Parents who dress their daughters in pink are holding back the economy, says minister

[Basil II the B.S]

Parents who dress their daughters in pink and force them to play with dolls are holding back the economy, a Government minister has said.

Jenny Willott, the Consumer Affairs minister, said that women were being forced into professions that paid less well because of gender stereotyping when they were young children.



Girls were often guided into low paying occupations like nursing because of the types of toys they were given to play with. This led to an over-representation of women among nurses – and of men among engineers and physicists.

Miss Willott said: "It is a really important issue and it's fundamentally important to our economy as well, it's not just a side issue as I think it sometimes can be portrayed.



"It is a really important one to the future economy of this country. All of us who have young children can't help but be aware of how highly gendered children's toys are."

She added: “Some of it does come down to the simple fact that we don’t encourage girls to believe in their own potential and explore the full range of skills that they may have.”


She added: “It costs our economy significant amounts. There are skills shortages across science, technology, engineering and maths. As long as our girls continue to feel that that world is not for them our businesses will continue to miss out on vital talent.

“We can’t afford not to allow girls the opportunity to enjoy and pursue the whole range of subjects starting right at the beginning through their learning through play.”
Miss Willott told MPs that it was only recently that toys were marketed as “pink for girls, blue for boys”. She said toys in the 1970s were much more neutrally coloured with “far more bright primary colours, orange, yellow, green, red”.
If the “iconic orange” space hopper were invented today “there would be one that is pink and looks like a cupcake and there would be one that that is camouflaged khaki”.


She said: “It is not fair to make little girls feel that they should not be kicking footballs or building with Lego. And it is not fair to make little boys feel ashamed of playing netball or playing with a push chair or pushing a doll along.”
By labelling some toys as “not for you” parents were limiting their children’s future career choices. She said: “It starts at a very young age. We mustn’t limit that at the age of two, five or 10 by restricting their choices of play.”
Government officials had raised the problem with retailers, which were slowly taking action, she said. Debenhams has stopped gender specific labelling of toys – Mark and Spencer was now its own brand of toys more “gender neutral”.


Earlier Labour MP Chi Onwurah pointed out that it was “illegal to advertise a job as for men only but apparently fine to advertise a toy as for boys only. Why should girls be brought up in an all pink environment? It does not reflect the real world.”
Miss Onwurah said she became an aunt to boy and girl twins on Tuesday. She said: “As you can guess I did not welcome them into this world with gender specific or colour coded toys.
“But I do hope that as they grow through childhood they have the chance to play with toys which are toys and not colour-coded constraints on their choices.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...-minister.html


What's next? Skirts keeping women behind? Or nature because only women can get pregnant?
Modern feminism at its finest. Modern left-wingers at their best: finding ridiculous excuses for the underachievers and use the state to dictate how people should behave.

''It is not fair to make little girls feel that they should not be kicking footballs''. During my high school days, girls were allowed to play football with us boys and some attempted for a while. They quit because their physical structure does not allow them to play at the same level as men. Once again, it's not society, it's nature. Feminists are full of .

What's really holding back the economy is universities wasting funds over this pseudo-science and the stupidity of government officials sponsoring it.

[Condottiere 40K]

It's kinda hard to force kids to play with toys they find boring, or they find games which those toys serve as surrogates.

They could try giving the girls testosterone supplements.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

I face-palmed.

Why does it not ever cross anyone's mind that possibly their are more men in a certain job than women, because typically said job doesn't actually interest women that much? Or indeed more women in a certain role, because it doesn't interest men that much? It's the huge flaw with the whole equal employment quotas. The same logic can indeed be applied to toys. Though i'd point out many girls play football, tag and pretend guns, so i doubt the colour of toys and the impetus put on them have anything to do with men not wanting to be a nurse.

I think what that has to do with is more a career that's rewarding, but doesn't interest most men.

I would also throw this out there, does anyone think the extreme or 'true' feminists (i.e. most feminists now are actually more egalitarian) are merely running out of things to protest about? They really seem to be grasping at straws now.

[Adar]

There is even scientific evidence showing that children prefer the toys the sex-stereotypic toys.
Example 1

Conducted naturalistic observations of the play of 52 14–35 mo old toddlers (28 girls and 24 boys) with a set of socially stereotyped masculine, feminine, and neutral toys in a daycare setting over 14 mo. In addition, 2 potential influences on toy choice were investigated: parental expectations of play and Ss' gender knowledge. Results show that Ss played more often with toys stereotyped for their own gender than with the other toys. Girls' play with feminine toys increased with age, but boys' play with masculine toys did not vary with age, partly because even the youngest boys chose masculine toys frequently. Parents provided same-sex-typed toys for their children and made sex-typed predictions of their children's toy choices, but these measures were not clearly related to children's play. Cognitive change in understanding of gender was related to toddler boys' early sex-typed behavior. (17 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

Example2

[Condottiere 40K]

Listening to them, I sometimes get the impression they are frustrated that society isn't how they picture it should be; also, that these little dears have no actual idea what they really want.

[conon394]

Or nature because only women can get pregnant?

Well that is actually true, but neither here nor there

http://chronicle.com/article/The-Baby-Penalty/140813/

--------------------------------------


Not quite Adar - did you read them or just the abstract.

edit now with pictures:


The second one is quite good because it looks at parental interaction and selection effects the child response. The first however is has a core problem in that studies that say just watch kids at daycare cannot really adjust for what kind of selection, familiarity etc of toys is happening with children at home and what kind of positive or negative signals they get from parents.

-----------------------------------------------------

Or indeed more women in a certain role, because it doesn't interest men that much?

Right get back to the Steno-pool - because only men are interested in management.

https://www.google.com/search?q=sten...77%3B580%3B859

[Adar]

Not quite Adar - did you read them or just the abstract.

edit now with pictures:


The second one is quite good because it looks at parental interaction and selection effects the child response. The first however is has a core problem in that studies that say just watch kids at daycare cannot really adjust for what kind of selection, familiarity etc of toys is happening with children at home and what kind of positive or negative signals they get from parents.

--------------------------------------------------

Taken together the articles show that even very young children tend to prefer sex-stereotyped toys which makes it natural for parents to often buy sex stereotypic toys. Afterall, parents tend to do what works rather than what the government tells them to do.

Devout feminists may of course point to limitations in the study but when we have strong patterns supporting sex-preferences in very young children, then it is up to them to produce some pretty damn good evidence to counter it.

The results of this study go beyond previous findings that many children display sex-stereotyped toy preferences before age 2 by focusing on behavior during play with same- and cross-sex toys independent of toy selection. Even when no alternative toys were available and the parents' involvement was statistically controlled, toddlers showed less involvement with toys stereotyped for the other gender than with those stereotyped for their own gender, and they rejected cross-sex toys more than same-sex or neutral toys.
...
Parents did not overtly promote play with same-sex-typed toys or discourage play with cross-sex toys. Instead parents became involved in play when their choldrens interest flagged; when children were highly involved, parents drew back. We cannot conclude that parents do not encourage sex-typed toy play in natural settings because the laboratory had demand characteristics that do not operate elsewhere.

[Rijul.J.Ballal]

Are they...
A watered down version of the red terror?

[athanaric]

This is what happens when you elect a government comprised of retards with no real qualifications.

[Kraut]

I am convinced. Buying a Football for my daughter this evening.
Then prepare for the economy to skyrocket.

[Mangalore]

People here really think there is no correlation between cultural gender roles and the absence of women from a wide field of profession that have zilch to do with physical capabilities?

There are nice studies that just a perceived authority figure has to say that X cannot do Y and kids belonging to group X will actually do worse to fulfill that sentiment Y even if their average was better before they knew their social group was supposed to suck at it. It's kind of frightening to what extent human conformism goes. Most people will act against their personal interests to fulfill these social norms, you only have few "rebels" who will always do whatever they think is right in human social dynamics.

There is also the case that girls do avoid certain academics despite good grades which is contrary to their overall interests because those highly specialized, high education jobs are also high paying and would be the best candidates for stuff like variable work hours etc. because they are all mentally challenging jobs.

And the color coding of toys is really nonsensical. Let boys play with pink stuff and girls with blue stuff if they like. Don't tell parents and by proxy the kids what is for girls and what is for boy! Society already stakes the decks subconsciously enough (evidence A being the posts in this thread).



There is plenty of grievances in that regard even if you dug up some telegraph article with some "evilz feminist". a lot of stuff hidden as "biological" is simply social aspects, pointing to actual sexual dimorphism doesn't change that.

[Basil II the B.S]

People here really think there is no correlation between cultural gender roles and the absence of women from a wide field of profession that have zilch to do with physical capabilities?

There are nice studies that just a perceived authority figure has to say that X cannot do Y and kids belonging to group X will actually do worse to fulfill that sentiment Y even if their average was better before they knew their social group was supposed to suck at it. It's kind of frightening to what extent human conformism goes. Most people will act against their personal interests to fulfill these social norms, you only have few "rebels" who will always do whatever they think is right in human social dynamics.

If you want a crusade against conformism, then it'll be much bigger than blue and pink clothes. Religion, political opinion, fashion, literally everything creates conformism, because it's the human nature. Some people are born leaders, most are sheep, some are rebels that like to go against the mass.
You can't bend human nature to fullfill an ideal, wherever it happened it turned out ugly.

There is also the case that girls do avoid certain academics despite good grades which is contrary to their overall interests because those highly specialized, high education jobs are also high paying and would be the best candidates for stuff like variable work hours etc. because they are all mentally challenging jobs.

It might not be in their best interest but if it doesn't interest them..You'd be surprised by the number of male students who choose mechanical engeneering because ''they like cars'' while females choose teaching because ''they like interacting with kids''.
Women can have kids, they are naturally nurturing. Savage men have higher levels of testosterone, they like violence and speed. Cultural roles developed because of human nature, it's utter nonsense trying to fight human nature in the name of social justice.

And the color coding of toys is really nonsensical. Let boys play with pink stuff and girls with blue stuff if they like. Don't tell parents and by proxy the kids what is for girls and what is for boy! Society already stakes the decks subconsciously enough (evidence A being the posts in this thread).

