I mean, just look at all this misogynistic pink BS they get fed.
http://www.wildscience.net/girls.html
"Beauty Salon"? "Lip Balm Lab"? "Magic Crystal Oasis"? "Perfume Designer"? Are there any stereotypes they DIDN'T manifest in this junk?
Wow.
From the Boy's Science Physics and Chem Kit:
QuoteExplore energy transmission, shock and momentum. A Big Force put into a tiny mass = huge acceleration. Make a wide variety of bouncy and drippy, clear and coloured gels and slimes for different effects.
From the Girl's Science Lip Palm Lab:
QuoteMix and match colour gradients and flavours for your own luxury balm compact!
Just wow.
Yeah.
This is one of the many reasons why it pisses me off when people say there's no more need for feminism. We might be getting closer, but we're still a long long way away.
I don't see a girl wanting to make lip balm a bad thing, but I think that the kit should stress the reactions, molecular bonding, and all sorts of chemical reasons why it works. If it does, then I'm not seeing a problem, here. Same thing with making soap, there's an amazing chemical process behind it, and if the kit explores this, it's a good buy. But if it doesn't, then it's just giving little girls an excuse to play with yummy smelling goop, and that's the wrong direction.
...Then again, I'm a lip balm whore, and considering my dad's a chemist, I uh...I would have totally had that. :oops:
Honestly, the "boy's" chemistry sets are awful too. For example, "Chemistry set boasts 'no chemicals'" (http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2011/04/chemistry-set-boasts-no-chemicals.html).
A chemistry set with no chemicals is NOT a chemistry set. Heaven forbid children experiment, make messes, break things or worst of all, do something mildly dangerous. Chemists are born from explosive reactions, not turning starch blue. Get someone hooked on science by BLOWING THINGS UP. Yes, it's dangerous. Science is often dangerous.
As ND Tyson said, "Get out of their way. Children are born as scientists. What does a scientist do? They say, how does this work? Let me take it apart, let me break it." But no, we can't have kids taking things apart or breaking things. That would give them IDEAS, and would be MESSY. They'd think it's alright to keep taking things apart and thinking and next thing you know they've disproved the existence of god and become a communist.
And girls DEFINITELY can't get real chemistry sets, because then they'd start questioning men, and arguing, and not staying in their god given, subservient place, and turning into lesbians, and practicing witchcraft, and getting abortions, and having orgies....
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 27, 2011, 06:50:45 PM
And girls DEFINITELY can't get real chemistry sets, because then they'd start questioning men, and arguing, and not staying in their god given, subservient place, and turning into lesbians, and practicing witchcraft, and getting abortions, and having orgies....
It makes me wish i'd had a girl, just so I could get her a real chemistry set.
Quote from: Science me, babby on November 27, 2011, 06:55:04 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 27, 2011, 06:50:45 PM
And girls DEFINITELY can't get real chemistry sets, because then they'd start questioning men, and arguing, and not staying in their god given, subservient place, and turning into lesbians, and practicing witchcraft, and getting abortions, and having orgies....
It makes me wish i'd had a girl, just so I could get her a real chemistry set.
Why do you hate America?
\
:teabagger1:
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 27, 2011, 06:57:17 PM
Quote from: Science me, babby on November 27, 2011, 06:55:04 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 27, 2011, 06:50:45 PM
And girls DEFINITELY can't get real chemistry sets, because then they'd start questioning men, and arguing, and not staying in their god given, subservient place, and turning into lesbians, and practicing witchcraft, and getting abortions, and having orgies....
It makes me wish i'd had a girl, just so I could get her a real chemistry set.
Why do you hate America?
\
:teabagger1:
Because I kiss terrorists on the beard. :sad:
Quote from: Nigel on November 27, 2011, 06:37:38 PM
Yeah.
This is one of the many reasons why it pisses me off when people say there's no more need for feminism. We might be getting closer, but we're still a long long way away.
I honestly don't think modern feminism is pink enough to appeal to today's young women and girls.
What. There are gender-specific science kits? :?
Yep. Cuz girls are only into pretty things. Really its justa way into tricking them into learning something they would have no interest in. Cuz thinking only comes naturally to boys right?
The fact that the girls sets don't include ANY physics really pisses me off.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 27, 2011, 06:50:45 PM
And girls DEFINITELY can't get real chemistry sets, because then they'd start questioning men, and arguing, and not staying in their god given, subservient place, and turning into lesbians, and practicing witchcraft, and getting abortions, and having orgies....
Exactly, and we can't have that! :x
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 27, 2011, 06:48:16 PM
Honestly, the "boy's" chemistry sets are awful too. For example, "Chemistry set boasts 'no chemicals'" (http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2011/04/chemistry-set-boasts-no-chemicals.html).
A chemistry set with no chemicals is NOT a chemistry set. Heaven forbid children experiment, make messes, break things or worst of all, do something mildly dangerous. Chemists are born from explosive reactions, not turning starch blue. Get someone hooked on science by BLOWING THINGS UP. Yes, it's dangerous. Science is often dangerous.
As ND Tyson said, "Get out of their way. Children are born as scientists. What does a scientist do? They say, how does this work? Let me take it apart, let me break it." But no, we can't have kids taking things apart or breaking things. That would give them IDEAS, and would be MESSY. They'd think it's alright to keep taking things apart and thinking and next thing you know they've disproved the existence of god and become a communist.
WHAAAAAAAAT
Chemistry without chemicals? :? Bitch please!
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 27, 2011, 06:50:45 PM
And girls DEFINITELY can't get real chemistry sets, because then they'd start questioning men, and arguing, and not staying in their god given, subservient place, and turning into lesbians, and practicing witchcraft, and getting abortions, and having orgies....
I had a chemistry set. I can safely say that I've never had an abortion. :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Zero on November 27, 2011, 09:44:32 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 27, 2011, 06:50:45 PM
And girls DEFINITELY can't get real chemistry sets, because then they'd start questioning men, and arguing, and not staying in their god given, subservient place, and turning into lesbians, and practicing witchcraft, and getting abortions, and having orgies....
I had a chemistry set. I can safely say that I've never had an abortion. :lulz:
Except I know for a fact you've done all the rest.
I think you're onto something. I had a chemistry set as a child, too.
Quote from: Nigel on November 27, 2011, 11:52:36 PM
I think you're onto something. I had a chemistry set as a child, too.
I like it that Pat Robertson turned out to be right. :lulz:
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 28, 2011, 04:07:36 AM
Quote from: Nigel on November 27, 2011, 11:52:36 PM
I think you're onto something. I had a chemistry set as a child, too.
I like it that Pat Robertson turned out to be right. :lulz:
Even a broken clock...
:lulz:
I never had a chemistry set, but I DID have a perfume set. So :?
Ahh, I still remember the smells from my old chemistry set.
Also, the chemical-less chemistry set makes me want to make a Chartered Accountant play set. WITHOUT MATHS
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 27, 2011, 11:49:12 PM
Quote from: Doktor Zero on November 27, 2011, 09:44:32 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 27, 2011, 06:50:45 PM
And girls DEFINITELY can't get real chemistry sets, because then they'd start questioning men, and arguing, and not staying in their god given, subservient place, and turning into lesbians, and practicing witchcraft, and getting abortions, and having orgies....
I had a chemistry set. I can safely say that I've never had an abortion. :lulz:
Except I know for a fact you've done all the rest.
Quiet you. :lulz:
Buy the boys' one. It's what my mother did when I wanted stuff like that. That, and I scoffed at the shitty girls' one, down right refusing to play with them when other relatives purchased them for me.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2011, 09:14:28 AM
Buy the boys' one. It's what my mother did when I wanted stuff like that. That, and I scoffed at the shitty girls' one, down right refusing to play with them when other relatives purchased them for me.
The one with no chemicals?
I believe I had one chem kit that used some household chemicals, but I tended to like building things and physics better.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 27, 2011, 06:48:16 PM
Honestly, the "boy's" chemistry sets are awful too. For example, "Chemistry set boasts 'no chemicals'" (http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2011/04/chemistry-set-boasts-no-chemicals.html).
A chemistry set with no chemicals is NOT a chemistry set. Heaven forbid children experiment, make messes, break things or worst of all, do something mildly dangerous. Chemists are born from explosive reactions, not turning starch blue. Get someone hooked on science by BLOWING THINGS UP. Yes, it's dangerous. Science is often dangerous.
As ND Tyson said, "Get out of their way. Children are born as scientists. What does a scientist do? They say, how does this work? Let me take it apart, let me break it." But no, we can't have kids taking things apart or breaking things. That would give them IDEAS, and would be MESSY. They'd think it's alright to keep taking things apart and thinking and next thing you know they've disproved the existence of god and become a communist.
THIS.
Science, like freedom, was never intended to be safe.
WTF is this shit? Is that the best marketing idea they could come up with? To get girls into science by telling them they can use it to make cosmetic products? That's fucking garbage.
WHEN I GROW UP
I'M GONNA INVENT EDIBLE BODY GLITTER
\
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/317854/317854,1298298301,1/stock-photo-little-girl-playing-with-test-tubes-71691604.jpg)
REACH FOR THE STARS, GIRLS ... JUST KEEP STUDYING AND ONE DAY YOU'LL BE A SCIENTIST, JUST LIKE CALVIN KLEIN.
CHEMISTRY: IT'S JUST LIKE COOKING DINNER FOR YOUR HUSBAND.
I think the "boys' sets" are more gender-neutral. If you have a girl that's into physics and chemistry, buying the magnet sets, the erector sets and the chem sets is not going to awry.
