In a "neutral" environment the average boy is more likely to be interested in masculine things than girls are, and the average girl is more likely to be interested in feminine things than boys are. This isn't oppression; it's common sense.
Well it's false stereotyping, men are classified to this and women are classified to that. If a guy likes or does something that is slightly more commonly done/liked by females, they are seen as gay. We shouldn't classify entire groups based on the majority.
However relating something to yourself does. A little girl plays with dolls because she can relate to them. A little boy plays with cars because he goes in the car with his dad, or something like that.
Males are given to certain things - less communication, more spacial awareness, natural aggression/competitive. Females are given to certain things - more communication, more empathetic, naturally given to cliques/competitive.
Males tend to be single-minded and Females tend to be a bit scattered. These are things that have been studied. And they shouldn't be discarded because Tumblr is teaching people to be illogical idiots who believe their unicorn-kin.
Nobody is saying you HAVE to do whatever your gender generally does, we're just saying that the majority of boys do one thing and the majority of girls do another thing. There's a clear differential between what girls like and what boys like. When I was younger, my parents asked me what I wanted to play with, and didn't limit my options. I ended up liking what most boys like. It starts to become detrimental when people (like TUMBLWEEDS) start to FORCE people to like stuff out of the "norm" for their gender. I don't know how many times I've seen tumblweeds (lol just made that up, I like that) say "why don't you play with dolls, jimmy? Your parents are just enforcing gender stereotypes by buying you cars after you already choose to play with cars over dolls." - obviously not like that, but you know what I mean. They try to hard to "end" gender stereotypes, which is a stupid thing to do.
Your arguments are all fundamentally flawed,
1. Yes you personally may have chosen to play with "boys" toys but, no one cares about you (sorry) this is about stereotyping as a whole and not all boys like what society regards as boys toys and not all girls like what are deemed as girls toys, and as for "majority of boys do one thing and the majority of girls do another thing. There's a clear differential between what girls like and what boys like" There might be a clear difference because of stereotyping. Little kids don't know the difference until people tell them oh you play with boys toys or vise versa
2. As for males are into certain things and females are into certain things, it all depends on the person. A guy can be empathetic and a girl can be violent AF.
"...No one cares about you..." - I mentioned my personal story because I wasn't told what to play with, and I ended up liking things that most boys tend to like, showing that even when the options are unlimited, boys tend to like what most boys like, and girls tend to like what most girls like. I fail to see how understanding the difference between boys' and girls' respective interests is a bad thing. Is Obama saying "only girls can play with Barbies"? No. Is the UN saying "only boys can play with cars"? No. I'm really failing to see any point to this, all "gender stereotypes" are doing is pointing out that there's a clear difference between boys' and girls' interests.
There is no clear difference between what girls and boys like, and gender stereotyping can cause gender dysphoria eg 'I'm a girl and I like sports so I must be a boy' or 'I'm a boy and I like makeup so there must be something wrong with me'
The amount of girls that take certain classes in school compared to the amount of boys that take certain classes in school? What about that? Actually it's the Tumblweeds that can cause gender dysphoria, as they encourage everyone to be part of the lgbtqfrstuvwxyz community.
I did say sorry, but you as a person or a guy don't represent the whole male population so we don't really need your personal story.... And yes while the American Gov may not be promoting it others are, and even when they're not saying boys play with this and girls with that, unfortunately it's build into society now so people just do it
The problem with your argument is you are willfully disregarding actual data with biological and social backing in order to generalize the exception to be the average. It's like saying because one man enjoys rape all men enjoy rape and become one woman was raped all women have been raped. It's factually incorrect and wrong.
Yes some boys like playing with Easy-Bake Ovens and some girls like playing with G.I. Joe figures - but even toddlers naturally gravitate toward "stereotypical" things.
Also it's a bit backwards to argue against stereotypes as harmful while actively saying a boy or a girl can't do something because it's a stereotype. I dress my niece in boy clothes, but when she asks me to paint her nails I do it. On the other hand I play sports with my kid brother, but when he wants to do more "effeminate" activities I'm all for it.
