from rough to finished product are involved in making clothing or embroidery. Same thing with a lot of other "women's work" (cooking). And in theory, those basic skills translate over to other forms of construction. Sure, using a sewing needle isn't swinging a hammer, and picking out appropriate thread isn't the same as picking out the right nails, but the mental skills, the actual thinking about construction, are similar. Especially at the level children are at.

    Except the thing is - those skills never do translate over, if girls are told to keep doing "girl things." Maybe if there are lego figures of girls doing science that'll help but...the whole pretty in pink thing is marketing.
    Don't know how much it'll bend til it breaks.

Similar Threads

  1. Just for the hell of it (well not quite)...
    By Kullervo in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-30-2014, 07:01 PM
  2. [NT] Personal Feedback (not just for NTs)
    By Coriolis in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 08-03-2011, 08:56 PM
  3. If types were foods for all, not just NTs!
    By luminous beam in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-17-2010, 04:27 PM
  4. [NT] imagination - all INXX's, not just NT's
    By Il Morto Qui Parla in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 02-21-2008, 11:59 PM
  5. THE DANGEROUS BOOK FOR BOYS
    By shum in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-04-2007, 09:29 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO