# Emma Watson's UN speech



## ascanius

So while I haven't read the speech itself I ran into this article http:// http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/09/29/hollywoods-attack-on-men-will-industry-change-its-gender-stereotyping-following/?intcmp=latestnews

I think its an interesting take of a different side of the coin, what about your thoughts?


----------



## Bortasz

Some videos from different point of view if anybody is interesting: 

Molyneux
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8o0euhM6bjg

Mundane Mad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EyDqbXLvpE


Bane666
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbnhQePVBe0

Honey badger Brigade
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFI6n-mSdWg

nypost
Emma Watson has the wrong idea about feminism | New York Post

Times:
http://time.com/3432838/emma-watson-feminism-men-women/

And of course everybody are invited here: 
http://www.avoiceformen.com/
If you want more different point of view.


----------



## Bortasz

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbqTrCmQ33w

This just was added ;]


----------



## Jabrosky

> Recently, even the action genre — once the bastion of testosterone —has a tendency to show women as the stronger sex. The recent “Resident Evil” remake movie series made the female protagonist the winner of every fight, and the Angelina Jolie-starring “Salt” was rewritten for a female hero, despite initially being crafted for a male.


Judging from how many of these action heroines in movies and video games are portrayed, I'd wager that their design and characterization owe at least as much to attracting straight male audiences as supporting feminist ideals. Not that I _always_ have a problem with such portrayals myself (I am a straight male after all), but the writer is kidding themselves if they seriously believe that the trend represents a rampant pop-culture misandry.

Furthermore, even if women look like they're treated with kid gloves in certain cultural venues, that is probably due more to old-school chivalry than feminism. The prejudices that women are naturally more nurturing and deserve gentler and more courteous treatment than men is much, much older than modern feminism and actually has its roots in patriarchal ideals of submissive women staying in the home. The whole "sugar and spice" trope may irritate guys like me today, but we can't blame feminism for it.


----------



## Bortasz

O yes I forget. 






Thanks to remind me about Video Games and Women from there.


----------



## Steerpike

RE: Watson

I think she did an excellent job with her speech, and it is nice to see someone who was a child star and now an adult doing something like this instead of going the route of Lindsay Lohan et al.

Watson could live on her money the rest of her life and never do anything important, or make anyone angry (she's received the predictable threats for making this speech), and instead she's taking a visible stance on this issue, and I say good for her.


----------



## Bortasz

Steerpike said:


> RE: Watson
> 
> I think she did an excellent job with her speech, and it is nice to see someone who was a child star and now an adult doing something like this instead of going the route of Lindsay Lohan et al.
> 
> Watson could live on her money the rest of her life and never do anything important, or make anyone angry (she's received the predictable threats for making this speech), and instead she's taking a visible stance on this issue, and I say good for her.



I disagree. She demand from sacrifice from men to help women that already have equality. 

If you saying that it is nice to see rich young person who is not spoil on this I agree.


----------



## acapes

Bortasz said:


> I disagree. She demand from sacrifice from men to help women that already have equality.



Because all women everywhere on the planet have equality?


----------



## Bortasz

acapes said:


> Because all women everywhere on the planet have equality?



In Poland were I live women have equal right than man. 
In UK women have equal right. 
In USA women have equal right. 

Now if you find me feminist organization that not only talk about women in Sudan, Iraq, Sauid Arabia, but actually help them I'm all for that. 
But I'm sick and tired of feminists that use women from third world countries to justified they demands. And I see only this. More demands, more privileges for women, more obligation for men.


----------



## acapes

Bortasz said:


> But I'm sick and tired of feminists that use women from third world countries to justified they demands.



Well, it wouldn't do to have people in one country fight for rights of people in another country, that'd be crazy.

ETA: In the US, UK, and so on, equal rights in policy (if that) and equality in actuality are not one and the same of course.


----------



## Nihal

I hate to break it to you, but the world doesn't spin around the US, UK or Poland, and even if it did I suspect gender equality wasn't 100% achieved there either.

