Ok…here it is…an article on the most pressing issue of today: SHOULD BOYS PLAY WITH DOLLS? It sounds sort of silly, but it really is common sense in the end. Read on…
There were two utterances in that article which struck a chord with me:
“Throwing feminine play into the mix delays, interrupts, or intrudes on the development of masculine identity.”
“There is a fascination with the theological and political left in America to appear to have an absence of judgment against immorality, while simultaneously attempting to judge the theological and political right so as to win popularity with the culture, to appear to be intellectual, and to imply that God would love it all.”
Now let’s take “masculinity”. Of course the SSM proponents would want that identity to be clouded. If it can be clouded enough, then SSM proponents will have the needed platform to further their agenda, and even legislate it. (As the author said, it’s not “equal” they’re going for, it’s “same”, and there is a BIG difference.)
And that’s where the “what people do in their bedroom is their business, not the governments” line stops for me: legislation, and that’s what most of these SSM folks are trying to do. (I am not in favor of homosexual activity, but I don’t object to “what people do in their bedroom is their business, not the governments”. Just don’t shove it in my face with legislating it.)
Now I realize that these SSM “partnerships” typically have one partner who takes on the male role. But that male role is nevertheless clouded and certainly not the same as it is in the hetero world.
So, as the author says, the identity is clouded.
Now let’s take the “God” and “morality” aspect of this. In the public square, quite a few will argue these components, and I think cite #2 is the SSM attempt to rebut those arguments. And they have been very successful at it.
While I believe in those components, I wouldn’t use them as arguments in the public square (now I might use those components in a one-on-one situation) simply because that argument will perpetually rage without resolution, plus I don’t want to give the opposition ammunition with which to assault the unwashed masses and legislate the whole thing. Conservatives are playing right into their hands.
I’d rather conduct the argument on my terms than theirs. They have their guns loaded for the “God” and “morality” argument (and probably welcome those arguments), but when conducted on a secular basis (the first cite I did of the article), the playing field is more level.
Boys have action figures and not dolls. LOL!
GI Joe beats the crap out of Ken, who every one knows is a homo, and still get to leave with Barbie.
I remember GI Joe and those little plastic army men. I had hundreds of them.
I set of mini plastic wars. I had a Mr. Potato head, and robots.
I had GI Joe’s, and Star Wars action figures. Extensive collections of each, although they weren’t really collections. They were actively used. Little green army men too, at my Grandparents’ house.
Zartan and Gung Ho were my favorites, because they were from the Motherland.
Not a very well written article. He made a lot of generalizations that were backed up by no statistics. He seemed against a man being the primary care giver for some reason.
I came away with the article that the author didn’t do anything but spout the same stuff as every other conservative, he provided no statistics, and just in general sounded terrified that the world might be changing and women might actually become the bread winner OH THE HORROR!!!
The progressive liberal intent is to emasculate the population and finish what Hitleryouth started. make little puppets to be controlled by the state and throw the world population into amoral chaos.
Cowboy and indian figures when I was young
I remember reading/hearing about an experiment to “prove” that little girls were conditioned to be “feminine,” while little boys were conditioned to be “masculine.” They said, just give the opposite toys, and they will react in the opposite way. So they gave the GI Joe’s to the girls, and the baby dolls to the boys. The girls played house with the GI Joe’s, and the boys played “war” with the baby dolls.
Ahhhh…our hard-wired DNA comes through again!
On a funny note, my nephew, now age 24, when he was about 4 years old seemed to like barbie dolls. Some of us were a bit concerned with this because it did seem rather odd. My mom, his grandmother, asked him why he like barbie dolls. HE very honestly said, “Because they have boobies.”
Needless to say, our original concerns evaporated and then directed him toward more age appropriate interests.
Now that he is 24 and an Afghan War veteran, he has grown to be a young fellow of which we are all proud.:flag: However, his past girlfirends, and now wife, mostly exhibited a bodily feature that has obvious roots linked to his pre-school fascination.
I played with anything I could destroy when I was little. Barbie broke just as easily as GI Joe or Mr Potato Head.(much to my sisters dismay)
Boys should play with toy guns, trucks, soldiers, and knives.
Girls should play with dolls, play stoves, and other girlie stuff.
I think the 2 separate occasions in my life I actually was given a chance to play with a Barbie doll, all I did was take her clothes off to see if she was anatomically correct. I was disappointed and subsequently put the doll down to search for more thrilling entertainment. Such as pouring salt on slugs or something.