I think it's rather the opposite--the makeup and perfume are very girl-specific. As a mom to only boys (as of today's date, anyway), I have to say boys' "toys" can be way more gender-neutralized than girls'. Mostly because of colors schemes, etc.
Not that this still isn't an issue, mind you. I think it's rather sad that the manufacturers can't market things in a way that add up to BETTER LEARNING rather than gender-role reinforcements. *shrug* But that's when a parent's discernment is inserted, and you just say FUCK IT ALL my kid wants to learn, so here's a crack-your-own geode set, or here's a rock tumbler, or here's a solar system for your ceiling (my 12 mo old niece just got one for her birthday this weekend...).
The fact that they MAKE gender-delineated chemistry sets AT ALL fills me with rage. RAGE. As much rage as those crap "Girl" toolkits. You know what? I would FUCKING LOVE a pink hammer, but only if it's a REAL FUCKING HAMMER THAT SMASHES THINGS AND PUTS NAILS IN WOOD. The bullshit that they dip in pink rubber and market as "for ladies" is all useless lightweight junk that you can't even do anything with.
Look at this piece of shit:
(http://cn1.kaboodle.com/hi/img/2/0/0/160/f/AAAAAnnLy9kAAAAAAWD-Cw.jpg?v=1224085498000)
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2011, 04:31:05 PM
CHEMISTRY: IT'S JUST LIKE COOKING DINNER FOR YOUR HUSBAND.
This is making me laugh uncontrollably !!
Also: Look at that little bitch hammer. What the cock is that shit??
"I'll just put this tack through cardboard, cause surely I could never have the strength to drive a nail through drywall to hang a picture"
Fuck that!
When I use a hammer I use a big enough mother fucker with enough force to drive a railroad spike through the BACK OF GOD'S HEAD!!!
Quote from: Sir Squid Diddimus on November 28, 2011, 11:00:18 PM
Also: Look at that little bitch hammer. What the cock is that shit??
"I'll just put this tack through cardboard, cause surely I could never have the strength to drive a nail through drywall to hang a picture"
Fuck that!
When I use a hammer I use a big enough mother fucker with enough force to drive a railroad spike through the BACK OF GOD'S HEAD!!!
:mittens: :lulz:
Quote from: Sir Squid Diddimus on November 28, 2011, 11:00:18 PM
Also: Look at that little bitch hammer. What the cock is that shit??
"I'll just put this tack through cardboard, cause surely I could never have the strength to drive a nail through drywall to hang a picture"
Fuck that!
When I use a hammer I use a big enough mother fucker with enough force to drive a railroad spike through the BACK OF GOD'S HEAD!!!
Damn right. :lulz:
Quote from: Jenne on November 28, 2011, 04:36:05 PM
I think the "boys' sets" are more gender-neutral. If you have a girl that's into physics and chemistry, buying the magnet sets, the erector sets and the chem sets is not going to awry.
I think it's rather the opposite--the makeup and perfume are very girl-specific. As a mom to only boys (as of today's date, anyway), I have to say boys' "toys" can be way more gender-neutralized than girls'. Mostly because of colors schemes, etc.
Not that this still isn't an issue, mind you. I think it's rather sad that the manufacturers can't market things in a way that add up to BETTER LEARNING rather than gender-role reinforcements. *shrug* But that's when a parent's discernment is inserted, and you just say FUCK IT ALL my kid wants to learn, so here's a crack-your-own geode set, or here's a rock tumbler, or here's a solar system for your ceiling (my 12 mo old niece just got one for her birthday this weekend...).
Even the boy's sets are gender-specific, and here's the simple reason why: If a boy wanted to play with the girls set, it would be frowned upon.
As a friend of mine says, "Girls can wear jeans and cut their hair short, wear shirts and boots, because it's okay to be a boy. But for a boy to look like a girl is degrading, because you think that being a girl is degrading." It's misogyny, plain and simple.
Another article on science kits for girls. (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/doing-good-science/2011/11/28/science-kits-for-girls/)
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 28, 2011, 11:20:20 PM
Quote from: Jenne on November 28, 2011, 04:36:05 PM
I think the "boys' sets" are more gender-neutral. If you have a girl that's into physics and chemistry, buying the magnet sets, the erector sets and the chem sets is not going to awry.
I think it's rather the opposite--the makeup and perfume are very girl-specific. As a mom to only boys (as of today's date, anyway), I have to say boys' "toys" can be way more gender-neutralized than girls'. Mostly because of colors schemes, etc.
Not that this still isn't an issue, mind you. I think it's rather sad that the manufacturers can't market things in a way that add up to BETTER LEARNING rather than gender-role reinforcements. *shrug* But that's when a parent's discernment is inserted, and you just say FUCK IT ALL my kid wants to learn, so here's a crack-your-own geode set, or here's a rock tumbler, or here's a solar system for your ceiling (my 12 mo old niece just got one for her birthday this weekend...).
Even the boy's sets are gender-specific, and here's the simple reason why: If a boy wanted to play with the girls set, it would be frowned upon.
As a friend of mine says, "Girls can wear jeans and cut their hair short, wear shirts and boots, because it's okay to be a boy. But for a boy to look like a girl is degrading, because you think that being a girl is degrading." It's misogyny, plain and simple.
Yep.
My son is a beautiful child with large eyes and delicate features. He likes to wear his hair long and he used to love wearing dresses and women's shoes around the house. His dad used to make fun of him and say "everybody will think you're a girl". Because that's a deterrent?
So he just wore dresses and women's shoes around my house, where nobody gives a fuck. He stopped doing it, but he still wears makeup sometimes.
Also, total Brony. Not at all kidding.
years ago i was looking for a disposable tool set to toss in my car, and when i went to the hardware store, they had two sets like that. one black, and one pink. the pink one was cheaper. i got that one. it worked just fine.
as a bonus, there were several occasions when a neighbor asked to borrow a tool and i would give them one of those. guess what? it always came back! :)
my mom got one not too long ago as well, and now instead of asking my dad to do some simple task that requires a tool, she goes ahead and fucks it up herself. which, although is not in the best interests of their house, at least she's trying it because, 'she's got tools made for her'.
Quote from: Nigel on November 28, 2011, 10:40:22 PM
Look at this piece of shit:
(http://cn1.kaboodle.com/hi/img/2/0/0/160/f/AAAAAnnLy9kAAAAAAWD-Cw.jpg?v=1224085498000)
HAH! Ah nostalgia -- My mom has that exact toolkit. It even says "Women's Tools" on the front.
She bought so that dad would stop accidentally taking her tools to work. And it worked - he never ganked the pink screwdriver or light weight pink hammer :lulz:
consequently, it means that those were the tools used most frequently when growing up.
and look at me now
:cramstipated:
Quote from: Sir Squid Diddimus on November 28, 2011, 11:00:18 PM
Also: Look at that little bitch hammer. What the cock is that shit??
"I'll just put this tack through cardboard, cause surely I could never have the strength to drive a nail through drywall to hang a picture"
Fuck that!
When I use a hammer I use a big enough mother fucker with enough force to drive a railroad spike through the BACK OF GOD'S HEAD!!!
And then Squiddy killed Jesus.
Thanks Kai, now I'm stuck in the endless maze of articles that is Scientific American. :lol:
Quote from: Iptuous on November 28, 2011, 11:45:43 PM
years ago i was looking for a disposable tool set to toss in my car, and when i went to the hardware store, they had two sets like that. one black, and one pink. the pink one was cheaper. i got that one. it worked just fine.
as a bonus, there were several occasions when a neighbor asked to borrow a tool and i would give them one of those. guess what? it always came back! :)
my mom got one not too long ago as well, and now instead of asking my dad to do some simple task that requires a tool, she goes ahead and fucks it up herself. which, although is not in the best interests of their house, at least she's trying it because, 'she's got tools made for her'.
One of the reasons they come back is simply because they're memorable and recognizable. The other reason is because of the stigma attached to things that are "girly".
It's sad that your mom grew up thinking that there were things she couldn't do just because she has a vagina. :( It seriously bums me out that these toolkits have a market and that's why. It also bums me out because I hate the idea of little girls seeing them and internalizing the message that regular tools are for boys, and girls need special "girly" tools.
On that note, I know what I'm getting for LO this Yule. A nice BLACK toolkit.
nono.... my mom was a tomboy growing up. although she isn't particularly mechanically inclined, she never played the 'helpless woman' routine. although she did expect my dad to fill his gender roll as she filled hers as far as household duties go.
and, yes. there is a market for girly stuff. i can see why it might bother some, and be seen as unfair by some.
doesn't bother me a lick. i have no qualm with girlie girls, manly men, girlie men, or manly women.
and the fact that there is one predominant archtype for each sex seems perfectly natural to me.
maybe it's because i'm blessed with a really great marriage, but people getting bent around the axle regarding gender struggles is nothing but amusing to me. i just love the show, as long as i can turn it off if ever it gets grating.
Quote from: Nigel on November 28, 2011, 11:55:53 PM
Thanks Kai, now I'm stuck in the endless maze of articles that is Scientific American. :lol:
Love Sci-Am. Best science journalism ever, hands down. If you don't regularly read Ed Yong, you should. I get the majority of my science news from that man. Too bad it's owned by Nature Publishing Group, but funny enough, after the Womenspace debacle there have been several people who said they don't give a crap what Nature Publishing might say, they're going to write about the stupidity of NPG anyway.