I honestly try to stay away of these debates. The displays of self-righteousness, extremism and prejudices abound. It makes my blood boil, and I am far less articulated than Ms. Watson.


----------



## Bortasz

acapes said:


> Well, it wouldn't do to have people in one country fight for rights of people in another country, that'd be crazy.



For moment I will ignore sarcasm and simple demand proof. Polish Feminist focus now on getting parities so instead the most qualify person will be on board of directors, or in Polish Senat it will be split 50v50 women and men. I only see them mention people from other countries when somebody start question the need for feminism. 

Also this site:
Women Against Feminism
Was created not by accident neither by men.


----------



## acapes

Bortasz said:


> For moment I will ignore sarcasm and simple demand proof. Polish Feminist focus now on getting parities so instead the most qualify person will be on board of directors, or in Polish Senat it will be split 50v50 women and men. I only see them mention people from other countries when somebody start question the need for feminism.
> 
> Also this site:
> Women Against Feminism
> Was created not by accident neither by men.



You want proof that women in one country sometimes want to support women in other countries?

That site is a joke made by women who have enough equality to take it for granted.


----------



## acapes

Bortasz said:


> Polish Senat



Citing an example from 1 country does not address inequality across the whole world unfortunately.


----------



## Bortasz

Nihal said:


> I hate to break it to you, but the world doesn't spin around the US, UK or Poland, and even if it did I suspect gender equality wasn't 100% achieved there either.
> 
> I honestly try to stay away of these debates. The displays of self-righteousness, extremism and prejudices abound. It makes my blood boil, and I am far less articulated than Ms. Watson.



You are right. There is no 100% gender equality there. 

4 of 5 suicide's are men.
Men lose custody of there children in 80% divorces. 
More than 70% of death in work place are man. 

In the USA campuses now women can falsely accuse men of Rape, and she will not be punish but men will be expelled from the university. 

Some other facts:
Facts

So If you want fight for true equality the MRM is open.


----------



## Bortasz

acapes said:


> Citing an example from 1 country does not address inequality across the whole world unfortunately.



Yes. In deed. Inequality in one country dos not means that other country have them.


----------



## Steerpike

Bortasz said:


> I disagree. She demand from sacrifice from men to help women that already have equality.



I disagree. In the U.S., and I expect in many other places, there is still a pay gap. The pay gap affects women of all demographics, but women of color and older women are hit even harder by it. As a rule, women tend to be more highly represented in part-time, or uncertain job positions, less represented in the upper tiers of the work force, and statistically make less, on average, than their male counterparts.

Women still tend to be underrepresented in the board room and in government, despite making up just over half of the population. This is particularly true in the tech industry, and women still have a ways to go to be represented properly in math, science, engineering, and the like. If you look at how girls are treated in their early education, from elementary school through high school, you can see that much of disparity is due to institutionalized differences in how boys and girls are taught, and how teachers interact with them.

Domestic/sexual violence still disproportionately affects women, as do societal stereotypes or views on the victims of sexual violence. This takes on an increased level of severity in some countries, that is true, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist in the U.S. as well. It does.

Women are still vastly more likely than men to fall below the poverty line after a divorce.

Women face an intrusive level of government regulation into their health and reproductive lives, even in the U.S., to an extent unknown by men.

Women, even in the U.S. still take on the bulk of domestic and child-rearing activities, even in two-income households where both partners are working outside of the home.

And so on.

The "everything is already equal" argument isn't really borne out by the facts, and the "women have even more rights" argument is absurd on its face.


----------



## Nihal

So, there are false accusations of rape, and that means—means what? That all the women take advantage of men, therefore, you should not care about the ones who actually need help?
Then I can infer that all the men are savages because a husband has beaten his wife to death. Sounds about right. Very reasonable argument.

That's my cue to step away from this thread. That's the extremism and prejudice I mentioned. They abound in both sides. It's not a debate. It's pointing fingers and screaming who is right, ignoring everything else that the other "side" (like if it was a war!) said.


----------



## Steerpike

Men's Rights Advocacy sites are usually full of misinformation, and the same is true of the links above to A Voice for Men.

