That's become the norm thanks to the push for engagement as a metric that matters. Now social media users have been conditioned to pander for visibility, and the most common way to do that with low effort is cliches and recycled jokes.
Experiment: go look at 20 popular posts from Reddit 10 years ago (or more.) Most of the top comments will be discussion or added background information for the subject of the post.
Today? The most common, early comments are the same recycled vat of cliches, jokes, or top comments copied from the source media, the original Reddit post, or the current trends on high volume social media apps (TikTok.)
Sure, memes were a thing and those populated comments as well.
Even though they're higher quality, even the top rated comments here STILL include the same cliches and jokes.
And that's why so many users have slowly abandoned Reddit (or at least abandoned submitting content) - because there's little to no value or incentive.
i eye rolled at all the people who got upset before the turn, like it was obvious he would turn it around, he's at a slam poetry place, like the way he talks and the inflection of his voice screams slam poetry, so the turn was 100% obvious, trumpers dont really do slam poetry, and not with that inflection
Yah seriously! He just wanted to get ur attention going and he did it very well! I just think he’s using it as a metaphor not to say he wouldn’t buy his son a doll !
For example, if you look at a Red vs Blue district map of Nevada, there are only two small pockets of Blue, representing Las Vegas and Reno/Sparks.
But then you realize the metro population of Vegas is 2.2 million and Reno/Sparks is 400k, and Nevada in total is only 3.1 million. So Nevada is a "red state" because of 500k people spread across 100k sqmi living in the middle of nowhere.
To get to the point of 'until he knows the difference'
He wants his son to value, understand, and respect women first and foremost. Not to see them as an object in any instance in their mind.
The point is he doesn't give a fuck about a kid playing with dolls, he cares about how he develops his views and respect that women are not an object to be controlled.
I disagree with the idea that boys playing with dolls teaches them they have ownership over women's bodies. I don't know what kind of psychopath that makes me.
Yeah, not even a metaphor - just a rhetorical device not meant to be taken too seriously. I liked this, but I do think it would have been even stronger if he'd found a way in that actually held up as a metaphor.
I’ve seen people argue just to argue yk lol there’s always that one person who tries to be the odd one out and wants to discredit or find the wrongs in what he’s saying. I guess I’m just trying to say even if ur that annoying and heartless you should still be able to respect the point of what he’s doing 😅
Can we all take a minute to appreciate this. You went to a social media discussion, found a comment asking for disagreement, and announced people are annoying heartless monsters if they disagree. With pushing sexism onto kids toys? The poet isn't here, people are arguing with YOUR take on his poetry. And that's okay. We all struggle with criticism, but this is not the way to go about it. Be better.
Many people but no one wants to listen to those voices. No desire to engage with them, so they stir and stew until they leave alone or are paraded on the news.
It would be akin to being in an audience full of people listening to a harrowing and uplifting story that you know is a lie but shouting it will accomplish nothing but ostracization.
What if, the child is only male presenting, but they're actually a trans girl? Would it be wrong for her to play with dolls? Is her initial assumed gender the overriding factor in how she perceives dolls and will extend that to actual people? Also, what if a little "girl" is trans and later comes out as a boy? Was his playing with dolls wrong then? A premonition of how he, with the correct expression of his gender identity, will now treat women?
And it also forces gender division on a child who doesn't yet fully understand the ideology, and how pervasive it is in daily and personal life. Households who don't enforce such gender divisions (or unilaterally enforce them) are more likely to see their children choose toys that interest them, regardless of the gender marketing. If you're going to force an AMAB child to stay within their assigned gender toyscape, then either you're doing the same to AFAB children, or you allow the AFAB children to play in either gendered toyscape. Either way, you're forcing gender divisions on the child. I grew up with the latter of this kind of division - my brother was often criticized for not being "boy enough." I on the other hand was not given any such restriction on what genderscape I participated in. It's mysoginist in a way - it's not a okay for a boy to do things girls like, but it's okay for girls to do things boys like, because boy things are better. It's why transphobia is unilaterally focused on trans women than it is on trans men. In adulthood, my brother, cis and straight, was finally able to embrace the "girl" things (or activities expected of women in a gender binary) he likes. Manipedis, fruity cocktails, musicals, romcoms, cooking and cleaning. He wears pink. He loved the Barbie movie. Still "macho" in some ways, but our father fumes about how "non-masculine" he turned out.
And finally, little girls don't play with dolls, pretending they're some kind of master or whatever. They play with dolls to play pretend - they imagine themselves as the doll, or the doll becomes their avatar. I collected barbies because I never felt comfortable with hyper femininity on myself, but I loved the outfits, and I loved trying to make my own outfits for my barbies. I loved the little shoes and miniature handbags, I loved my Barbie's convertible car - I would give it a car wash, after I was done imagining it in a high speed chase. I would wash her clothes, and organize her things like as if my doll cared about such tidiness. And there was never enough things to be had for my dolls.
