http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... 1y4ro.html

This Australian senator is promoting the idea of Xmas gifts should not be gender stereotypical as this creates all sorts of downstream issues like domestic violence. She misses the irony that she appears on national TV, dressed as a stereotypical woman, in her dress, makeup, even mannerisms. If she is concerned about gender stereotyping surely she should set an example and present herself in a gender neutral manner. That aside, all she is advocating is another stereotyping process that she thinks parents and children should adopt. I accept that society does enforce stereotypical behavior, some based upon biology and some not, however who is the arbiter of what is absolutely right. All she is doing is promoting another version of the same indoctrinating process.

Hmm, I think battling gender stereotyping should start with one's own wardrobe... What sort of role-modelling is this?!11!

Goodness! You look absolutely chaming, Coco

Made of Stars wrote:Hmm, I think battling gender stereotyping should start with one's own wardrobe... What sort of role-modelling is this?!11!

It looks like she wants selective gender stereotyping, or possibly cannot see that she reflects the exact gender stereotype she is trying to demonize in others. I get there must be a political angle for votes in her campaign but she might genuinely not realize the obvious contradiction in what she says compared to what she does.

What exactly is wrong with the so-called gender stereotyping gifts for Xmas? Oh she talks about gender based toys not gifts in general. Sounds like interesting experiment, because without it we will never know how its with truck/doll and blue/pink.

Meh, we learned by experience that our daughter wasn't into makeup and dolls and pink dresses for presents. The relatives kept them coming, but they would just remain unopened. Garages, cars, things themed around video games were her thing. Even now as a 14 year old, she has a present of lip gloss and nail varnish from her aunt unopened in her room. But that's her. I'm sure plenty of girls genuinely do love all the girl stuff, and good luck to them.

Made of Stars wrote:Hmm, I think battling gender stereotyping should start with one's own wardrobe... What sort of role-modelling is this?!11!

If a male politician made a similar statement dressed in a suit and tie, would you make the same comment?

Briton wrote:

Made of Stars wrote:Hmm, I think battling gender stereotyping should start with one's own wardrobe... What sort of role-modelling is this?!11!

If a male politician made a similar statement dressed in a suit and tie, would you make the same comment?

Find me a male politician that has done so and we can comment. More to the point this is a feminist agenda approach and shows a typical hypocrisy of selectively trying to promote a political agenda in the face of contradictions such as this one. As it happens we are surrounded by gender stereotypes, some obviously based upon biology, others less so. To present herself as a gender stereotype in so many obvious ways and then pick on one aspect is naive and just plain dumb.

No Gender December is not a Greens campaign. It was started by others, and given support by one Greens Senator. It's a sensible awareness-raising campaign, which has garnered an unhinged response from the the Murdoch press in general, and Cory Bernardi (a Tory Senator best known for likening same-sex relationships to bestiality) in particular. Tony Abbott thinks it's crap, which further reinforces what a clueless move it was for him to appoint himself Minister for Women (a move forced on him somewhat by the almost total lack of women in his cabinet).

I'm going to try and steer clear of this topic, because if it goes the way I think it might, then I'd risk a very high chance of breaching the FUA by calling certain people idiots. The fact that campaign is contentious disappoints me (and convinces me that it's a good thing). The targeting of Senator Waters for daring to present as typically female disgusts me.

This piece, while not matching my thoughts on the matter perfectly, is nevertheless close enough to do the job:

http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-vi ... 1yczg.html

Briton wrote:

Made of Stars wrote:Hmm, I think battling gender stereotyping should start with one's own wardrobe... What sort of role-modelling is this?!11!

If a male politician made a similar statement dressed in a suit and tie, would you make the same comment?

Possibly. If it were Tony Abbott, absolutely. We shall see when one does, I guess.

My statement was largely facetious (as indicated by the !1!!1!), but I do think one has to be careful when wading into these issues in a public forum, as they have a way of backfiring.

TMB wrote: All she is doing is promoting another version of the same indoctrinating process.

Which would be what? Not having toys designed with an obvious gender bias (pink for girls, blue for boys at the most primitive level) gives greater freedom for children to choose what they want to play with reduced risk of discrimination. Some companies, Playmobil is a good example, have been doing sterling work at producing gender neutral toys for years. So did Lego until recently, when they decided to rebrand some of their products to be more "girly."

The whole point of this idea is that whatever a child decides to play with, it is just "a toy" and not "a girls toy" or "a boys toy." The very opposite of the indoctrination that exists at present.

However, as ever, you are unable to view this material in anyway other than through the distorted lens of bashing feminism.
Case in point.

TMB wrote: More to the point this is a feminist agenda approach and shows a typical hypocrisy of selectively trying to promote a political agenda in the face of contradictions such as this one.

Classic sexist behaviour. Focusing on what the women is wearing rather than the message. You're basically saying that the senator shouldn't be able to wear clothing that she likes and feels comfortable in. If she'd been wearing jeans and a lumberjack shirt while delivering the message, it wouldn't have made the message any more credible.

TMB wrote:As it happens we are surrounded by gender stereotypes, some obviously based upon biology, others less so.

Stereotypes are bad. Ok.
Getting rid of them is good. Ok.

Made of Stars wrote:

Briton wrote:

Made of Stars wrote:Hmm, I think battling gender stereotyping should start with one's own wardrobe... What sort of role-modelling is this?!11!

If a male politician made a similar statement dressed in a suit and tie, would you make the same comment?

Possibly. If it were Tony Abbott, absolutely. We shall see when one does, I guess.

