and lo, my flist explodeth... still

[boogieshoes]

just a short entry to say that i love synecdochic.  she has another commentary responding to the fall-out from the OSBP, which is actually on how *not* to be 'That Guy', which i encourage my barfly flist to read - i figure most of the media fandom section has already read it.

speaking of gender issues, kathrynt has a short entry about raising her own kidlet, and why she's doing things that would make her rant if she saw it in other people.  not deep and thinky, but does show just exactly how strongly ingrained gendered activities are in our culture.

finally, let us now turn our minds to the wonder of gun pr0n, courtesy of mzmadmike...  i'm not a gun bunny by any means, but there's just something about being able to create great swathes of destruction with the touch of a button that appeals to me.  that thing is almost as interesting as those big howitzer thingies on the battleships.

-bs

Comments

[brownkitty.livejournal.com]

It might just be my perception, but isn't some (maybe a lot) of gender dichotomy a product of a little luxury? Luxury of spare time, luxury of enough money to care that your little girl looks prettier than your little boy though her clothes are less durable and stain-resistant, luxury of being able to do something about what the neighbors think?

Luxury is probably the wrong word, but I'm not able to think of the one that would fit accurately.

[boogieshoes.livejournal.com]

i think i know where you're going with this, and the is 'mostly no, and a little yes', as far as i understand it. gendered toys, 'acceptable' activities, and clothes exist in almost every culture at every class level. that would be the 'no' part. whether you have a lot of money or none at all, almost all people and cultures have definite ideas of what little girls do and what little boys do, and it shows in which toys they intentionally expose their kids to, what they dress their children with, etc.

the 'yes' part comes in when it comes to looking at particulars. traditional societies usually gender their play/ training based on what they expect the kids to be doing/ needing to do when they grow up. most people in tribal settings, for example, put needles in a girl's hand by the time she's 3, and give the boys slings around the same age.

modern/ western societies gender their toys and etc on a much more nebulous concept of masculinity and femininity that tends to change through time. around the turn of the century, for example, the color for baby boys was pink, and powder blue was for girls. little girls were expected to be better at math and sciences and boys were expected to be better at languages and diplomacy (exactly opposite of what it is now, and the main reason is because around the turn of the century, you still weren't making much money at math, science, and engineering). when i was a kid, volleyball was the girl's sport, but my nieces are all mad for soccer.

there's actually less gendered toys and training the more money, time, and luxury you get to 'spend' on it, probably because you also have time to *think* about it. but i am not an anthropologist, nor do i play one on tv. these are just general impressions, and should be checked with people with real research experience.

-bs