Quote from: Nigel on November 28, 2011, 11:38:57 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 28, 2011, 11:20:20 PM
Quote from: Jenne on November 28, 2011, 04:36:05 PM
I think the "boys' sets" are more gender-neutral. If you have a girl that's into physics and chemistry, buying the magnet sets, the erector sets and the chem sets is not going to awry.
I think it's rather the opposite--the makeup and perfume are very girl-specific. As a mom to only boys (as of today's date, anyway), I have to say boys' "toys" can be way more gender-neutralized than girls'. Mostly because of colors schemes, etc.
Not that this still isn't an issue, mind you. I think it's rather sad that the manufacturers can't market things in a way that add up to BETTER LEARNING rather than gender-role reinforcements. *shrug* But that's when a parent's discernment is inserted, and you just say FUCK IT ALL my kid wants to learn, so here's a crack-your-own geode set, or here's a rock tumbler, or here's a solar system for your ceiling (my 12 mo old niece just got one for her birthday this weekend...).
Even the boy's sets are gender-specific, and here's the simple reason why: If a boy wanted to play with the girls set, it would be frowned upon.
As a friend of mine says, "Girls can wear jeans and cut their hair short, wear shirts and boots, because it's okay to be a boy. But for a boy to look like a girl is degrading, because you think that being a girl is degrading." It's misogyny, plain and simple.
Yep.
My son is a beautiful child with large eyes and delicate features. He likes to wear his hair long and he used to love wearing dresses and women's shoes around the house. His dad used to make fun of him and say "everybody will think you're a girl". Because that's a deterrent?
So he just wore dresses and women's shoes around my house, where nobody gives a fuck. He stopped doing it, but he still wears makeup sometimes.
Also, total Brony. Not at all kidding.
AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW! :)
i just realized that my post may have come across as really shitty.
:oops:
didn't mean for it to come out like that...
Quote from: Iptuous on November 29, 2011, 12:24:20 AM
nono.... my mom was a tomboy growing up. although she isn't particularly mechanically inclined, she never played the 'helpless woman' routine. although she did expect my dad to fill his gender roll as she filled hers as far as household duties go.
and, yes. there is a market for girly stuff. i can see why it might bother some, and be seen as unfair by some.
doesn't bother me a lick. i have no qualm with girlie girls, manly men, girlie men, or manly women.
and the fact that there is one predominant archtype for each sex seems perfectly natural to me.
maybe it's because i'm blessed with a really great marriage, but people getting bent around the axle regarding gender struggles is nothing but amusing to me. i just love the show, as long as i can turn it off if ever it gets grating.
There isn't one predominant archetype though. It just seems that way because the others are suppressed.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 29, 2011, 12:25:15 AM
Quote from: Nigel on November 28, 2011, 11:55:53 PM
Thanks Kai, now I'm stuck in the endless maze of articles that is Scientific American. :lol:
Love Sci-Am. Best science journalism ever, hands down. If you don't regularly read Ed Yong, you should. I get the majority of my science news from that man. Too bad it's owned by Nature Publishing Group, but funny enough, after the Womenspace debacle there have been several people who said they don't give a crap what Nature Publishing might say, they're going to write about the stupidity of NPG anyway.
I just read a couple of articles there about that. :lulz: Good on them!
I love Scientific American but once I start I get sucked in FOREVER. I should probably get a subscription so that I can read it in bed.
Quote from: Iptuous on November 29, 2011, 12:28:12 AM
i just realized that my post may have come across as really shitty.
:oops:
didn't mean for it to come out like that...
I'm ignoring it, because there were a ton of points to reply to regarding your trivialization of a very real issue, and I don't feel like it right now. Suffice it to say that if that's really what you think, this whole thread went over your head. And, you should probably read the article Kai linked to.
probably best.
and will do.
Quote from: Nigel on November 29, 2011, 12:32:44 AM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 29, 2011, 12:25:15 AM
Quote from: Nigel on November 28, 2011, 11:55:53 PM
Thanks Kai, now I'm stuck in the endless maze of articles that is Scientific American. :lol:
Love Sci-Am. Best science journalism ever, hands down. If you don't regularly read Ed Yong, you should. I get the majority of my science news from that man. Too bad it's owned by Nature Publishing Group, but funny enough, after the Womenspace debacle there have been several people who said they don't give a crap what Nature Publishing might say, they're going to write about the stupidity of NPG anyway.
I just read a couple of articles there about that. :lulz: Good on them!
I love Scientific American but once I start I get sucked in FOREVER. I should probably get a subscription so that I can read it in bed.
I would love a subscription to Sci-Am.
HEY, IF ANYONE WANTS TO GET ME A SOL INVICTUS PRESENT, HINT-HINT!Though, there are things that don't turn up in the print copy that are online. There's only so much room in the magazine, but the blogs have unlimited space.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 29, 2011, 12:42:34 AM
Quote from: Nigel on November 29, 2011, 12:32:44 AM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 29, 2011, 12:25:15 AM
Quote from: Nigel on November 28, 2011, 11:55:53 PM
Thanks Kai, now I'm stuck in the endless maze of articles that is Scientific American. :lol:
Love Sci-Am. Best science journalism ever, hands down. If you don't regularly read Ed Yong, you should. I get the majority of my science news from that man. Too bad it's owned by Nature Publishing Group, but funny enough, after the Womenspace debacle there have been several people who said they don't give a crap what Nature Publishing might say, they're going to write about the stupidity of NPG anyway.
I just read a couple of articles there about that. :lulz: Good on them!
I love Scientific American but once I start I get sucked in FOREVER. I should probably get a subscription so that I can read it in bed.
I would love a subscription to Sci-Am. HEY, IF ANYONE WANTS TO GET ME A SOL INVICTUS PRESENT, HINT-HINT!
Though, there are things that don't turn up in the print copy that are online. There's only so much room in the magazine, but the blogs have unlimited space.
Hmmm, that's a really good point. What I should do is get a laptop, so I can read it in bed. :)
Quote from: Nigel on November 28, 2011, 10:40:22 PM
Look at this piece of shit:
(http://cn1.kaboodle.com/hi/img/2/0/0/160/f/AAAAAnnLy9kAAAAAAWD-Cw.jpg?v=1224085498000)
Seeing as how I have precisely zero survival skills, I am now considering buying that for TGG.
Got no brain ---> :whack: <--- Got no sense.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 29, 2011, 02:11:44 AM
Quote from: Nigel on November 28, 2011, 10:40:22 PM
Look at this piece of shit:
(http://cn1.kaboodle.com/hi/img/2/0/0/160/f/AAAAAnnLy9kAAAAAAWD-Cw.jpg?v=1224085498000)
Seeing as how I have precisely zero survival skills, I am now considering buying that for TGG.
Got no brain ---> :whack: <--- Got no sense.
:lulz: She WILL try to brain you with that hammer.
Fortunately, it's so flimsy that will have roughly the same effect as being beaten with a teaspoon.
don't listen to her Dok! she's got it out for you...
i used that flimsy pink hammer to beat the rusted on lugnut off my friends wheel once with success.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 29, 2011, 02:11:44 AM
Quote from: Nigel on November 28, 2011, 10:40:22 PM
Look at this piece of shit:
(http://cn1.kaboodle.com/hi/img/2/0/0/160/f/AAAAAnnLy9kAAAAAAWD-Cw.jpg?v=1224085498000)
Seeing as how I have precisely zero survival skills, I am now considering buying that for TGG.
Got no brain ---> :whack: <--- Got no sense.
IF YOU BUY ME SOMETHING LIKE THAT I WILL HAVE YOUR HEAD ON A PIKE. :argh!:
Quote from: Nigel on November 29, 2011, 12:32:44 AM
I love Scientific American but once I start I get sucked in FOREVER. I should probably get a subscription so that I can read it in bed.
That's hot.
Quote from: ThatGreenGentleman on November 29, 2011, 06:22:59 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 29, 2011, 02:11:44 AM
Quote from: Nigel on November 28, 2011, 10:40:22 PM
Look at this piece of shit:
(http://cn1.kaboodle.com/hi/img/2/0/0/160/f/AAAAAnnLy9kAAAAAAWD-Cw.jpg?v=1224085498000)
Seeing as how I have precisely zero survival skills, I am now considering buying that for TGG.
Got no brain ---> :whack: <--- Got no sense.
IF YOU BUY ME SOMETHING LIKE THAT I WILL HAVE YOUR HEAD ON A PIKE. :argh!:
haha! Look at this, you lazy bastards! 9 years I've been telling you to kill me, and my daughter has been here, what, 6 months?
Quote from: Nigel on November 28, 2011, 11:38:57 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 28, 2011, 11:20:20 PM
Quote from: Jenne on November 28, 2011, 04:36:05 PM
I think the "boys' sets" are more gender-neutral. If you have a girl that's into physics and chemistry, buying the magnet sets, the erector sets and the chem sets is not going to awry.
I think it's rather the opposite--the makeup and perfume are very girl-specific. As a mom to only boys (as of today's date, anyway), I have to say boys' "toys" can be way more gender-neutralized than girls'. Mostly because of colors schemes, etc.
Not that this still isn't an issue, mind you. I think it's rather sad that the manufacturers can't market things in a way that add up to BETTER LEARNING rather than gender-role reinforcements. *shrug* But that's when a parent's discernment is inserted, and you just say FUCK IT ALL my kid wants to learn, so here's a crack-your-own geode set, or here's a rock tumbler, or here's a solar system for your ceiling (my 12 mo old niece just got one for her birthday this weekend...).