First, the Federal Rules of Evidence, apply to any defendant and victim in sexual assault cases. They're not gender specific. The only way you can argue they benefit women more is if you acknowledge that women are vastly more likely to be the victims in those cases. Which is true. If you address the underlying disparity of gender in terms of the victims of domestic violence, then there is no de facto disparity in the application of the Federal Rules of Evidence. That's just not a good argument.

There are areas where, historically, in the criminal justice system, things have been harsher on men. Death penalty is mentioned. Historically, the man was much more likely to be arrested in a domestic violence situation. The latter isn't really the case any more if all other things are equal and the male is the one who is injured. The fact remains, though, that women are more likely to be the victims, making the reason men are more likely to be arrested self-evident.

Rape shield laws can apply to either gender as well. At essence, they're a public policy decision that stems from society's disproportionate view of sexuality in men and women. When men are sexually promiscuous, it is given a pass, or applauded, or expected. Women are still stigmatized, and bringing in past sexual behavior of the rape victim is just a way to play on societal prejudice against female sexuality and to attempt to argue that the woman was asking for it if she's been sexually promiscuous in the past. As a de facto matter, it is disparate treatment, but only because women are much more likely to be in the victim role, and as a necessary balance to societal prejudices against female sexuality.


----------



## Steerpike

Moving back to the UN speech, I think it is good to see:

1. A young person taking an active role; 
2. A young woman taking an active role on gender issues in such an international forum; and
3. A young, wealthy celebrity who could do nothing with the rest of her life and live just fine, taking a serious and considered position on an important topic, even though she knew there was a certain segment of the populace who would criticize or threaten her for doing it (which is exactly what happened).


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

I moved this thread to Chit Chat since it has veered sharply away from questions pertaining to writing, the the representation of men in entertainment.


----------



## Bortasz

Steerpike said:


> I disagree. In the U.S., and I expect in many other places, there is still a pay gap. The pay gap affects women of all demographics, but women of color and older women are hit even harder by it. As a rule, women tend to be more highly represented in part-time, or uncertain job positions, less represented in the upper tiers of the work force, and statistically make less, on average, than their male counterparts.
> 
> Women still tend to be underrepresented in the board room and in government, despite making up just over half of the population. This is particularly true in the tech industry, and women still have a ways to go to be represented properly in math, science, engineering, and the like. If you look at how girls are treated in their early education, from elementary school through high school, you can see that much of disparity is due to institutionalized differences in how boys and girls are taught, and how teachers interact with them.
> 
> Domestic/sexual violence still disproportionately affects women, as do societal stereotypes or views on the victims of sexual violence. This takes on an increased level of severity in some countries, that is true, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist in the U.S. as well. It does.
> 
> Women are still vastly more likely than men to fall below the poverty line after a divorce.
> 
> Women face an intrusive level of government regulation into their health and reproductive lives, even in the U.S., to an extent unknown by men.
> 
> Women, even in the U.S. still take on the bulk of domestic and child-rearing activities, even in two-income households where both partners are working outside of the home.
> 
> And so on.
> 
> The "everything is already equal" argument isn't really borne out by the facts, and the "women have even more rights" argument is absurd on its face.



I have little time now. So I only say this. 

Pay Gap is a myth like Zeus and Hercules. 

Now I imagine you don't agree with this. So pleas watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb_6v-JQ13Q

This is Seminary by Dr. Warren Farrell. He explain that this gap is about choices that man and women make in there life time. Not Sexism. 

Here are information about Dr Warren Farrel if you are interested. 
Warren Farrell, Ph.D. | Â» Why Warren Is the Way He Is
Warren Farrell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pleas especial note that he WAS part of the Feminists movement when they were forming. 