Tumblr is a net loss in terms of the circle-jerk echo chamber of hate and bile and lack of logic it happens to be. We really should nuke it from Orbit... Just to make sure.
@espera - "toddlers naturally gravitate toward "stereotypical" things" it's mainly their parents or other influences that encourage them to gravitate towards stereotypical things, they don't do it naturally.
Okay so a handful of people say "boys should act this way and girls should act this way." I agree to an extent that this isn't the most ideal way of living, however when the whole of society recognizes the differences between boys' and girls' actions and how they're different from each other, as well as taking into account the HUGE group of people that welcome people to identify as something else or simply act differently than the majority of people, I don't see how this should even be an issue. Do you ever think your school doesn't provide metalwork because the majority of people at your school don't want it...? One more reason this whole "gender stereotype" issue is detrimental - you automatically assume that your school doesn't provide metalwork because it's sexist or it conforms to the "social construct" of what's considered a "girls' class," instead of looking at the big picture and the possibility (notice I'm not saying this is for sure how it is, just a possibility) that there simply aren't enough people that want a metals class. When I was in high school, if 40+ people wanted a class, we would have it for a year and see if it worked. If a huge number of girls from your school wanted a metals class, and they STILL didn't provide it, then I'd be asking questions. And I'm bringing up Tumblr over and over because I'm showing that there is a society that encourages people to be something they aren't. It's now "normal" to think you're a unicorn. It's now "sexist" to deny a girl who identifies as a man into the men's washroom. Although that's a little more rare, I've seen that happen, and it's... Just... Dumb.
Males are not better soldiers biologically and females are not better biologically at those other tasks. It doesn't take much strength to shoot a gun. Do you even know what discrimination means and what it entails? You're acting like humans don't come as a variety. Being a nurse and psychology is something you learn, not something you inherently have.
"Males are not better soldiers biologically... It doesn't take much strength to shoot a gun." - Who said anything about strength? And who said the only aspect of being a soldier is shooting a gun? If you want to bring strength into it, regarding the pure stamina and conditioning aspect of war, men tend to perform better than women. I think the simple fact that the Olympics and other competitive sports being divided into men's and women's categories shows that men and women are not equal when it comes to physical endurance/strength. - "You're acting like humans don't come as a variety. Being a nurse and psychology is something you learn, not something you inherently have." - I never said women/men inherently have skillsets, I said they tend to like different subjects, hence the disparities in psychology/arts/history/law classes.
A big part of war is being behind weaponry. The government even started trying to sell tanks because we have so many. "I never said women/men inherently have skillsets, I said they tend to like different subjects, hence the disparities in psychology/arts/history/law classes." I was not referring to you. This still doesn't address the fact that a lot of it stems from social culture and that people still come in a variety regardless of social norms.
You feel inferior because some people believe certain things? I've been in similar situations and I just ignore them and carry on my way. We don't live in a patriarchal society because a few people believe in gender roles. @Harri - you're right, I know some women who are stronger than me. However, the majority of men are physically stronger than women. The strongest man in the world is stronger than the strongest woman in the world. This is NOT a bad thing. @Bear - the accuracy and reaction time between men and women is quite similar. However when you go to war, your only job isn't to stand still and shoot people.
Just because the strongest man in the world is stronger than the strongest women, doesn't mean men are just stronger than women, thats only one case, for all we know any female could start training and become stronger than the strongest man in the world
"...A female can reach all the needed physical qualities." I agree completely, men and women are both capable of reaching healthy levels of strength. My point is that on average, men tend to be physically stronger than women.
Pointing out the differences of genders isn't based off of facts, and even if there are facts, they're not very accurate because children are taught to do certain things because of their gender, it doesn't come naturally
We aren't trying to say women are better or smarter, that isn't the point of this poll. Saying that women are smarter and men are stronger, and vice versa, is damaging to those who don't live up to those expectations. Living up to expectations, regardless if they're to do with gender or not, is hard. Imagine if your whole life you were top of the class so everyone expected you to be top of the class forever. But as soon as you step out of line slightly every one is disappointed in you. It hurts. It hurts to keep up a facade especially if you aren't enjoying it. And that's damaging. That's why gender stereotyping is harmful.