Even the boy's sets are gender-specific, and here's the simple reason why: If a boy wanted to play with the girls set, it would be frowned upon.
As a friend of mine says, "Girls can wear jeans and cut their hair short, wear shirts and boots, because it's okay to be a boy. But for a boy to look like a girl is degrading, because you think that being a girl is degrading." It's misogyny, plain and simple.
Yep.
My son is a beautiful child with large eyes and delicate features. He likes to wear his hair long and he used to love wearing dresses and women's shoes around the house. His dad used to make fun of him and say "everybody will think you're a girl". Because that's a deterrent?
So he just wore dresses and women's shoes around my house, where nobody gives a fuck. He stopped doing it, but he still wears makeup sometimes.
Also, total Brony. Not at all kidding.
There was a mom recently who put out a book about her preschooler who liked to wear dresses. She did it so people at school would understand--she said her family was only just then starting to grasp why he wanted to wear them, pretend to be a princess, etc. She claimed the book helped. http://www.amazon.com/Princess-story-about-young-loves/dp/0615395945 She calls him "My Princess Boy."
It reminded me of the time I was teaching preschool in the LA bay area at a private pre-K through 5th grade school. There were dress-up clothes for the 3 and 4 year olds to play in, and this one boy always chose the blue, silky dress. And I let him, because I knew what he felt when he played in it--the same feeling I always had trying on beautiful, floaty dresses.
His mother came in and picked him up one day and yelled and screamed at me. Said that if his father ever knew he dressed up in dresses at school, he'd beat his child, her then ME. I stared at her. And then I hated her. I couldn't believe this kid, this beautiful boy, was in the hands of these monsters. I mean, she was trying to be funny about it, but to me, it's not a joke. That kid was on his way to being fairly screwed up if wearing a dress for play was a matter for a beating.
interesting / related
http://www.thefrisky.com/2011-11-29/what-ad-agencies-created-when-asked-to-rebrand-girls/
QuoteIt's a sad but true fact that in some parts of the world, especially China, baby boys are favored over baby girls. In fact, boys are so strongly favored in some rural areas of China that girls are aborted after their gender is known and as a result there's a drastic imbalance in the population.
But even in countries where baby girls are brought into the nursery, parents can have a hard time when they learn they're decorating it pink instead of blue. This has a lot to do with existing sexist prejudices that adversely impact females in society — like lack of access to education and employment — that privilege males and incentivize parents to have boys.
So the magazine Fast Company thought up something completely innovative: it asked a half dozen ad agencies to rebrand girls with mock advertisements. Oh, if sexism were only as simple as bad advertising! The agencies primarily focused on targeting parents — er, consumers — in the U.S. and China and several opted to highlight perceived reasons that girls are better than boys, rather than just appreciating girls for their own sakes. For that reason I'm not sure I like all of these, although all the mock ads are certainly creative.
the article has 9 images. Here's two:
(http://cdn03.cdnwp.thefrisky.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/28/Picture-385.png) (http://cdn04.cdnwp.thefrisky.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/28/Picture-383.png)
I understand why we want boys. A boy is someone you can do man stuff with.
Turns out, though, that you can do that shit with daughters, too. Taking my girl shooting in January, for example.
they come in pink...
(http://www.kittyhell.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/hello-kitty-assault-rifle.jpg)
but to counter the flimsiness that pink inherently imparts, perhaps you could accessorize with pink testicles to dangle off the charging handle:
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRaIKhqdsON9-51QHkDhreLJOMlWR4NBSWHHrt_ReM-Rvgs9gm_zQ_iI7JDuA)
Quote from: Cramulus on November 29, 2011, 04:11:04 PM
interesting / related
http://www.thefrisky.com/2011-11-29/what-ad-agencies-created-when-asked-to-rebrand-girls/
Just checked that article. It was ... weird.
The commentary next to the fake-ads was pretty moronic IMO, sometimes the graphics design, sometimes the content, sometimes the fact it reminded them of "True Blood", pretty random.
The ads weren't
that good either, but then I expect that's because they weren't serious and therefore probably weren't budgeted like a real ad either.
Eh, the commentary just really bugged me for some reason :)
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 29, 2011, 04:21:22 PM
I understand why we want boys. A boy is someone you can do man stuff with.
Turns out, though, that you can do that shit with daughters, too. Taking my girl shooting in January, for example.
Yep. My son wanted a baby brother so he would have someone to play video games with. Then he found out that LO is a badass video game ninja. She's also a pretty pretty princess in pink. Granted, the pink is usually filthy and tattered by the end of the day from all her ninja backyard baddassery, but it's fucking pink.
Quote from: Iptuous on November 29, 2011, 04:40:33 PM
they come in pink...
(http://www.kittyhell.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/hello-kitty-assault-rifle.jpg)
but to counter the flimsiness that pink inherently imparts, perhaps you could accessorize with pink testicles to dangle off the charging handle:
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRaIKhqdsON9-51QHkDhreLJOMlWR4NBSWHHrt_ReM-Rvgs9gm_zQ_iI7JDuA)
I normally hate those fucking testicles, but in this case I kind of love them. :lulz:
Also, I like things that are all sissified while remaining bad ass. Because pretty princesses like TGRR want to be badass, too.
My little sister is the patron saint of awesome, who, much like LO, was the type of girl who would rock the pretty dress while she beat the shit out of all the boys in the neighborhood.
Don't get me wrong, I love my brother, but watching my sister win bets at the bar for knowing baseball stats and doing shots of whiskey brings tears to my eyes.
Is it wrong that I like that Hello Kitty gun?
No, it just makes it appealing because it's two things I like in one.
I just sent that pic to my sister, and she told me she wants to take it to the range. :lulz:
Quote from: Nigel on November 29, 2011, 10:05:08 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on November 29, 2011, 04:40:33 PM
they come in pink...
(http://www.kittyhell.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/hello-kitty-assault-rifle.jpg)
but to counter the flimsiness that pink inherently imparts, perhaps you could accessorize with pink testicles to dangle off the charging handle:
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRaIKhqdsON9-51QHkDhreLJOMlWR4NBSWHHrt_ReM-Rvgs9gm_zQ_iI7JDuA)
I normally hate those fucking testicles, but in this case I kind of love them. :lulz:
Also, I like things that are all sissified while remaining bad ass. Because pretty princesses like TGRR want to be badass, too.
oooooooooooo
Quote from: Jenne on November 29, 2011, 03:11:08 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 28, 2011, 11:38:57 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 28, 2011, 11:20:20 PM
Quote from: Jenne on November 28, 2011, 04:36:05 PM
I think the "boys' sets" are more gender-neutral. If you have a girl that's into physics and chemistry, buying the magnet sets, the erector sets and the chem sets is not going to awry.
I think it's rather the opposite--the makeup and perfume are very girl-specific. As a mom to only boys (as of today's date, anyway), I have to say boys' "toys" can be way more gender-neutralized than girls'. Mostly because of colors schemes, etc.
Not that this still isn't an issue, mind you. I think it's rather sad that the manufacturers can't market things in a way that add up to BETTER LEARNING rather than gender-role reinforcements. *shrug* But that's when a parent's discernment is inserted, and you just say FUCK IT ALL my kid wants to learn, so here's a crack-your-own geode set, or here's a rock tumbler, or here's a solar system for your ceiling (my 12 mo old niece just got one for her birthday this weekend...).
Even the boy's sets are gender-specific, and here's the simple reason why: If a boy wanted to play with the girls set, it would be frowned upon.
As a friend of mine says, "Girls can wear jeans and cut their hair short, wear shirts and boots, because it's okay to be a boy. But for a boy to look like a girl is degrading, because you think that being a girl is degrading." It's misogyny, plain and simple.
Yep.
My son is a beautiful child with large eyes and delicate features. He likes to wear his hair long and he used to love wearing dresses and women's shoes around the house. His dad used to make fun of him and say "everybody will think you're a girl". Because that's a deterrent?
So he just wore dresses and women's shoes around my house, where nobody gives a fuck. He stopped doing it, but he still wears makeup sometimes.
Also, total Brony. Not at all kidding.
There was a mom recently who put out a book about her preschooler who liked to wear dresses. She did it so people at school would understand--she said her family was only just then starting to grasp why he wanted to wear them, pretend to be a princess, etc. She claimed the book helped. http://www.amazon.com/Princess-story-about-young-loves/dp/0615395945 She calls him "My Princess Boy."
It reminded me of the time I was teaching preschool in the LA bay area at a private pre-K through 5th grade school. There were dress-up clothes for the 3 and 4 year olds to play in, and this one boy always chose the blue, silky dress. And I let him, because I knew what he felt when he played in it--the same feeling I always had trying on beautiful, floaty dresses.
His mother came in and picked him up one day and yelled and screamed at me. Said that if his father ever knew he dressed up in dresses at school, he'd beat his child, her then ME. I stared at her. And then I hated her. I couldn't believe this kid, this beautiful boy, was in the hands of these monsters. I mean, she was trying to be funny about it, but to me, it's not a joke. That kid was on his way to being fairly screwed up if wearing a dress for play was a matter for a beating.
I think it's pretty screwed up that wearing a dress at all was a matter for a beating.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 30, 2011, 03:59:16 PM
I think it's pretty screwed up that wearing a dress at all was a matter for a beating.
He's not living up to his father's preconceived expectations. What was the dad supposed to do? He HAD to beat the homo out of the kid, right? Otherwise he'd have to watch football alone when he's 80.