I recognize that this coming from men make this argument weak. So here some staff from a women:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLytTJqkSQqtozQffMxSaYEySkAGlT_unH
Especial her video about pay gap:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrbS537nnso&list=PLytTJqkSQqtozQffMxSaYEySkAGlT_unH&index=10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?annot...3g2yDfu7Xmd&src_vid=LrbS537nnso&v=58arQIr882w

Some information about 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina_Hoff_Sommers


In reality in First World Countries Women have MORE rights than men. Men are not you enemy. We do not hate you. 
We were you protectors and providers for centuries. We do not have problem with strong independent women. 
We have problem with painting us as a predators, rapes, paedophiles. We have problem with painting women as victims. And that is what majority of feminists are doing.


----------



## Jabrosky

Is this kind of thread even allowed on MS in spite of the political moratorium? Honestly, the various discussions of diversity (gender, race, or whatever) in writing were more interesting than this. At least they were on-topic.


----------



## Steerpike

Bortasz:

I am familiar with all of the pay gap arguments. Saying it is a myth just makes you look uneducated. The gap exists. We can discuss the reasons as to why it exists. There are arguments pertaining to choices men and women make early in life, and I think if you look at that information you can see that those choices are indeed a component of it. However, all that does is further underscore that the disparity against women is institutionalized. If the whole system is set up so that the choices women are most likely to make early in life, in terms of very important issues like reproductive capacity and family, will ensure that they end up less likely to succeed, to make less money overall, and to be much more likely to end up below the poverty level, then you've really just proven the point that at a very basic, institutionalized level the system is stacked against women.

And again, the "women have more rights than men!" argument is absurd on its face. I don't know how you can believe that if you view any of the data. Yes, you can find individual factors where the same system that harms women also harms men in other ways, but pointing out harms suffered by one group doesn't negate the existence of harms suffered by the other.


----------



## Gryphos

I like to take this approach to gender politics: I don't like the word feminism. You know why? Because it implies that it's possible and even the norm to not be one. Drawing a parallel to race, you don't call someone who believes black people are equal 'blackists', you call people who disagree with them 'racists'. So it should be here. If someone expresses a sexist view, don't say "I disagree with you because I'm a feminist", say "I disagree with you because you're a sexist".

It's not men vs women, it's good people vs sexists.

As to the speech, I think she made a lot of fantastic points. This isn't just an issue of women in society, this is an issue of gender roles in society in general. These roles and stereotypes, for men and women, need to be torn down so as to truly create an environment of equality. Sadly, there's still a way to go.

Yes, in a _de jure_ manner, total gender equality is basically achieved. However, in a _de facto_ manner, it isn't. It's getting there, yes, no one should ever deny that. Women nowadays in general are in the best position they've ever been. _But_, as I said, there's still a way to go.


----------



## Steerpike

Jabrosky said:


> Is this kind of thread even allowed on MS in spite of the political moratorium? Honestly, the various discussions of diversity (gender, race, or whatever) in writing were more interesting than this. At least they were on-topic.



Politics per se isn't allowed. So if you're going to discuss Bush versus Clinton or something like that, or how people should vote in the upcoming midterms election, I think you're beyond the limits of what the rules allow. Discussion sociological issues like gender isn't verboten, however people do have to approach the discussion in a respectful manner.


----------



## Steerpike

Gryphos said:


> Yes, in a _de jure_ manner, total gender equality is basically achieved. However, in a _de facto_ manner, it isn't.



I think that's a good distinction. And, in the U.S., even from a de jure standpoint, the intrusion in the women's health and medical issues by government is still an issue, whereas for men it really isn't.


----------



## Bortasz

Steerpike said:


> Bortasz:
> 
> I am familiar with all of the pay gap arguments. Saying it is a myth just makes you look uneducated. The gap exists.



Okey we have here shaming tactics. And this is place were I log out from this thread. 
Ã¢â‚¬ËœThe Catalogue of Anti-Male Shaming TacticsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ | Exposing Feminism

Final saying: 
I stay by all that I post. 
Women have more rights than man in first world countries. 
Women are oppressed in the third world countries, but I do not see Feminists helping them. 
Feminists is in Majority Hate movement, that Paint Women as Victims and Men as Predator. 

Have Nice Day.


----------



## Steerpike

Yes, bowing out is probably a good idea, since you didn't really respond to any points that were raised. Your appeal to logic, via your link, looks a bit out of place considering your approach to the thread.