OK, yes, biology determines that men have more muscle mass and women have large hips for carrying babies. That's all its for - reproducing. Anything beyond reproduction has nothing to do with gender. Your chromosomes don't determine whether you like dolls or not.
Living up to expectations and being interested in certain areas is different. Not very people at all are saying anyone has to live up to expectations. I agree that saying simply because someone was born a woman or born white or born wealthy that they should live up to some kind of expectations is detrimental. However that is so incredibly uncommon that addressing it (especially on an open-minded, intelligent community such as the debate.Org one) is BASICALLY unnecessary.
"In 2009, Gerianne Alexander, professor of psychology at Texas A&M University, and her colleagues found that 3- and 4-month-old boys' testosterone levels correlated with how much more time they spent looking at male-typical toys such as trucks and balls compared with female-typical toys such as dolls, as measured by an eye tracker. Their level of exposure to the hormone androgen during gestation (which can be estimated by their digit ratio, or the relative lengths of their index and ring fingers) also correlated with their visual interest in male-typical toys."
It all has to do with hormones, its not just a stereotype. In experiments, male adolescent monkeys also prefer to play with wheeled vehicles while the females prefer dolls.
It's not incredibly uncommon. It's very common. Boy's toys and girl's toys? Pink and blue for girls and boys? Even the male and female silhouettes on toilet doors - a woman wearing a dress and men wearing pants. That's gender stereotyping, and that's detrimental. It's not uncommon. It's everywhere, every day. Open your eyes.
Because it makes expectations for people - boys are supposed to do this and girls are supposed to do this. It can make people feel alienated for liking something that supposed to be for the other gender.
"...A woman wearing a dress and men wearing pants... That's detrimental." - Oh no. You've crossed the line. I'm afraid your only hope is to abandon this site and head straight for Tumblr. Radical Tumblrism seems to be the only true path for you, my friend.
You're just being childish now. I don't know who's brainwashed you but Tumblr has nothing to do with this argument, so stop mentioning it. A woman wearing a dress and a man wearing pants is fine, but assuming that that is what people do is not.
I know I apologise, I stepped way out of line there. In all seriousness though, the silhouettes on bathroom doors are simply to distinguish between which one is for men and women. I'm sure having two identical stick figures would be kind of hard to distinguish between, don't you? We'd have guys and girls walking into each other's bathrooms all the time. Nobody is saying women MUST wear dresses because of the identifiable feature on the bathroom door.
Well there are because the vast majority of people on Earth aren't comfortable pissing and... Other stuff... Right next to the opposite sex, let alone next to someone of the same sex. Soooooo that's why there are separate bathrooms for men and women. Nothing to do with discrimination or sexism or patriarchy or gender roles.... And regarding words, what about people or children that can't read? I used to work at a restaurant that originally used words instead of symbols, and they actually got a few complaints saying little boys went into the women's bathroom or vice versa. Sure, the image of the guy and girl can be considered "stereotypes," however that's because that's the way most guys and girls look. It's the universal sign for "female" and "male," there's nothing detrimental about this. I don't know a single person (other than... Sorry... TUMBLWEEDS) who has looked at the male or female washroom sign and thought that they were meant to live up to the "expectation" of looking like the picture of the stick guy/girl on the washroom door.
It's not just what kind of toys children are conditioned to want, stereotyping is harmful because it can cause people to feel wrong or weird simply because they aren't into what society deems acceptable for them, whether it hurts 1 million people or 1 person, the second someone feels bad because of it is when stereotyping is harmful. Thats why it isn't needed
Ignoring the "select few" is hard (and theres more than a select few), especially since they're the ones who scream the loudest most of the time, but stereotyping is harmful, even if you think only some people care, even if it's only some, it can still hurt people and that's just plain wrong
Unfortunately, avoiding the select few is our best option. And before anyone says "NO WE HAVE TO FIGHT THEM AND SHOW THEM IT'S BAD," tell that to the serial killers and rapists. We can't make every single person morally perfect.