I think you need to show a little more sensitivity here, Kai.
TGRR,
Just ran his tongue through the side of his cheek.
Quote from: Jenne on November 29, 2011, 03:11:08 PM
...
His mother came in and picked him up one day and yelled and screamed at me. Said that if his father ever knew he dressed up in dresses at school, he'd beat his child, her then ME. I stared at her. And then I hated her. I couldn't believe this kid, this beautiful boy, was in the hands of these monsters. I mean, she was trying to be funny about it, but to me, it's not a joke. That kid was on his way to being fairly screwed up if wearing a dress for play was a matter for a beating.
for clarification... was she joking about the beating thing, or did you get the impression that it was an actual possibility?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2011, 04:02:40 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 30, 2011, 03:59:16 PM
I think it's pretty screwed up that wearing a dress at all was a matter for a beating.
He's not living up to his father's preconceived expectations. What was the dad supposed to do? He HAD to beat the homo out of the kid, right? Otherwise he'd have to watch football alone when he's 80.
I think you need to show a little more sensitivity here, Kai.
TGRR,
Just ran his tongue through the side of his cheek.
Sometimes, despite the fact that I know it's explicit horror mirth, I still want to punch someone when you write things like this.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 30, 2011, 05:57:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2011, 04:02:40 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 30, 2011, 03:59:16 PM
I think it's pretty screwed up that wearing a dress at all was a matter for a beating.
He's not living up to his father's preconceived expectations. What was the dad supposed to do? He HAD to beat the homo out of the kid, right? Otherwise he'd have to watch football alone when he's 80.
I think you need to show a little more sensitivity here, Kai.
TGRR,
Just ran his tongue through the side of his cheek.
Sometimes, despite the fact that I know it's explicit horror mirth, I still want to punch someone when you write things like this.
I am merely a mirror, reflecting America™ back on itself, Kai. The yahoos up in Oro Valley actually think like that, and I'm sure you know a few cavemen, too.
There's always gonna be assholes, dude.
Quote from: Iptuous on November 30, 2011, 04:03:20 PM
Quote from: Jenne on November 29, 2011, 03:11:08 PM
...
His mother came in and picked him up one day and yelled and screamed at me. Said that if his father ever knew he dressed up in dresses at school, he'd beat his child, her then ME. I stared at her. And then I hated her. I couldn't believe this kid, this beautiful boy, was in the hands of these monsters. I mean, she was trying to be funny about it, but to me, it's not a joke. That kid was on his way to being fairly screwed up if wearing a dress for play was a matter for a beating.
for clarification... was she joking about the beating thing, or did you get the impression that it was an actual possibility?
I don't think the guy would have come after me, no, but he'd have complained to the management/school owner. And yes, she probably would've caught hell along with her son.
Still pisses me off to this day, and this was 16 years ago.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 30, 2011, 03:59:16 PM
I think it's pretty screwed up that wearing a dress at all was a matter for a beating.
It is screwed up. It's beyond screwed up. This classic case of fear cuts to the quick, doesn't it? It was shocking to me at the time, which shows you how sheltered I grew up. My own dad's pretty alpha, but he wouldn't beat a child or his mother for wearing a fucking dress...esp seeing how happy the kid was in it.
I tell you what though--when I worked in the preschool in the afternoons, I knew to take the dress off of him 4-5 mins before his mom came to get him. He still got to wear it, and gaze at himself in the little handheld mirror that came along with all the playset stuff. He'd build blocks in the dress and sometimes wear a crown with it. And we let him. Until we knew it was close to the time he had to go home. :)
Yes, I was an old hand at subterfuge back in the day.
Quote from: Jenne on November 30, 2011, 08:35:07 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 30, 2011, 03:59:16 PM
I think it's pretty screwed up that wearing a dress at all was a matter for a beating.
It is screwed up. It's beyond screwed up. This classic case of fear cuts to the quick, doesn't it? It was shocking to me at the time, which shows you how sheltered I grew up. My own dad's pretty alpha, but he wouldn't beat a child or his mother for wearing a fucking dress...esp seeing how happy the kid was in it.
I tell you what though--when I worked in the preschool in the afternoons, I knew to take the dress off of him 4-5 mins before his mom came to get him. He still got to wear it, and gaze at himself in the little handheld mirror that came along with all the playset stuff. He'd build blocks in the dress and sometimes wear a crown with it. And we let him. Until we knew it was close to the time he had to go home. :)
Yes, I was an old hand at subterfuge back in the day.
Good. :)
I liked to wear dresses and sparkly girl shoes when I was a wee one. I only very vaguely remember it though.
I still think women get to wear all the interesting clothes. Guy clothes haven't changed significantly in what, a hundred years, a hundred and fifty? Help me out here, Suu.
Quote from: Jenne on November 30, 2011, 08:35:07 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 30, 2011, 03:59:16 PM
I think it's pretty screwed up that wearing a dress at all was a matter for a beating.
It is screwed up. It's beyond screwed up. This classic case of fear cuts to the quick, doesn't it? It was shocking to me at the time, which shows you how sheltered I grew up. My own dad's pretty alpha, but he wouldn't beat a child or his mother for wearing a fucking dress...esp seeing how happy the kid was in it.
I tell you what though--when I worked in the preschool in the afternoons, I knew to take the dress off of him 4-5 mins before his mom came to get him. He still got to wear it, and gaze at himself in the little handheld mirror that came along with all the playset stuff. He'd build blocks in the dress and sometimes wear a crown with it. And we let him. Until we knew it was close to the time he had to go home. :)
Yes, I was an old hand at subterfuge back in the day.
That's awesome.
Quote from: Jenne on November 30, 2011, 08:35:07 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 30, 2011, 03:59:16 PM
I think it's pretty screwed up that wearing a dress at all was a matter for a beating.
It is screwed up. It's beyond screwed up. This classic case of fear cuts to the quick, doesn't it? It was shocking to me at the time, which shows you how sheltered I grew up. My own dad's pretty alpha, but he wouldn't beat a child or his mother for wearing a fucking dress...esp seeing how happy the kid was in it.
I tell you what though--when I worked in the preschool in the afternoons, I knew to take the dress off of him 4-5 mins before his mom came to get him. He still got to wear it, and gaze at himself in the little handheld mirror that came along with all the playset stuff. He'd build blocks in the dress and sometimes wear a crown with it. And we let him. Until we knew it was close to the time he had to go home. :)
Yes, I was an old hand at subterfuge back in the day.
As Reverend Michal used to say to me, "It's a piece of cloth. How does a piece of cloth have a gender?"
Related to a couple pages ago - I want tools with lime green handles! I don't like the baby pink, or the fugly semi-navy blue most tools come in. Lime green is a little too happy, and I like that.
I would take apart things like my barbie van and my laptop. My dad made the same face when he saw them disassembled, and the same face when he found out I put them back together by myself. Shock, horror, disbelief.
I want a lime green hammer.
Duracoat (http://www.houtsenterprises.net/dur_electric.html), the product that is used on firearms to make them vibrant colors, is available in a very wide spectrum. they have a lime green, and it is suitable for hard use items beyond just firearms.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 30, 2011, 10:00:24 PM
Quote from: Jenne on November 30, 2011, 08:35:07 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 30, 2011, 03:59:16 PM
I think it's pretty screwed up that wearing a dress at all was a matter for a beating.
It is screwed up. It's beyond screwed up. This classic case of fear cuts to the quick, doesn't it? It was shocking to me at the time, which shows you how sheltered I grew up. My own dad's pretty alpha, but he wouldn't beat a child or his mother for wearing a fucking dress...esp seeing how happy the kid was in it.
I tell you what though--when I worked in the preschool in the afternoons, I knew to take the dress off of him 4-5 mins before his mom came to get him. He still got to wear it, and gaze at himself in the little handheld mirror that came along with all the playset stuff. He'd build blocks in the dress and sometimes wear a crown with it. And we let him. Until we knew it was close to the time he had to go home. :)
Yes, I was an old hand at subterfuge back in the day.
As Reverend Michal used to say to me, "It's a piece of cloth. How does a piece of cloth have a gender?"
There are cultural stigmas to everything, Kai, you know that. And clothing has become a line of demarcation folks use to tell one another apart. Pure and simple.
Some people FEAR, fundamentally, that coloring outside the lines that happens when the mind is open to change. Some people FEAR and are willing to strike out against their children opening their own minds to change without the parental direction that would make them "safe" in doing so.
It's fucked up. My kiddo tried on gramma's sparkly spike heels at 2 with his cousin of the same age, and we prize that photo my mom took of it. The look of sheer joy on the boy's face mixed with "tee hee, lookie what I got?" makes it priceless. I don't know where this man in my example went wrong in his head about what is well and good for his son at THREE to explore--I shudder to think what has happened to the two of theme these last 15 years!
one of the family photos my mom always drags out is when my sister dressed me, at 3 years of age, in a tutu and had me do a ballet for everyone. it was funny.
although an angry reaction (and certainly a violent one) is uncalled for and counter-productive for the father to have, i can understand why he might be dismayed if his son were to have a habit of wearing women's clothes. the vast majority of men do not want their sons to be homosexual, and signs that may be seen to point in that direction can be unsettling. the degree to which homosexual behavior and urges is influenced by nurture v nature is contentious, and certainly not a settled by very wide margin from the observations that i've had.
if the father were not acting like a douche, according to the remarks of the wife, and the parents both came to you and respectfully asked that you not let him wear the dress, would you have complied?