You are essentially saying ''don't do that, do this''.

There is plenty of grievances in that regard even if you dug up some telegraph article with some "evilz feminist". a lot of stuff hidden as "biological" is simply social aspects, pointing to actual sexual dimorphism doesn't change that.

We are coming to the point that everything is deemed as ''social construct to keep women down'' the OP being a primary example. Feminism and women empowerment once was a noble cause for equal opportunities, gender equality however these days has taken the form of obnoxious gender neutrality, the elimination of genders. It's rather concerning not only because it's against human nature, but because ''gender neutral'' individuals are synonimous of people with gender mental disorder. And guess what? People with that kind of disorder are not only incredibly prone to other disorders like depression, but at least 30% of them are suicidal.
A gender neutral society where 30% of people have suicidal tendencies is not in humanity best interest. Feminists and the like are doing humanity a disservice.

[Phier]

I have a son and a daughter. Miss Willott, if you read this, let me state something, you are an idiot if you really believe what you said.

This is why evolutionary psychology should be taught in highschool. The tabula rasa idea of human development is feel good nonsense.

[Simon Cashmere]

I have a son and a daughter. Miss Willott, if you read this, let me state something, you are an idiot if you really believe what you said.

This is why evolutionary psychology should be taught in highschool. The tabula rasa idea of human development is feel good nonsense.

I was in a relationship with a very hippy greenie left wing trendy (who'd have thunk it) who would rather have set herself on fire than ever let her 4 year old son have gun toys. He'd pick up sticks and make gun noises with them. But that was because of his 'cultural conditioning'. You wouldn't think he'd have had that much at 4.

[Nikitn]

I have a son and a daughter. Miss Willott, if you read this, let me state something, you are an idiot if you really believe what you said.

This is why evolutionary psychology should be taught in highschool. The tabula rasa idea of human development is feel good nonsense.

We have allot of these in Norway. In fact, they are dominating the academia at the moment. Heh, funny story: A year ago I was arguing for one hour (I am very stubborn) with a guy who believed, among other things, it was *my* responsibility to prove evolution had shaped the female and male brains differently. I think he honestly believed evolution only made our bodies different. It's like his common sense was pulverized, despite him working on a master's in a scientific field.

[athanaric]

It's like his common sense was pulverized, despite him working on a master's in a scientific field.

That's actually quite common. People who excel in some scientific (or other) field often have completely retarded and illogical views about other stuff. What's more, they're really stubborn about it because they know they're good in one field, so they deduce they must be right in everything else, à la "I have a PhD in Theoretical Physics, therefore I'm a brilliant sociologist, too".

[Nikitn]

That's actually quite common. People who excel in some scientific (or other) field often have completely retarded and illogical views about other stuff. What's more, they're really stubborn about it because they know they're good in one field, so they deduce they must be right in everything else, à la "I have a PhD in Theoretical Physics, therefore I'm a brilliant sociologist, too".

A man/woman of science is supposed to, in theory, understand and follow the principles of science. The vast majority of these guys (from my experience) are trained in the humanities.

[athanaric]

A man/woman of science is supposed to, in theory, understand and follow the principles of science. The vast majority of these guys (from my experience) are trained in the humanities.

Not in my experience. For example, the only way you'll ever be a historian is to study history, with all the requirements it takes. Plus, somehow people who can apply logic and scientific thought to their own field of expertise fail to do so in other areas.
Although in my experience, it seems that the natural sciences folk are slightly less ignorant on average about other subjects than, say, people in the humanities.

[KieKeBooN]

If you want a crusade against conformism, then it'll be much bigger than blue and pink clothes. Religion, political opinion, fashion, literally everything creates conformism, because it's the human nature. Some people are born leaders, most are sheep, some are rebels that like to go against the mass.
You can't bend human nature to fullfill an ideal, wherever it happened it turned out ugly.

You can however stimulate women to take jobs in (beta) scientific pursuits, which I for one think isn't a bad idea. And I'm pretty sure most male beta students would agree ^^.

It might not be in their best interest but if it doesn't interest them..You'd be surprised by the number of male students who choose mechanical engineering because ''they like cars'' while females choose teaching because ''they like interacting with kids''.
Women can have kids, they are naturally nurturing. Savage men have higher levels of testosterone, they like violence and speed. Cultural roles developed because of human nature, it's utter nonsense trying to fight human nature in the name of social justice.

You sound like you're convinced everyone is pre-programmed to do a specific job which is nonsense. Which study/job you choose is highly determined by the environment you life in, the friends you surround yourself with, the interests and hobbies you pursue (often stimulated by parents) and yes possibly the toys you play with during your youth. So I don't see whats wrong in doing some stimulus here and there.

The tabula rasa idea of human development is feel good nonsense.

Just that the page is already written doesn't mean you can't write on it anymore.

[Phier]

Just that the page is already written doesn't mean you can't write on it anymore.

Laughably this should work in reverse, if you give a boy dolls and dress him in pink he should become "feminine" right?