My statement was largely facetious (as indicated by the !1!!1!), but I do think one has to be careful when wading into these issues in a public forum, as they have a way of backfiring.

Ah; I should have twigged that.

OlivierK wrote:No Gender December is not a Greens campaign. It was started by others, and given support by one Greens Senator. It's a sensible awareness-raising campaign, which has garnered an unhinged response from the the Murdoch press in general, and Cory Bernardi (a Tory Senator best known for likening same-sex relationships to bestiality) in particular. Tony Abbott thinks it's crap, which further reinforces what a clueless move it was for him to appoint himself Minister for Women (a move forced on him somewhat by the almost total lack of women in his cabinet).

I'm going to try and steer clear of this topic, because if it goes the way I think it might, then I'd risk a very high chance of breaching the FUA by calling certain people idiots. The fact that campaign is contentious disappoints me (and convinces me that it's a good thing). The targeting of Senator Waters for daring to present as typically female disgusts me.

This piece, while not matching my thoughts on the matter perfectly, is nevertheless close enough to do the job:

http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-vi ... 1yczg.html

Given how ubiquitous every kind of stereotyping is, instead of trying to apply a band aid to something like this, the Goverment should be spending time on more important issues than Xmas toys which was always going to blowup into a storm.

You are not steering clear of by virtue of the fact you have posted, steering clear means no response, responding means you are in for better or for worse.

You describe your feelings of disgust by my noting that the Senator herself presents as a gender stereotype. Your feelings tell us nothing about the facts and do not offer a rational position. Either you think you presents as a gender stereotype or you think she does not present as a gender stereotype, or you just did not think.

TMB wrote:

OlivierK wrote:No Gender December is not a Greens campaign. It was started by others, and given support by one Greens Senator. It's a sensible awareness-raising campaign, which has garnered an unhinged response from the the Murdoch press in general, and Cory Bernardi (a Tory Senator best known for likening same-sex relationships to bestiality) in particular. Tony Abbott thinks it's crap, which further reinforces what a clueless move it was for him to appoint himself Minister for Women (a move forced on him somewhat by the almost total lack of women in his cabinet).

I'm going to try and steer clear of this topic, because if it goes the way I think it might, then I'd risk a very high chance of breaching the FUA by calling certain people idiots. The fact that campaign is contentious disappoints me (and convinces me that it's a good thing). The targeting of Senator Waters for daring to present as typically female disgusts me.

This piece, while not matching my thoughts on the matter perfectly, is nevertheless close enough to do the job:

http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-vi ... 1yczg.html

Given how ubiquitous every kind of stereotyping is, instead of trying to apply a band aid to something like this, the Goverment should be spending time on more important issues than Xmas toys which was always going to blowup into a storm.

You are not steering clear of by virtue of the fact you have posted, steering clear means no response, responding means you are in for better or for worse.

You can stick your baiting where the sun don't shine.

If you were even slightly interested in rational discussion, you wouldn't post shit like this:

the Goverment should be spending time on more important issues

as Senator Waters is not part of the government, nor is she requesting the government take any time at all addressing this issue, she's just lending her endorsement to a campaign that has nothing to do with any legislative dimension at all.

TMB wrote:You describe your feelings of disgust by my noting that the Senator herself presents as a gender stereotype. Your feelings tell us nothing about the facts and do not offer a rational position. Either you think you presents as a gender stereotype or you think she does not present as a gender stereotype, or you just did not think.

Or, as a fourth option, I could think that you've missed my point entirely; that her choice of clothes is an utter irrelevance, and insinuating that it's relevant is mendacious trolling that doesn't prompt me to change my disgusted reaction.

Your latest post here is just as much of a shitstain and waste of electrons as your first.

People are different. My small one loves Barbies, Disney princesses and pink; her sister at the same age liked slot car racing, never wore dresses (still doesn't) and (later) played handball.

I do think, however, and it strikes me as very obvious, how gender stereotyping for children (toys etc) has increased recently. We've had this discussion before. Everything is so much pinker and more princessified at the moment (everything for girls). I'm sure the pendulum will swing back, but that is where we are at the moment, in my observation.

EDIT Walking down the boys' toys aisle makes me glad I haven't got boys. Make me lose the will to live, they do.

Evolving wrote:I do think, however, and it strikes me as very obvious, how gender stereotyping for children (toys etc) has increased recently. We've had this discussion before. Everything is so much pinker and more princessified at the moment (everything for girls). I'm sure the pendulum will swing back, but that is where we are at the moment, in my observation.

I think it is the unnecessary stereotyping to sell a product that is the problem.
Lego is a unisex toy, so marketing a product line as being for girls and making it intentionally more girly by design, isn't necessary.

Like "Lego friends". Yes.

The whole 'oo she's in a dress and wearing makeup, soooo ironic that she's going on about toys not being gender specific' is a big load of nonsense, nothing more than a textbook ad hominem. If someone imprisoned for some crime spoke of the importance of kids not treading the same path and instead obeying the law, or an obese person spoke of the importance of eating healthily, or a married man bemoaned the lot of married men (I've seen that happen from time to time around here), would that be considered ironic? It's the whole point, isn't it, that children get channelled into specific roles early on which informs how they choose toys, clothing, careers. There's absolutely no reason why one cannot speak from within this environment about the environment itself. It's just a particularly pathetic case of picking the low hanging fruit to go for the woman's appearance.

Absolutely right.

The other point is that wearing a dress and making yourself up is not going to have an effect on your ability to do your job (well, most jobs), whereas the toys you play with as a child may well have.