She already did that, and said in very strict words she didn't want that. She wasn't terribly disrespectful, I felt at the time, just overreacted I thought.
The only way I would've stopped is if 1) my boss had said to and 2) the co-workers agreed. But my fellow co-workers and I were on this sort of secret mission to let the kid explore and learn in his own way. We were a private school--we could get away with that shit. But if the bosslady had brought the hammer down (now, she was a wife of a longtime friend of my grandfather's, so the nepotism here would have extended far enough that if I'd gotten in trouble with the parents, it'd been ok, something odd had happened similar to this about kids playing in puddles and being wet and I got blamed, blah blah and she had my back), I probably would have had to capitulate.
Quote from: Iptuous on December 01, 2011, 02:58:26 PM
one of the family photos my mom always drags out is when my sister dressed me, at 3 years of age, in a tutu and had me do a ballet for everyone. it was funny.
although an angry reaction (and certainly a violent one) is uncalled for and counter-productive for the father to have, i can understand why he might be dismayed if his son were to have a habit of wearing women's clothes. the vast majority of men do not want their sons to be homosexual, and signs that may be seen to point in that direction can be unsettling. the degree to which homosexual behavior and urges is influenced by nurture v nature is contentious, and certainly not a settled by very wide margin from the observations that i've had.
if the father were not acting like a douche, according to the remarks of the wife, and the parents both came to you and respectfully asked that you not let him wear the dress, would you have complied?
The equation of wearing women's clothes to being homosexual is idiotic. I honestly hope you're not making that case.
no.
but i believe that the large majority of men would see a habit of wearing women's clothing as a sign pointing in that direction, rightly or wrongly.
would you think this an incorrect expectation?
If you're saying that the majority of men are fucking idiots because they assume "boys wearing dresses = gay", then I agree with you.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 01, 2011, 06:39:11 PM
If you're saying that the majority of men are fucking idiots because they assume "boys wearing dresses = gay", then I agree with you.
Exactly. I don't think we should give any time for that argument, regardless of how many people think it.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 01, 2011, 06:50:47 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 01, 2011, 06:39:11 PM
If you're saying that the majority of men are fucking idiots because they assume "boys wearing dresses = gay", then I agree with you.
Exactly. I don't think we should give any time for that argument, regardless of how many people think it.
Although, I'm pretty sure Ipt isn't making that argument, he's stating why that particular father would be mad.
Which could be considered preaching to the choir, but we shouldn't castigate him for reminding us that monkeys are, well, monkeys.
correct.
Here's a bit of anecdote:
Monkey likes to wear makeup. I mean, I will put it on him and he won't rub it off, or he'll go and grab it himself and mess with it, saying "Pretty colors! What's this color? (color name)" the whole time. It is ADORABLE, and he looks pretty good with red eyeshadow, really.
I know for a fact that if his dad knew about this, he'd flip his fucking lid. The ex is a bit of a homophobe, and I'm pretty sure he'd see that as a thing that will lead to monkey being gay.
I think the point is, people who would think that are idiots, and this is empirical evidence, since we already know my ex is an idiot? Or is that circular reasoning?
Is anecdotal evidence of "people who think this are idiots".
Is empirical evidence of "your ex is an idiot" (like we needed any more).
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 02, 2011, 09:13:43 AM
Is anecdotal evidence of "people who think this are idiots".
Is empirical evidence of "your ex is an idiot" (like we needed any more).
:lulz: My bad.
It would be awesome if Mattel et al would come up with neuter/both boy AND girl makeup/doll/dress up sets. Or if giving pink to a boy didn't signal in the West* a "mistake in gender identity."
*There's no "pink" taboo in my husband's family, and so maybe extrapolatable to his culture? because his favorite photo of himself as a baby is when his grandmother is holding him on a raspberry pink blanket while he's wearing a pastel pink sweatersuit and hat! ...NOT that I expect we'll see the mujaheds or Talibs in the region wearing Prince's raspberry berets, but one can hope, can't one?
Quote from: Jenne on December 02, 2011, 03:49:37 PM
It would be awesome if Mattel et al would come up with neuter/both boy AND girl makeup/doll/dress up sets. Or if giving pink to a boy didn't signal in the West* a "mistake in gender identity."
*There's no "pink" taboo in my husband's family, and so maybe extrapolatable to his culture? because his favorite photo of himself as a baby is when his grandmother is holding him on a raspberry pink blanket while he's wearing a pastel pink sweatersuit and hat! ...NOT that I expect we'll see the mujaheds or Talibs in the region wearing Prince's raspberry berets, but one can hope, can't one?
Maybe they're still operating under the "old" tradition of pink as a strong color.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 02, 2011, 03:59:50 PM
Quote from: Jenne on December 02, 2011, 03:49:37 PM
It would be awesome if Mattel et al would come up with neuter/both boy AND girl makeup/doll/dress up sets. Or if giving pink to a boy didn't signal in the West* a "mistake in gender identity."
*There's no "pink" taboo in my husband's family, and so maybe extrapolatable to his culture? because his favorite photo of himself as a baby is when his grandmother is holding him on a raspberry pink blanket while he's wearing a pastel pink sweatersuit and hat! ...NOT that I expect we'll see the mujaheds or Talibs in the region wearing Prince's raspberry berets, but one can hope, can't one?
Maybe they're still operating under the "old" tradition of pink as a strong color.
I think for babies, it just doesn't matter--as long as the clothes fit. If you like the color and you're the baby's mom, you dress them however you want. Makes sense. Folks know each other so closely, they already know if you had a boy or a girl. So there's no question about having to look at the color of bib, blanket or clothing to "guess"...you hear from your relative what gender the baby is, and that's that.
Plus babies are such wrinkly pink monstrosities that there is no clear indicator of their sex when they're clothed.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 02, 2011, 04:04:17 PM
Plus babies are such wrinkly pink monstrosities that there is no clear indicator of their sex when they're clothed.
Exactly, so if you know the mom, and you know the baby, you don't need the non-verbal marker of "boy" or "girl" that color scheme of baby paraphernalia would signal to you.
Everyone who didn't know me always assumed EFO was a boy and MO was a girl, no matter what they were dressed in.
They were babies, it didn't matter. I'm fine with people calling babies "it", too, I don't know why people get all worked up over calling small children "it". They don't naturally start to differentiate until around four, anyway. We should just stick them all in dresses (pants on babies are FUCKING STUPID, who came up with that? Makes diaper-changing a huge PITA) until they're old enough to care.
Quote from: Nigel on December 02, 2011, 04:37:29 PM
Everyone who didn't know me always assumed EFO was a boy and MO was a girl, no matter what they were dressed in.
They were babies, it didn't matter. I'm fine with people calling babies "it", too, I don't know why people get all worked up over calling small children "it". They don't naturally start to differentiate until around four, anyway. We should just stick them all in dresses (pants on babies are FUCKING STUPID, who came up with that? Makes diaper-changing a huge PITA) until they're old enough to care.
As far as I'm concerned, they're barely human. I don't think of babies as people until they start speaking. Until then, they're well loved pets that have to be fed, cleaned, and walked every 2-4 hours.
that's kinda fucked up, Kai.
:|
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 02, 2011, 05:21:12 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 02, 2011, 04:37:29 PM
Everyone who didn't know me always assumed EFO was a boy and MO was a girl, no matter what they were dressed in.
They were babies, it didn't matter. I'm fine with people calling babies "it", too, I don't know why people get all worked up over calling small children "it". They don't naturally start to differentiate until around four, anyway. We should just stick them all in dresses (pants on babies are FUCKING STUPID, who came up with that? Makes diaper-changing a huge PITA) until they're old enough to care.
As far as I'm concerned, they're barely human. I don't think of babies as people until they start speaking. Until then, they're well loved pets that have to be fed, cleaned, and walked every 2-4 hours.
Ungh. Well, that's special, considering that infancy is one of the most rapid learning periods and that babies are making connections at an astonishing rate. They can usually understand a lot of language long before they can physically speak, too. This is one reason babies require so much interaction.
They're definitely not as fun as older children, but then, it's not like they're meant to be entertainment.
Quote from: Iptuous on December 02, 2011, 05:26:03 PM
that's kinda fucked up, Kai.
:|
No, fucked up is treating them poorly. Fucked up is killing people for their skin color. Fucked up is making women second class citizens. Fucked up is corpse fucking.
My thoughts of babies as potential humans, which does not change my moral requirement to treat them right, is merely quirky.
quirky, then.
:|
Well, I think back in the day they DID dress all infants in dresses. Largish dresses. You can see the logic in that.
I'm pretty sure there are plenty of cultures still out there that dress their kids more for comfort and health and ease than gender indentification.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 02, 2011, 05:51:13 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on December 02, 2011, 05:26:03 PM
that's kinda fucked up, Kai.
:|
No, fucked up is treating them poorly. Fucked up is killing people for their skin color. Fucked up is making women second class citizens. Fucked up is corpse fucking.
My thoughts of babies as potential humans, which does not change my moral requirement to treat them right, is merely quirky.
It's also immature, stupid, and wrong.
I believe Queen Victoria regarded them akin to plants for the first six months.
And then she had one and decided they were people from the get go after all.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 02, 2011, 05:21:12 PM
As far as I'm concerned, they're barely human. I don't think of babies as people until they start speaking.
I don't consider them human until they learn to stop.
Quote from: Jenne on December 02, 2011, 06:14:37 PM
Well, I think back in the day they DID dress all infants in dresses. Largish dresses. You can see the logic in that.