As I said, the pay gap is simply a known fact. You can argue its reason but not its existence. Pointing out that saying it doesn't exist is uneducated is not shaming you, it is a mere statement of fact. The labor statistics, at least in the U.S., are quite clear on the existence of the gap. If you were not aware of that, then by definition you lack education on that point.

Now, if you want to argue that the reason it exists is all down to choices women make, then you can make that argument but you run into all of the problems I raised (and you ignored) above with respect to that argument (not to mention that it is only part of the picture).


----------



## Svrtnsse

I quite like Emma's speech. I don't remember much of the details, but I took away two main points:

1. Feminism isn't anti-male or anti-men - it's about equality.
2. Gender equality isn't just a women's issue - it's everyone's issue and it will take both women and men to achieve it.

I personally think that these are good points, and I have a hard time seeing how anyone would disagree with it. I'm sure someone will disagree anyway, because people like to disagree, but I doubt there will be that many.

I ended up in a similar discussion recently where someone called the speech a failure as it failed to include the entire issue - such as gender discrimination faced by men. My take on it isn't that this isn't something that's trying to resolve the entire inequality issue in one go. What Emma's trying to do is to raise awareness of the issue of inequality and get it some attention. The fact that we're having this discussion and that other discussions like this are being held elsewhere is one indications that she achieved something.

It would appear that this is needed, seeing as there are apparently people who are under the view that feminism is a hate movement. This has got to be one of the most absurd statements I've heard in quite a while (and considering I'm working in online customer support that's saying something).

Personally, I like this quote: 
"Feminism is this absurd notion that women are actually people too."


----------



## ascanius

OK this is not at all where I intended this to go.....( stopped reading after the second page)   Guess I should have waited till later when I had more time to write out few questions pertinent for a stimulating discussion in relation to writing.


----------



## Bortasz

ascanius said:


> OK this is not at all where I intended this to go.....( stopped reading after the second page)   Guess I should have waited till later when I had more time to write out few questions pertinent for a stimulating discussion in relation to writing.



You can still write you question.


----------



## Jabrosky

This is only tangentially related to the OP topic in that it invokes the larger topic of social justice, but it has been bugging me for a while.

We've probably all heard the concept of privilege as a series of advantages favoring people from certain demographic divisions over others. Men over women, people of European ancestry over non-Europeans, heterosexuals over homosexuals, etc. I don't disagree that belonging to certain groups can confer unfair advantages onto someone in our society, but the problem is that everyone in existence probably belongs to at least one group that could be considered less privileged, as well as one that is more privileged. And what if the absence of privilege in one area ends up overriding all the other, privileged aspects of that person's identity?

As a straight, cis-gendered white male from a reasonably affluent family, I'd probably come across as disgustingly privileged in the eyes of the tumblr crowd. On the other hand, I've had Asperger's Syndrome all my life, and in the past few years I've been wrestling with spasms of depression and suicidal temptations. Every day I wonder whether I would really qualify as subhuman and would be better off dead. Possibly I'd be even more miserable if I were born into some racial, sexual, or gender minority in conjunction to what I'm already suffering. However, I have a difficult time fathoming that a guy like me would be objectively more "privileged" than, say, a black lesbian who had all her stuff together and didn't have my self-loathing tendencies.

Is it really fair to say some individuals are more privileged than others on the whole?


----------



## Svrtnsse

I think what's really important to keep in mind is that when talking about privilege in these terms we're talking about generalisations and averages. We're not talking about the situations of specific individuals. There will always be exceptions that fall outside the norm, and there will probably be a lot of them.

Every straight, white, male is not automatically more privileged than every black, lesbian, female. But, if you compare the average of all straight, white, males, with the average of all black, lesbian, females you'll probably find that the average SWM is more privileged than the average BLF - on average.



Jabrosky said:


> However, I have a difficult time fathoming that a guy like me would be objectively more "privileged" than, say, a black lesbian who had all her stuff together and didn't have my self-loathing tendencies.