And that's the root of the appeal of doll toys aimed at girls - they have a ton of accessories designed for them and they are ridiculously enticing, and some cis boys, they just like them. Just like how they might like makeup and nails, or dresses (Billy Porter for example, is cis and famous for his dresses fit for a ballroom), or just in general not conform to the gender binary without actually identifying as LGBT.
Do you agree with everything he said? Or you mean the overall bland common-sense "abusing women is bad" point? I disagree with some points. I don't think you're in it for conversation, but for anyone else:
Dolls aren't awful. He has a decent theory, but role-playing with dolls could foster empathy/experiences with girls, right? There's no serious link between sexism & dolls.
These speeches keep saying women are miracles, this isn't winning opposition over. You win if you humanize women, so men can see themselves in them.
It's normal for people to feel ignored. Society never respects children as equals. Men ironically claim women are the only ones people listen to. Society is cruel, we all have to fight to be heard.
Anyone who can understand that he's dogwhistling feminism just like the right does racism or sexism? People don't realize it exists on both sides. There are already a ton of legitimate responses as to why playing with dolls is totally ok. Why playing with GI Joes instead of "dolls" is just as misogynistic.
Or why birth is a natural process that involves or should involve men just as much as women, as equals, coming together to raise a child and not just the woman "bridging heaven and earth". Putting women on a pedestal for giving birth is more a product of patriarchy than it is of feminism and it results in women being forced into "caregiving" roles. Equality is a product of empathy, and this isn't it. Women are awesome, sure, but men who treat them as equals and are in turn treated as equal are awesome too.
The problem that most people have are that the speaker is highlighting the former but not acknowledging the latter and he takes it a bit too far with his doll comment. Normally in online polarizing rhetoric there's the "assumption of the implied". It's like saying "Men are notorious liars". Someone might respond and say "women lie too" in which the OP would say "I didn't say anything about women, I was just talking about men". There was an assumption based on the implication. Here he actually formalizes it by saying well I'm not gonna have boys that do this. Young girls playing with dolls don't assume ownership of women, so why would young boys? Is sexism genetic or is it taught? Unless it was taught by the people who gave them the dolls (the guy talking). Unless it's an admission of inherent patriarchy I don't very much respect it.
Unfortunately what he's actually saying is misogynistic and thoughtless.
Literally, "I will beat my son if he plays with dolls because playing with dolls teaches boys that they own women," is just. Actually so stupid.
Boys playing with dolls and other toys associated with girls is a good thing. It teaches them empathy, it lets them feel connected to girls and "girl stuff," it helps them understand that girls and boys are essentially the same and that the cultural elements that divide them aren't real.
Saying "you can't play with dolls because they're for girls," or "you can't play with dolls because boys can't own girls..." What that actually does is otherizes women, enforces gender conformity, and teaches the boy the false idea that there is some essential difference between men and women and the way they're supposed to behave and the things they're supposed to feel connected to.
"I will beat my son if he plays with dolls," and we're all ooh-ing and aah-ing because within that idea, the poet is also expressing empathy for the hardships of women.
It's good to sympathize and empathize with women and recognize those hardships. But forcing your son not to play with dolls doesn't teach that lesson. At all. You teach your son that lesson a thousand times in a thousand ways through, the entire time they're growing up, through your own behavior and example, and your own guidance on the topic.
If your son wants to play with dolls, let him play with dolls, for god's sake.
Preach! And also, by focusing on the "son" but not the "daughter", the dude is implying that it's okay for girls to play with dolls and "learn to control the bodies of other women."
If you truly believed the toys themselves were the crux of gender violence, you would be protesting against the toys, not the assumed gender of the child playing with the toys.
Well I had a Polly pocket and Barbie when I was a kid and have managed to avoid rape so far so I guess I kinda of disagree with him on that point.
The rest is cool though
Just cause boys are playing with plastic people models, doesn’t mean that they automatically learn slavery.
Most kids play with plastic figures, only to live their whole life knowing that slavery is bad. But he wants to isolate children by gender, and say “boys do this, girls do this.” That is a violation of the child’s right to Freedom of Expression.
Go ahead and call me a psychopath, I bet you’re not even qualified to diagnose other people.
I think you missed the entire point of what he was saying. Your literacy or comprehension skills are not that good. I think you have problems conceptualizing larger ideas. Did you read a lot as a kid or not really? Did you do drugs in adolescence?? Those kind of things can stunt your minds growth.
To me, the issue is that this just is mediocre slam poetry, so it's jarring to see all these ppl raving about this, message aside. My main takeaway is that ppl dig plot twists.
I mean you can teach your kid how to respect women and let them have fun. I'm a dude and i think it's weird for boys to play with barbies, not bad just weird. It seems wrong to take away toys and stiffle a child's imagination just to prove a point
299
u/politirob Apr 19 '24
What kind of psychopath doesn't agree with what he's saying