I'm pretty sure there are plenty of cultures still out there that dress their kids more for comfort and health and ease than gender indentification.
I think it was still common during the Victorian era.
I take back "stupid" and replace it with "willfully ignorant" in the kind of woefully common way you tend to hear from people who think such viewpoints make them sound interesting.
I find it mildly sickening, much as when people say they don't regard niggers, retards, or women as "human".
And I'm woefully disappointed to hear such things from someone I regard as intelligent and thoughtful.
Quote from: Nigel on December 02, 2011, 06:33:43 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 02, 2011, 05:51:13 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on December 02, 2011, 05:26:03 PM
that's kinda fucked up, Kai.
:|
No, fucked up is treating them poorly. Fucked up is killing people for their skin color. Fucked up is making women second class citizens. Fucked up is corpse fucking.
My thoughts of babies as potential humans, which does not change my moral requirement to treat them right, is merely quirky.
It's also immature, stupid, and wrong.
I honestly can't think of a response to this that wouldn't be immature, stupid, and wrong.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 02, 2011, 06:35:36 PM
I believe Queen Victoria regarded them akin to plants for the first six months.
And then she had one and decided they were people from the get go after all.
Yeah, unless you're a sociopath you can't really spend much time with an infant and not realize that they're intelligent, independent personalities from birth. They can't do much about expressing it, but you can see that it's in there. Plus, I remember bits of being a baby, and not being able to talk was hellishly frustrating.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 02, 2011, 06:39:42 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 02, 2011, 06:33:43 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 02, 2011, 05:51:13 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on December 02, 2011, 05:26:03 PM
that's kinda fucked up, Kai.
:|
No, fucked up is treating them poorly. Fucked up is killing people for their skin color. Fucked up is making women second class citizens. Fucked up is corpse fucking.
My thoughts of babies as potential humans, which does not change my moral requirement to treat them right, is merely quirky.
It's also immature, stupid, and wrong.
I honestly can't think of a response to this that wouldn't be immature, stupid, and wrong.
You are supposed to be a scientist. How can you be a scientist and express an opinion such as that one for any other reason than thinking that it
somehow "cute"?
Quote from: Nigel on December 02, 2011, 06:42:54 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 02, 2011, 06:35:36 PM
I believe Queen Victoria regarded them akin to plants for the first six months.
And then she had one and decided they were people from the get go after all.
Yeah, unless you're a sociopath you can't really spend much time with an infant and not realize that they're intelligent, independent personalities from birth. They can't do much about expressing it, but you can see that it's in there. Plus, I remember bits of being a baby, and not being able to talk was hellishly frustrating.
Yep. I've spent limited time around babies (dad's ex's middle daughter had two and they were ADORABLE), but I agree. And it's really cool to watch them learn and grow. :)
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 02, 2011, 05:51:13 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on December 02, 2011, 05:26:03 PM
that's kinda fucked up, Kai.
:|
No, fucked up is treating them poorly. Fucked up is killing people for their skin color. Fucked up is making women second class citizens. Fucked up is corpse fucking.
My thoughts of babies as potential humans, which does not change my moral requirement to treat them right, is merely quirky.
Also, gotta say, there's a couple square yards of Dawkins Fallacy in that there truck.
Kai, do you consider babies barely human because they can't communicate?
Quote from: Jenne on December 02, 2011, 06:14:37 PM
Well, I think back in the day they DID dress all infants in dresses. Largish dresses. You can see the logic in that.
I'm pretty sure there are plenty of cultures still out there that dress their kids more for comfort and health and ease than gender indentification.
I remember seeing pictures of either my dad or grandfather as a toddler wearing a dress. It used to be really common, apparently.
Quote from: Emo Howard on December 02, 2011, 07:40:13 PM
Quote from: Jenne on December 02, 2011, 06:14:37 PM
Well, I think back in the day they DID dress all infants in dresses. Largish dresses. You can see the logic in that.
I'm pretty sure there are plenty of cultures still out there that dress their kids more for comfort and health and ease than gender indentification.
I remember seeing pictures of either my dad or grandfather as a toddler wearing a dress. It used to be really common, apparently.
Here's a good blog entry about it: http://victoriantruth.blogspot.com/2008/07/from-commonly-held-misconceptions-about.html
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 02, 2011, 05:21:12 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 02, 2011, 04:37:29 PM
Everyone who didn't know me always assumed EFO was a boy and MO was a girl, no matter what they were dressed in.
They were babies, it didn't matter. I'm fine with people calling babies "it", too, I don't know why people get all worked up over calling small children "it". They don't naturally start to differentiate until around four, anyway. We should just stick them all in dresses (pants on babies are FUCKING STUPID, who came up with that? Makes diaper-changing a huge PITA) until they're old enough to care.
As far as I'm concerned, they're barely human. I don't think of babies as people until they start speaking. Until then, they're well loved pets that have to be fed, cleaned, and walked every 2-4 hours.
I used to have something like this in my head. It wasn't so much a belief that I accepted as some kind of well thought out logical conclusion, it was just a feeling.
Then my brother and his wife had a baby, and the baby needed open heart surgery. My brain tried to hang on to this feeling, because, you know, it might die anyway. No point in getting attached. I don't think it helped, but maybe it did. I went about by business with a dull sick feeling, and a gravelly feeling in my brain rather than constant, incapacitating terror, so that was something I guess.
He's 2 1/2 now, and really into Thomas the Train. He has a sister who is 8 months old.
I still don't fucking touch babies until they can hold their heads up by themselves, though. That's just weird.
Quote from: Nigel on December 02, 2011, 06:46:21 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 02, 2011, 06:39:42 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 02, 2011, 06:33:43 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 02, 2011, 05:51:13 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on December 02, 2011, 05:26:03 PM
that's kinda fucked up, Kai.
:|
No, fucked up is treating them poorly. Fucked up is killing people for their skin color. Fucked up is making women second class citizens. Fucked up is corpse fucking.
My thoughts of babies as potential humans, which does not change my moral requirement to treat them right, is merely quirky.
It's also immature, stupid, and wrong.
I honestly can't think of a response to this that wouldn't be immature, stupid, and wrong.
You are supposed to be a scientist. How can you be a scientist and express an opinion such as that one for any other reason than thinking that it
somehow "cute"?
Perhaps you can explain why it's wrong and what the correct opinion (and why that opinion is correct) is rather than descending into character attacks.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 02, 2011, 08:25:09 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 02, 2011, 06:46:21 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 02, 2011, 06:39:42 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 02, 2011, 06:33:43 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 02, 2011, 05:51:13 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on December 02, 2011, 05:26:03 PM
that's kinda fucked up, Kai.
:|
No, fucked up is treating them poorly. Fucked up is killing people for their skin color. Fucked up is making women second class citizens. Fucked up is corpse fucking.
My thoughts of babies as potential humans, which does not change my moral requirement to treat them right, is merely quirky.
It's also immature, stupid, and wrong.
I honestly can't think of a response to this that wouldn't be immature, stupid, and wrong.
You are supposed to be a scientist. How can you be a scientist and express an opinion such as that one for any other reason than thinking that it
somehow "cute"?
Perhaps you can explain why it's wrong and what the correct opinion (and why that opinion is correct) is rather than descending into character attacks.
That was not a character attack, that was an attack on your opinion, followed by a question. I'm sorry, but I feel about explaining to you why babies are really people pretty much the same way I feel about explaining to someone why old people, black people, retarded people, or female people are still really people.
If you were an uneducated backwoods hick who actually had a valid reason for not understanding that babies are born with a full complement of brain cells and emotional/cognitive reactions, I might feel the obligation to explain it to you. But you're not. You have essentially said that because they can't communicate with you, they are less than human.
I would like to challenge you to figure out why that's wrong for yourself.
:?
you're seriously going to dig in on this one, Kai?
Poor people still aren't legally people though, right?
Quote from: Nigel on December 02, 2011, 08:34:55 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 02, 2011, 08:25:09 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 02, 2011, 06:46:21 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 02, 2011, 06:39:42 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 02, 2011, 06:33:43 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 02, 2011, 05:51:13 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on December 02, 2011, 05:26:03 PM
that's kinda fucked up, Kai.
:|
No, fucked up is treating them poorly. Fucked up is killing people for their skin color. Fucked up is making women second class citizens. Fucked up is corpse fucking.
My thoughts of babies as potential humans, which does not change my moral requirement to treat them right, is merely quirky.
It's also immature, stupid, and wrong.
I honestly can't think of a response to this that wouldn't be immature, stupid, and wrong.
You are supposed to be a scientist. How can you be a scientist and express an opinion such as that one for any other reason than thinking that it
somehow "cute"?
Perhaps you can explain why it's wrong and what the correct opinion (and why that opinion is correct) is rather than descending into character attacks.
That was not a character attack, that was an attack on your opinion, followed by a question. I'm sorry, but I feel about explaining to you why babies are really people pretty much the same way I feel about explaining to someone why old people, black people, retarded people, or female people are still really people.
If you were an uneducated backwoods hick who actually had a valid reason for not understanding that babies are born with a full complement of brain cells and emotional/cognitive reactions, I might feel the obligation to explain it to you. But you're not. You have essentially said that because they can't communicate with you, they are less than human.
I would like to challenge you to figure out why that's wrong for yourself.
I'm sorry, I shouldn't have said something stupid like that. It was wrong. Please forgive me.
Quote from: Cain on December 02, 2011, 08:36:43 PM
Poor people still aren't legally people though, right?