Murder is harmful. I'm sure 99.9999% of society knows that. However it still happens. Stereotypes as a whole aren't harmful, it's when they're used in harmful ways. Like saying "lots of girls take this class, why aren't you taking it?" Would be considered harmful. However simply saying "lots of girls take this class" wouldn't be harmful.
"Well there are because the vast majority of people on Earth aren't comfortable pissing and... Other stuff... Right next to the opposite sex, let alone next to someone of the same sex. Soooooo that's why there are separate bathrooms for men and women." Emphasis on "let alone next to some of the same sex." There are stalls and it's just the risk you take when you go into a public bathroom.
@Bear - People are uncomfortable doing private business such as using the washroom or being naked around people of the opposite sex. I'm really failing to see how that's discrimination or gender stereotypes. That is WAY too extreme of an example. Do you believe changerooms and washrooms should all be unisex? I mean I'd love that ;) but the majority of people would be uncomfortable. @Harri - Are you saying the only types of stereotypes are negative? Pointing out that the majority of girls in a school take sewing, for example, wouldn't be a stereotype, but saying all dark haired girls are ugly (just making this up, I don't believe this) would be a stereotype?
@mister_man, i'm not quite sure what you're trying to say.... But saying all dark haired girls are ugly isn't a stereotype it's a person's opinion, it's not a universal concept and as for point out that majority of girls in a school take sewing, why would you need to point it out?
And when you do a winky face and say I'd love that, obviously women are going to be uncomfortable. Restrooms are about using the toilet? Everyone uses a separate cubicle, it's doesn't need to be out in the open
They can also be uncomfortable being naked around the same sex. I just think the fault more lies in the concept of a public bathroom when it comes to being uncomfortable than it would be a unisex bathroom. It really chalks down to urinals, but most woman restrooms don't even have them.
@Harri - alright give me an example of a universal concept that you consider to be a negative or bad stereotype. @Uglie - What? No, I said simply explaining that something is bad or harmful doesn't stop people from still doing that act, such as murder. I'm sure the majority of people understand how harmful murder is, as well as the severe consequences, yet people still murder. So using the same logic, telling people that stereotypes are harmful, would do less of a job considering murder and stereotypes are completely different ballparks, and stereotypes aren't nearly as bad as murder, meaning people would still use stereotypes if people still murder. I never said murder is okay because a few people murder, not too sure where you got that from. Regarding my winky, I was just being funny. But I obviously made a point because you disagree with Bear and agree with me that unisex washrooms/changerooms would make people uncomfortable. And @Bear (and I guess Uglie), I'm sure if you asked a bunch of people, a huge majority would say they aren't comfortable sharing washrooms (even if it's only stalls).
"men are better than women" - I haven't heard this other than sarcastically. "men are the main breadwinners" - This is simply a statement based on facts. Men generally make the majority of the household's income. "men are stronger than women" - physically? That's true. Although it is a stereotype to an extent, I wouldn't consider it a bad one, considering it's just biology that tends to make most men stronger than most women. "women are weak and sensitive" - Once again, I haven't heard this other than sarcastically. Also, women tend to be more emotional than men, but that's just biology, a good reason to not get offended.
Men don't make a majority of income? And even if they did, its because of the wage gap (which is not a myth). And here's some nice sexist ads that do claim men are better than women http://beaut.ie/2014/men-are-better-than-women-now-buy-a-jumper-hilariously-sexist-ads-of-yore/
"Men don't make a majority of income?" - Right, that's why feminists are complaining that men make more money than women. "And even if they did, its because of the wage gap" - Which is a myth. Men as a whole earn more money than women as a whole. This is due to job choices made by men and women. A man and a woman doing the same work with the same experience are going to get paid the same. If they aren't paid the same, there will be rational, non-sexist reasons behind it. "And here's some nice sexist ads that do claim men are better than women" - I was unaware we live in 1951. But these ads are just sexist (and satirical...), not negative stereotypes.