Now we're talking an individual case, and then the rules of generalisations apply. Gender, skin colour, and sexual orientation isn't everything, but it's what we first see of a person (except the sexual orientation maybe). Clearly, it sounds like you're nowhere nearly as well off as the person you're comparing yourself to, but would a person who doesn't know either of you be aware of that? They'd just see a white male and a black female and that's that.

Another way of looking at it is: is your self-loathing a direct consequence exclusively of you being a straight, white, male, or does it come from something else? 

Comparing whether your gender and skin colour makes you more or less privileged than someone of a different gender and skin colour and then factoring in your personal negative factors and the other person's positive factors isn't going to result in a fair comparison. To get a fair comparison of skin colour and gender you'd have to assume that all other factors are equal.
Do you believe that you'd have felt more or less privileged if instead of being straight, white and male, you had been homosexual, black and female - with everything else being the same (as close as possible).


Also, I'm not trying to judge you here. You sound like you're having a pretty shitty time of it. I'm not going to pretend I understand, but I hope you manage to keep it in check.


----------



## Devor

Jabrosky, I think you're looking at this wrong and conflating issues that don't belong together.  My son goes to kindergarten at a school that is almost entirely minority students and staff.  On the first day of school, after sending off the kids to the classroom, a number of parents were asking to speak with the teacher, and the guy at the gate told every single person no.  Except me.  When I asked, the teacher was brought out, spoke with me for a minute, and returned to class without speaking to anyone else.  It's hard to _isolate_ why - I mean, it really is, I speak and carry myself differently from the others that were there - but it's also hard to ignore the obvious.

Really, I could say a lot about these issues, and probably anger every person on the internet.  I will try not to.  But Jabrosky, you're conflating "privilege" - as used in these discussions - with, I don't know, happiness or prosperity or wealth.  It's an easy mistake to make, and many people are inconsiderate in the way they throw around the word.  I don't know how much people include mental issues in these discussions, but what you're describing sounds a lot different than privilege or a lack there of.

Jabrosky, you need to speak with a mental health expert as soon as possible.  If you already have one, fire them and get someone else.  I've known a number of people who have struggled with Asperger's Syndrome, and you sound to me like you may have an additional mental health condition that's being overlooked because of your Asperger's.

Suicidal thoughts and behaviors are not healthy or normal, and neither is the belief that you are subhuman.  These are signs that you need immediate professional medical assistance.  Seek help.  Treatments are available.


----------



## Jabrosky

On a completely unrelated note relative to my last post, doesn't anyone else think toy stores are a bit sexist? Toys for girls always get 1-2 aisles that are colored pink, whereas toys for boys always take up the rest of the store and have multiple color schemes. It's like girls have only a tiny section of the store to browse from while their male counterparts get to explore much vaster terrain.

Oh, and they should make more action figures for girls. Less Barbie and more Lara Croft.


----------



## Devor

Jabrosky said:


> On a completely unrelated note relative to my last post, doesn't anyone else think toy stores are a bit sexist? Toys for girls always get 1-2 aisles that are colored pink, whereas toys for boys always take up the rest of the store and have multiple color schemes. It's like girls have only a tiny section of the store to browse from while their male counterparts get to explore much vaster terrain.



In the industry many of those aisles are considered gender neutral toys.  The boy section may be larger - offhand I can only assume so, I haven't been in these stores in a while - but it's not as bad as "girls get two aisles, boys get everything else."




> Oh, and they should make more action figures for girls. Less Barbie and more Lara Croft.



There have been a number of efforts to expand the selection of toys for girls into non-traditional areas and a lot of them have failed, at least in mass market retail.  I could only speculate as to why.  But retail is a horrible place where crappy old products never die and the good stuff gets ignored.  For a less contentious example, Scrabble and Monopoly are both _terrible_ games on objectively qualifiable levels, and people who follow board games (which I've recently taken to) all know it.  Yet, I can't find the well-reviewed, awesome games that I want to play anywhere but a specialty retail store, or Amazon.