Only if they can't keep their heads up high!
I hold children to be less responsible for their actions so in effect i consider them less than adults.
I also do not expect a 12year old kid to be capable of the level of empathy and risk assesment that an adults is capable of.
So i guess that makes me immature, stupid and wrong?
Consider the following situation:
You have to chose between saving a mother or her child.
The mother wants you to save the child.
Who do you save?
According to the 'children are equally human' position the choice is easy: both are of equal value and one wants to save the other. save the child.
According to the 'children are highly intelligent animals that will turn into humans later' position the choice is also easy: the mother has priority and the mothers says save the child. If you have any respect for the mother as a human you respect her decision and save the child.
Maybe the difference between the 'kids are like* pets' position and sociopathy is that the sociopath has no respect for a humans' agency (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_%28philosophy%29).
*This means they are similar but not the same.
Wow, you equate "less responsible" with "less human"?
So to you, a child is less of a person than an adult?
Shall I extrapolate from that, that you also consider retarded people, people with brain damage, and elderlies with dementia a bit less than people as well?
Is this a sliding scale of personhood, in which the more intelligent someone is, the more human they are?
Where do you place people in comas on this scale, on a 1 to 10 of non-human to human?
Which human rights do you think these less-than-people are entitled to, and which are they not?
Quote from: Regret on December 02, 2011, 11:24:21 PM
Consider the following situation:
You have to chose between saving a mother or her child.
The mother wants you to save the child.
Who do you save?
According to the 'children are equally human' position the choice is easy: both are of equal value and one wants to save the other. save the child.
According to the 'children are highly intelligent animals that will turn into humans later' position the choice is also easy: the mother has priority and the mothers says save the child. If you have any respect for the mother as a human you respect her decision and save the child.
I don't understand how this example supports your argument. Could you give another?
Quote from: Nigel on December 02, 2011, 11:35:44 PM
Wow, you equate "less responsible" with "less human"?
So to you, a child is less of a person than an adult?
You use quotes but Regret never said "less human".
> I hold children to be less responsible for their actions so in effect i consider them less than adults.
doesn't mean
> I hold children to be less responsible for their actions so in effect i consider them less
human than adults.
It's probably a language thing, because I can see how that would look that way in English, but makes complete sense in Dutch (and I like children and see them as persons :) ). Dunno how to say it in English actually, "less
important than adults" is also not quite right. I'm gonna leave it to Regret to clarify what adjective should go there, he knows best what he wanted to communicate.
But Regret, I do think this example is crazyweirdconfusing:
QuoteAccording to the 'children are highly intelligent animals that will turn into humans later' position the choice is also easy: the mother has priority and the mothers says save the child. If you have any respect for the mother as a human you respect her decision and save the child.
Because this isn't at all a clear-cut decision.
For example, in the case where you have to choose between a dog-owner and her highly intelligent dog. Or even better, make it a pig because they're smarter than dogs.
Or is it the "will turn into a human later" element?
I still think it's a stupid point of view, because even if "children are hightly intelligent animals that will turn into humans later"
IN SOME SENSE, that doesn't make them any less of a person.
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 03, 2011, 02:35:31 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 02, 2011, 11:35:44 PM
Wow, you equate "less responsible" with "less human"?
So to you, a child is less of a person than an adult?
You use quotes but Regret never said "less human".
> I hold children to be less responsible for their actions so in effect i consider them less than adults.
doesn't mean
> I hold children to be less responsible for their actions so in effect i consider them less human than adults.
It's probably a language thing, because I can see how that would look that way in English, but makes complete sense in Dutch (and I like children and see them as persons :) ). Dunno how to say it in English actually, "less important than adults" is also not quite right. I'm gonna leave it to Regret to clarify what adjective should go there, he knows best what he wanted to communicate.
But Regret, I do think this example is crazyweirdconfusing:
QuoteAccording to the 'children are highly intelligent animals that will turn into humans later' position the choice is also easy: the mother has priority and the mothers says save the child. If you have any respect for the mother as a human you respect her decision and save the child.
Because this isn't at all a clear-cut decision.
For example, in the case where you have to choose between a dog-owner and her highly intelligent dog. Or even better, make it a pig because they're smarter than dogs.
Or is it the "will turn into a human later" element?
I still think it's a stupid point of view, because even if "children are hightly intelligent animals that will turn into humans later" IN SOME SENSE, that doesn't make them any less of a person.
Since the topic was whether children were fully human, or are merely potential humans, and he seems to be arguing on the "potential humans" side, he needs to clarify if that was not what he meant.
True, and I'm gonna let Regret explain that bit for himself, I'm interested too.
I think he was sort of arguing both sides though, another Dutch trait called "poldermodel" :lulz:
Quote from: Nigel on December 03, 2011, 06:38:10 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 03, 2011, 02:35:31 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 02, 2011, 11:35:44 PM
Wow, you equate "less responsible" with "less human"?
So to you, a child is less of a person than an adult?
You use quotes but Regret never said "less human".
> I hold children to be less responsible for their actions so in effect i consider them less than adults.
doesn't mean
> I hold children to be less responsible for their actions so in effect i consider them less human than adults.
It's probably a language thing, because I can see how that would look that way in English, but makes complete sense in Dutch (and I like children and see them as persons :) ). Dunno how to say it in English actually, "less important than adults" is also not quite right. I'm gonna leave it to Regret to clarify what adjective should go there, he knows best what he wanted to communicate.
But Regret, I do think this example is crazyweirdconfusing:
QuoteAccording to the 'children are highly intelligent animals that will turn into humans later' position the choice is also easy: the mother has priority and the mothers says save the child. If you have any respect for the mother as a human you respect her decision and save the child.
Because this isn't at all a clear-cut decision.
For example, in the case where you have to choose between a dog-owner and her highly intelligent dog. Or even better, make it a pig because they're smarter than dogs.
Or is it the "will turn into a human later" element?
I still think it's a stupid point of view, because even if "children are hightly intelligent animals that will turn into humans later" IN SOME SENSE, that doesn't make them any less of a person.
Since the topic was whether children were fully human, or are merely potential humans, and he seems to be arguing on the "potential humans" side, he needs to clarify if that was not what he meant.
Yeah that was a really REALLY BAD EXAMPLE i used there. It gave exactly the impression i was trying to reject.
I think the main confusion here comes from conflating inherent value and context dependent value.
Of course children have the same inherent value all humans have, It is only when dealing with them, ie. interacting with them, that I need a way of admitting the differences. Maybe this example gives greater clarity(this may backfire again, I am quite aware of my lack of metaphorical skill):
Bungeejumping. Would you let a child decide on their own wether bungeejumping is a good idea?
No. Of course not. You defer to the opinion of the parents/guardians.
That is what i was trying to convey, and what i think many who are, upon speaking about this, often seen as
pedosociopaths* child-specific sociopaths. Children are by definition less capable of being adults than adults are, but this is not a bad thing. It is just something that i feel i need to remind myself of every once in a while, so i don't start having unrealistic expectations.
*damn, that word sounds icky (for obvious reasons), please forgive me for not fully deleting this but i just had to share this linguistic monstrosity :x i kinda nauseated myself there.
PS i think i figured out why i used that horrible example: I was raised to respect all animals and i grew up as the equal of my pet(in my eyes only, i think it may have weirded out my mom that I treated my dog as a complete equal) I know that is not normally consider healthy but i am who i am and i won't apologize for loving my dog as a brother.
Hmm interesting parallel: My brother and my dog both did their best to be as disgusting as possible, protected me when i got into trouble, tried to steal my cookies/cake/candy/dessert and regularly destroyed my stuff for no good reason.
That's no excuse though, and i thank Nigel for challenging me on the subject and Trip for explaining the cultural and lingual differences without letting me get away with this shit. The combination of 'Dude, wtf is this shit. Explain yourself!' and 'he may have meant it differently, but since he said it so outlandishly stupid He can explain himself first, and i'll reserve judgement until then' Is exactly what dense people (like me) need in such a situation.
...
I can't get over what a bad example i chose. :x :lulz:
Oh man, please mock my horrible examples whenever possible, I should never forget this kind of fail.
I'm glad you explained and clarified. :)
So, what you're saying is that if a child wants to bungee-jump, the bungee-jumping-facility operator should defer to the opinion of the parents/guardians, but if it was a dog, they can just strap it to a rubber band and throw it down a cliff?? That's sick, man. I'd give you the benefit of the doubt, but there's just no other way I can read your example than that you're basically advocating throwing puppies down a cliff.
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 24, 2011, 01:54:58 PM
So, what you're saying is that if a child wants to bungee-jump, the bungee-jumping-facility operator should defer to the opinion of the parents/guardians, but if it was a dog, they can just strap it to a rubber band and throw it down a cliff?? That's sick, man. I'd give you the benefit of the doubt, but there's just no other way I can read your example than that you're basically advocating throwing puppies down a cliff.
:lulz:
Quote from: Nigel on December 24, 2011, 05:22:37 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 24, 2011, 01:54:58 PM
So, what you're saying is that if a child wants to bungee-jump, the bungee-jumping-facility operator should defer to the opinion of the parents/guardians, but if it was a dog, they can just strap it to a rubber band and throw it down a cliff?? That's sick, man. I'd give you the benefit of the doubt, but there's just no other way I can read your example than that you're basically advocating throwing puppies down a cliff.
:lulz:
Hey! I'm just supporting the troops here man! Why do you hate America
TM (http://youtu.be/5mjb8-2dh9s)?