The Pitters' Place

Like this article. This article makes no sense, even within its own logic: http://time.com/3992485/target-gender-n ... rrectness/

If boys and girls need signs to tell them what they're supposed to be biologically predisposed to like, then THEY'RE NOT BIOLOGICALLY PREDISPOSED TO LIKE THEM.

"But she's not entitled to demand society conform to her views"

Yet the author will do the same apparently.

[edit]Seriously, the author misses the whole point of gender neutrality in this regard, which is so that kids can feel comfortable exploring interests that won't make them feel like outcasts just because they chose something considered more for the other gender.

Gender neutrality ignores that boys and girls are biologically different

In a spectacular display of American groupthink, Target has become gender-neutral.

How in the names of the all the demons of Hell does one retailer making a marketing decision represent American groupthink (OMG WAKE UP SHEEPLE!)

That boys and girls are vastly different—that they have different hormones, different brain structures, different attitudes, different preferences and different behaviors, all due to their unique biology—is now taboo to admit.

Yes, congrats, you have found the last taboo, it is admitting sex differentiation. I wore a dress the other day and was stoned in the streets for not wearing a unisex smock like THE PC POLICE DEMAND.

I've spent thousands of dollars at Target since I became a mother (of a boy and a girl) more than 15 years ago, and I've never seen nor heard of a parent who was put off by gender-based aisles.

Well I guess you, a lone person with a limited social network, probably has a better idea of the feelings of Target consumers than Target does.

That's political correctness: when companies (or governments, or churches) cave to pressure from a select, albeit vociferous, few who insist society change to accommodate them.

That's capitalism, you fucking ninny. Target have made a marketing decision in response to consumer feedback to please their audience base. That is how you business.

But she's not entitled to demand society conform to her views

Yes she is. Society doesn't have to conform but she is just as entitled as anyone to have an opinion on it, like you are having by writing this piece demanding that society conforms to YOUR opinions.

Read: Biology isn't real. We've just been taught to think it is.

No, you preposterous cockwomble, that is demonstrably not what is being said. Sex =/= gender. Gender is socially constructed. Dolls are girl toys because we have culturally assigned them as girl toys. Not because there is something hardwired into XX chromosomes that make us fuckin love Barbie.

“The behavioral influences of male and female hormones on the brain are major," writes Brizendine. “My son didn't turn Barbie into a sword because his environment promoted the use of weapons. He was practicing the instincts of his male brain to aggressively protect and defend."

hey Louann Brizendine, my sister and I used to hit each other with our dinosaur dolls does this mean I am a boy with an aggressive male brain plz advise

The point is that Target has legitimized the hoopla surrounding Caitlyn Jenner.

what.

There's a huge difference between a Hollywood personality insisting he's neither fully male nor fully female and allowing an entertainment industry to exploit his predicament for monetary gain, and another for a major Midwestern retailer that caters to millions of families across this country to perpetuate the notion that biology isn't real when it is.

did u just fuckin misgender Caitlin Jenner

did u

how bout u go fuck yourself

I hate you.

There's nothing wrong with the fact that girls walk around with dolls in their arms while boys look for things they can smash or crash.

NOBODY SAID THERE IS, YOU PISSWEASEL

NOBODY IS SAYING THAT GIRLS AREN'T ALLOWED DOLLIES ANY MORE

ARE YOU HIGH

AM I

The new Target policy is nothing more than political correctness run amok. What's next?

CATS CHASING DOGS

ANARCHY

MEN MARRYING HORSES

DECLINE OF AMERICA

SAVE US

Will the 'male' and 'female' checkboxes on medical forms soon say 'person, place or thing'?

Yes, Target no longer stocking their toys according to gender is exactly the same as being able to list yourself as an inanimate object or Sweden at the doctor's surgery.

It's madness.

ur face is madness

It's obvious that feminists won't be happy until everybody is treated equally.

aels wrote:

Great pic!

@aels - that is a beautiful rebuttal and I learnt so many new words from it. :'|

I also love how that chart has been going around again. :D

It's another contradiction on her part to on the one hand insist that boys and girls are completely different in brains/interests/hormones etc, and then insist that Caitlyn is male when she at least has female hormones and feminine interests; or to consider it a symptom of the gender-neutralization of society, when the whole point about being trans is having a gender that is *not* neutral.

Whilst I essentially agree with you, there is one small fly in the ointment...

Putting ball games/games that involve throwing - you know things like rugby, basketball, baseball, cricket, darts, etc in the "gender neutral" section is a little unfair, because it may encourage girls to think they can play them, and all these involve hand-to-eye coordination which has been proven to be something that females just aren't capable of doing.

But otherwise, I'm right there with you!

OpiateOfTheMasses wrote:Whilst I essentially agree with you, there is one small fly in the ointment...

Putting ball games/games that involve throwing - you know things like rugby, basketball, baseball, cricket, darts, etc in the "gender neutral" section is a little unfair, because it may encourage girls to think they can play them, and all these involve hand-to-eye coordination which has been proven to be something that females just aren't capable of doing.

But otherwise, I'm right there with you!

I can't tell if that post is serious or not...

Not. (Hence the winky face)

It's just that 'er indoors blames the fact that she can neither throw nor catch because she's a woman...

'Er indoors?

Her indoors. It's a London expression meaning the wife, because historically the man would go out to work and the wife would stay at home (to look after the kids, clean, cook, etc) and be "indoors".

I know it was a joke but...

The interesting thing about the throwing issue is I remember the Mythbusters episode testing "Throw like a girl" insult. They found untrained girls to be more accurate but not as powerful, untrained boys having more power but less accuracy. Trained athletes from both sexes had no significant mechanical differences.