That's retail.  It's dominated by impulse buys and branding.  Very little of what people do in a retail store involves actual decision making processes.

Competing with Barbie on impulse buys just isn't that easy.


----------



## Mindfire

Bortasz said:


> O yes I forget.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to remind me about Video Games and Women from there.



Sorry to reply to an old post but GOOD LORD THE START OF THAT VIDEO IS TERRIFYING. Seriously. It comes right the heck out of nowhere and I was more than a bit unnerved by it. Talk about uncanny valley.


----------



## Mindfire

Also, has the ban on politics been lifted or something?


----------



## Svrtnsse

No, there's a post commenting on it somewhere in the middle of the thread.


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> Also, has the ban on politics been lifted or something?





There has never been a ban on discussion of social issues. Just keep partisan politics out of it.


----------



## Reaver

REAVER'S RULES FOR DEBATING STEERPIKE:

1.) Do not attempt to debate Steerpike.


----------



## BronzeOracle

Jabrosky said:


> On a completely unrelated note relative to my last post, doesn't anyone else think toy stores are a bit sexist? Toys for girls always get 1-2 aisles that are colored pink, whereas toys for boys always take up the rest of the store and have multiple color schemes. It's like girls have only a tiny section of the store to browse from while their male counterparts get to explore much vaster terrain.
> 
> Oh, and they should make more action figures for girls. Less Barbie and more Lara Croft.



Hey Jabrosky I agree there is a big bias in toys (by the way boy's toys are NEVER pink - try green, black, orange - but not pastels, they are coloured constrained just like girl's toys) and it made me wonder about dolls for boys to help them be more nurturing when they are older - I was wondering how well are we preparing boys to be parents when they play at fighting and competitive games their whole child hood?  But I think there are some big predispositions that kids already have.  I have two boys (one adopted so a very different gene pool) and from a VERY young age they loved balls, wheeled vehicles and any type of stick/wand/sword/staff that they can wave around their head.  Both little hunters if I ever saw them.  I've tried to give them dolls and they dump them almost instantly and go for the cars.  It could well be images they have seen from a young age of men driving vehicles, wielding sticks etc but I do think there is a chicken-egg dynamic here.  I've asked parents with girls and its almost the opposite - they really aren't that interested in things that move with big noises, they want something to care for and nurture, brush its hair and dress it up.  I'm sure there are some boys who love dolls and some girls who love action figures and I also think that there are relatively gender neutral pursuits, but it seems that the majority drift to the stereotypes.

Also I think your comment on privilege vs an individual's condition is important.  There are groups of people within society that are more privileged than others and this is something we should be aware of.  I take from Emma Watson's speech that there is some way to go with equality and men and women should understand, respect and support each other as our society transitions.  But the impact of emotional and mental health is enormous and as a society we are still learning what this is and valuing it over other things.  How many of us as teenagers are instructed in emotional and mental health?  How many of us understand that part of ourselves as adults?  Yet it has huge consequences for our happiness and the choices we make, our success in employment and relationships.  Really we're just left to our family life and genetics - if these are generally good then we're ok, if they're not then we're in for a struggle in our adult life and there's only a nascent social awareness (try the self help section of bookstores) and limited policy from government to help us.  Its only a recent development here in Australia that psychological counselling is brought under the Medicare system, and its only I think in one state (Victoria) that they were trialling the teaching of mental health/basic psychology in school.


----------



## Mindfire

Mindfire said:


> Sorry to reply to an old post but GOOD LORD THE START OF THAT VIDEO IS TERRIFYING. Seriously. It comes right the heck out of nowhere and I was more than a bit unnerved by it. Talk about uncanny valley.



Ha. The video has now been edited. Interesting.


----------



## Nihal

BronzeOracle, I'd be careful with children's comparison and "natural" behaviour. My house has always been a nearly all-female house. My parents had four girls.

We played with dolls, yes, a lot. But we played with balls (a lot!), vehicles, and included in the crap we did as children was climbing trees and a stone wall to access some high windows–then move hanging from them a la Assassins Creed–, roll down the sofa to the floor, play hide-and-seek or tag, fight, secretly set stuff on fire... You get the idea. My mother used to say that when we got silent we'd be up to something.


