The feminization of boys and men continues
Before Christmas, I took the National Organization for Women to task for this article, which bemoaned the fact that girls are marketed in the toy industry with cutesy pink toys that suggest doing working around the house is the norm. And at the same time, boys are sold toys that play on their masculinity. Basically, I thought the premise of the NOW article was bullsh*t. Boys are different than girls.
Via Dollard, here’s an argument on Fox News on the subject of the feminization of boys and men. The sticking point is a decidedly female toy called “Hello Kitty” which is now being marketed to boys. Mark Rudov of nononsenseman.com debates attorney Jennifer Brandt. You’ll see quickly that Brandt is an idiot and obviously doesn’t understand boys. Dollard used the “c-word” to describe her. I won’t go there, but I have a hard time disputing the characterization.
The original Fox News video is gone, but click on the photo below to go to Dollard’s version.
Category :
feminism 
Tags :
Similar Posts:
- NOW bemoans marketing of toys for girls
- Out of town, again
- In defense of Dad
- Double Tap Blog is shutting down
- Saudi women stripping on the internet
- Video: Marine Cobras get some
- Palestine’s Hitler Youth
- Rosie’s Daughter Joins the Army?
- Heartache: Fat teenage boys often need breast reductions
- Scrappleface: Pres. Bush offers journalistic stimulus package
Perhaps if it were Hell-O Kitty with kitty whiskered skull and clawed crossbones …
This is ridiculous, to say the least. First, the toy line is lame, even for girls. Second, she makes the argument that it’s good marketing technique … Yeah, well, drug dealers have a “good marketing technique” also.
He (Rudov) is right.
First, women were targeted … Get out of the house, don’t raise your kids but dump them in daycare … You don’t need a man in the house. You don’t have to have that baby.
Then they targeted the men. You can’t be strong. You have to stop treating woman as cattle, but don’t treat them as anything “special” either by taking care of them …
Now they come for the kids. The girls are targeted with mixed messages of celebrity “pop-tarts” and nonsensical pink fluff to play with … While boys are told they can’t be strong because they’ll become thugs and killers (BTW, can we take an accounting of how many “thugs” in gangs, and prisons, are/were being raised in two parent households?)
I can’t stand these sociopathic nitwits who continually treat life and human nature as an ongoing social experiment.
Nicely said
drillanwr - you did say it well. I have dealt with this agenda most of my life and those who have it worst are women who do not agree with them. They are trying to feminize men and normalize abnormal behavior. In fact, they really don’t believe there is a purpose for most men, at all.
Hide the children!!!
Flag Gazer -
Posting on these blogs grants us a certain element of “gender anonymity” … Which I confess to taking advantage of when posting replies sometimes.
I’m a “Mom”/woman. I have three daughters, and we (their Dad/my husband) and I we were going to raise them a certain way. When Pat’s site ran this subject I posted this:
——————————————————————–
“[Okay … I didn’t even buy “Hello Kitty” crap for my daughters!
Yeah, they had their share of girl toys (after I weeded out the nonsensical and mindless bullshit stuff) … But they also had science related toys/kits/games, and played competitive sports from middle school on … One even playing hockey on a boy’s team. We did not want our daughters growing up “pussified” (like so many Oprah-types) … We wanted strong young women who were incharge of their own lives.
I highly doubt exposing inner-city male kids to “Hello Kitty” is going to keep them from joining gangs. Exposing boys to “girly” stuff is NOT the same as exposing girls to competitive and challenging things, usually geared at boys, while growing up.
While my girls may look like “Barbies”, they are physically, spiritually, and mentally strong, self-sufficient, and have proven themselves to be overachievers.
Now, how do you think Paris Hilton or the Spears sisters were raised?]
——————————————————————–
Our oldest daughter (about to turn 23) is an RN in the neuro-surg ICU at the hospital and intends to continue her studies for her P.A. degree. Our middle daughter is (literally) tearing her way through pre-med in college with a double major in biology and chemistry, minor in math … and upon returning after Christmas break will be a college junior at 19.
(Our youngest daughter is 8 … and is a beautiful “special needs” child … D.S.)
Had we raised the two older girls in the mold of the Hello Kitty mentality they might not have excelled in typically boy-oriented subjects in school (honors sciences and advanced math). Nor would they have had the work ethic they do if we had not guided them through competitive sports.
On that note, had we had sons I would not have raised them much differently. We always told the girls that they were to try their hardest, do their best, and be as strong and tough as they could be. We wanted to raise “women of substance” … not “fembots” (nods to Austin Powers).
i believe women can be athletic, smart, educated, and career-oriented - and still be feminine. At the same time, I believe men can be compassionate, great parents, good cooks, and still be masculine.
There’s no reason anyone in this country - no matter what their gender (or race) happens to be - shouldn’t be able to succeed.
D.T.-
Damn straight! It is the “diversity” freaks that can’t seem to comprehend that.
Double Tap: Knowing when to be compassionate and knowing how to be a great parent is the epitome of masculinity.
I agree with all of you - I hate putting people in boxes of any kind. I did not get the ‘Betsy Wetsy’ every girl HAD TO HAVE back in the day - nor did my brother!!! Toys were few and of value, and most had to do with using the brain or the imagination.
This is not the agenda of many people in this country.