Unvoiced_Apollo wrote:I know it was a joke but...

The interesting thing about the throwing issue is I remember the Mythbusters episode testing "Throw like a girl" insult. They found untrained girls to be more accurate but not as powerful, untrained boys having more power but less accuracy. Trained athletes from both sexes had no significant mechanical differences.

You mean the trained female athletes were as powerful and accurate as the trained male athletes?

OpiateOfTheMasses wrote:Her indoors. It's a London expression meaning the wife, because historically the man would go out to work and the wife would stay at home (to look after the kids, clean, cook, etc) and be "indoors".

Huh, I learned something new!

Ptolemy_Banana wrote:

Unvoiced_Apollo wrote:I know it was a joke but...

The interesting thing about the throwing issue is I remember the Mythbusters episode testing "Throw like a girl" insult. They found untrained girls to be more accurate but not as powerful, untrained boys having more power but less accuracy. Trained athletes from both sexes had no significant mechanical differences.

You mean the trained female athletes were as powerful and accurate as the trained male athletes?

I don't honestly remember. By mechanical differences, I mean form. And apparently the female athlete was more accurate than trained male athlete.

The other day I went to the toy store (in haiti) to buy Nate a toy... he wanted Princess Hanna... I didn't buy it because it was too expensive, but it brought back to me that when it comes to dress and toys, girls have it easier than boys. Dress a girl in pants it's nothing, dress a boy in skirts and he's gay or asexual or transgender or this or that.

Nate likes to explore things he sees the girls putting on lipstick and make up and he wants to do it also, i let him I don't care, but man the things I hear! And yet he is not feminine at all. To him make up is just part of a costume and he llikes to dress up...
I digress.

Islandmur wrote:The other day I went to the toy store (in haiti) to buy Nate a toy... he wanted Princess Hanna... I didn't buy it because it was too expensive, but it brought back to me that when it comes to dress and toys, girls have it easier than boys. Dress a girl in pants it's nothing, dress a boy in skirts and he's gay or asexual or transgender or this or that.

Nate likes to explore things he sees the girls putting on lipstick and make up and he wants to do it also, i let him I don't care, but man the things I hear! And yet he is not feminine at all. To him make up is just part of a costume and he llikes to dress up...
I digress.

This is a double standard I've wondered about. Not that I ever wanted to wear a dress .

There are many ways in which the patriarchy is a bad thing for men as well as women.

Obviously patriarchy benefits men, but I do think Mur is correct that it's more acceptable for women to express masculinity than men to express feminity.

It's because women are inferior to men in patriarchy, so a man expressing femininity is downgrading himself and a woman expressing masculinity is upgrading. Which is why women with masculine traits such as aggressiveness are considered "strong, smart, etc, etc" when it's just catering to what the patriarchy has already established as "strong".

Which is why I like How to train your dragon a lot, the main character is a boy who doesn't use violence or any "masculinity" traits to come across as a strong person. It's quite rare to find male characters like that.

Dr_Liszt wrote:It's because women are inferior to men in patriarchy, so a man expressing femininity is downgrading himself and a woman expressing masculinity is upgrading. Which is why women with masculine traits such as aggressiveness are considered "strong, smart, etc, etc" when it's just catering to what the patriarchy has already established as "strong".

Which is why I like How to train your dragon a lot, the main character is a boy who doesn't use violence or any "masculinity" traits to come across as a strong person. It's quite rare to find male characters like that.

Well you know, except for the part where he shoots down Toothless & uses him to violently defeat the red death.

Well yeah, no one is perfect.

It's because women are inferior to men in patriarchy, so a man expressing femininity is downgrading himself and a woman expressing masculinity is upgrading. Which is why women with masculine traits such as aggressiveness are considered "strong, smart, etc, etc" when it's just catering to what the patriarchy has already established as "strong".

^this. The patriarchy basically privileges men and masculinity while devaluing women and femininity. So women who are masculine also get some privilege, while men who are feminine lose some.

And the kicker is that women who express themselves in a masculine way may sometimes also be punished for acting outside of their gender roles. For example, when women are upfront and aggressive in work situations (especially salary negotiations/promotions), it backfires on them and they're *less* likely to be promoted (and more likely to be thought of as a bitch). Can't find the study at the moment but I've read it within the last year, I'm sure.

aels wrote:And the kicker is that women who express themselves in a masculine way may sometimes also be punished for acting outside of their gender roles. For example, when women are upfront and aggressive in work situations (especially salary negotiations/promotions), it backfires on them and they're *less* likely to be promoted (and more likely to be thought of as a bitch). Can't find the study at the moment but I've read it within the last year, I'm sure.

A man would have found it by now.

Pope Bucky wrote:

aels wrote:And the kicker is that women who express themselves in a masculine way may sometimes also be punished for acting outside of their gender roles. For example, when women are upfront and aggressive in work situations (especially salary negotiations/promotions), it backfires on them and they're *less* likely to be promoted (and more likely to be thought of as a bitch). Can't find the study at the moment but I've read it within the last year, I'm sure.

A man would have found it by now.

We all know men don't put any effort into finding something. if it isn't in immediate line of sight, it's never going to be located.

aels wrote:And the kicker is that women who express themselves in a masculine way may sometimes also be punished for acting outside of their gender roles. For example, when women are upfront and aggressive in work situations (especially salary negotiations/promotions), it backfires on them and they're *less* likely to be promoted (and more likely to be thought of as a bitch). Can't find the study at the moment but I've read it within the last year, I'm sure.

Not sure if this is quite the same & it's a bit late. But better late than never...or being a woman


Http://time.com/money/3986479/angry-wom ... ved-worth/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;