----------



## BronzeOracle

Nihal said:


> BronzeOracle, I'd be careful with children's comparison and "natural" behaviour. My house has always been a nearly all-female house. My parents had four girls.



Thanks Nihal for this perspective.  Out of interest did you girls ever play wars/guns/ninjas or watch this stuff on tv?


----------



## Nihal

BronzeOracle said:


> Thanks Nihal for this perspective.  Out of interest did you girls ever play wars/guns/ninjas or watch this stuff on tv?



I don't recall playing these with my sisters, but I did with my friends (all-girls group). Though, curiously... We were faeries that went on magical battles _and_ saved damsels in distress. The most prominent mainstream females were Mulan and Anastasia, and they didn't appear until half my childhood passed. To battle we had to be faeries. I understand why little girls go crazy with Elsa nowadays.

Now that I stop to think my (and my sisters) favourite cartoons in our early childhood included She-Ha and Dungeon & Dragons. Guess what they have in common. 


Later (with my friends again) a certain YA/Fantasy comic came out, and it was bliss. It featured an all-female cast and it was diverse! We could finally fit one in each role:


----------



## Steerpike

Nihal said:


> We played with dolls, yes, a lot. But we played with balls (a lot!), vehicles, and included in the crap we did as children was climbing trees and a stone wall to access some high windows—then move hanging from them a la Assassins Creed—, roll down the sofa to the floor, play hide-and-seek or tag, fight, secretly set stuff on fire... You get the idea. My mother used to say that when we got silent we'd be up to something.



Sounds to me like you were a fun group of kids for your parents to have around.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Nihal said:


> We were faeries that went on magical battles _and_ saved damsels in distress.


For some reason, I find this more awesome than knights saving damsels in distress.


----------



## BronzeOracle

Nihal said:


> Now that I stop to think my (and my sisters) favourite cartoons in our early childhood included She-Ha and Dungeon & Dragons. Guess what they have in common.



Ah Dungeons & Dragons that brings back memories!  I remember there were two female characters in the group so you had some diversity.  Too often there is a group of four with three guys of different traits (hero, oaf and nerd) and then there's the girl whose gender is her trait.  I found 'Avatar the Last Airbender' a breath of fresh air in gender and racial diversity, even though it lacked senior female characters which seems to be very common in fantasy.  Actually that's spurred a question I'll post in the Novels & Stories forum.


----------



## Jabrosky

I'm going to necro this because I want to publicly recant a phase of negativity towards transgender people I went through a few years back.

In the beginning I never thought too much about transgender politics, or even understood what transgenderism even was. But once I found myself butting heads with "Social Justice Warriors" on tumblr and other Internet communities, I noticed a lot of them had this strange tendency to fetishize transgenderism, often claiming to be trans themselves and yelling "Die, cis scum!" Mind you, my conflicts with the SJW crew were never about LGBT issues themselves, but SJW culture in general left a bad taste in my mouth for anything associated with it. My grudge got so bad that I declared transgenderism a "mental disorder" on TV Tropes. The thread was deleted and I got permanently banned from the website.

I feel terrible about it now. After that event, I learned some of the people I cared about were transgender or didn't identify with either gender psychologically, and they could be just as critical of SJW extremes as I was. I also learned that, outside of tumblr and the Internet, transgender people really do have it rougher in mainstream society. And once I heard about Leelah Alcorn, it wrenched my heart that I ever shared the same pervasive prejudice that forced her to suicide.

Mind you, I'm still not heavily invested in trans issues, being a cis-gendered heterosexual male myself. And I don't know if I'll ever write a transgender protagonist since I can't really relate to the psychological experience of gender dysphoria. Nonetheless, I've come to believe transgender people deserve the same rights and respect as anyone else and wish I had never thought differently.

Unfortunately, after e-mailing the TV Tropes staff about this change in my attitude twice several months back, they still haven't responded or lifted my ban. But maybe that's a small loss for me.


----------