Sorry, I can't get around your first statement... "Men don't make a majority of income? And even if they did, its because of the wage gap" - You deny the fact that men make more money than women, then before anyone can prove you wrong, you just throw an excuse at it that paints men as the bad guy. "I don't believe men make the majority of household incomes, BUT IF THEY DO IT'S BECAUSE OF THE PATRIARCHY!!1!1"
ALSO... The article you posted, at the bottom, says "Obviously these days we wouldn’t see an ad that basically shows a man walloping a woman." So the author of the article even points out that these are very old ads, so basically irrelevant in our conversation. That's like saying "Germans nowadays are bad, see look at this thing called the Holocaust."
You are so unbelievably ignorant it makes me sick
@Uglie - it's widely agreed on this site (and most others) that Wikipedia is not a credible source. However for the sake of this argument, I'll address your links. The Australian gap doesn't mention specific job titles, simply different fields. Same with the American gap. The American link states "The statistic does not take into account differences in experience, skill, occupation, education or hours worked, as long as it qualifies as full-time work." - This shows that the gap (as a whole) simply compares male to female full time workers, and not specific jobs at all. This does not equal discrimination or sexism or stereotyping (the topic at hand...), this simply shows men tend to work better paying jobs. "Among full-time workers (that is, those working at a job 35 hours or more per week), men are more likely than women to have a longer workweek." Taken from The Bureau of Labour Statistics - http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CDoQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bls.gov%2Fcps%2Fcpswom2012.pdf&ei=OTdMVbXqLJfpoAT41oC4DQ&usg=AFQjCNHpCYMiVMqaoxMV0u1vunZHaxNu0A&bvm=bv.92765956,d.cGU - So far your two Wikipedia links have done little to nothing other than say that men (as a whole) earn more than women. If you can find something showing that a woman who works the exact same job at the exact same efficiency as a man is paid less than him, I'll look into that. Until then, showing that women earn less in some fields (multiple job titles) doesn't prove the pay gap you're trying to prove. I'll delve into those hilariously not sexist commercials in my next fun-filled reply, stay tuned, friend.
And you not thinking those ads are sexist is irrelevant - you can't decide what sexism is because you're a man. A white person can't decide what racism is, a homophobe can't decide what's homophobic and what's not
Okay, the shoes thing is bullsh*t and it's literally just people whining over nothing. If it was a man doing the searching, they'd most likely have him scrolling through "guy stuff," like fishing, shopping for a new TV, meeting guys for beer or to watch the game, etc. Showing a woman buy shoes is not sexist, cry more. Regarding Geraldine Doyle, the model for the original "we can do it" poster, is kind of funny actually. After having her picture taken as a strong, independent woman who can do a job a man does and enjoy it, she quit after a mere couple weeks, married a rich dentist, and had six children with him. I'll use Wikipedia for you - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldine_Doyle - so, I guess kind of irrelevant but whatever, Geraldine actually cannot do it, and should not be looked up to as some "unique feminist role model," but eh that doesn't affect me so I won't complain. Regarding the ad though, is it hinting that women clean more than men? Ehhhhh yeahhhh, considering the ad's target demographic is women (considering women TEND to do more cleaning than men), having a "strong inspirational role model" isn't really that big of a deal. The astronaut ad unfortunately doesn't work. Carl's Jr. Is one of many brands that uses attractive people to advertise their products. This happens with men all the time, but everyone seems to cry about it when it's women. The car ad unfortunately doesn't work either. The noodles are funny, and once again, using an attractive person to sell something. The American Apparel ad is nothing more than what I've been saying already. There's one example of a sexy girl being used to sell clothing. I could probably list 50 ads using attractive shirtless/pantsless men to sell something. It's marketing, and not "sexist." Then I see we have an unattractive person. The only thing I can think about this is that it's rude to that person (she obviously didn't care, as she did the ad...), and other "unattractive" people, but in no way sexist. And then we have an unapproved, unofficial ad degrading the Italian Prime Minister and labelling him as a rapist. You know it's dark times when an ad calling an actual historical figure a rapist, kidnapper, etc, is ridiculed because the victims are women. If anything, it portrays men as evil, but I'm not irrational, so I don't jump to a conclusion like that. And unfortunately the number one most sexist ad doesn't work, however anything related to blurred lines gets everyone upset. So thanks for the ads. The main "bad" thing I got out of them all is that attractive people are used to sell things.
"...You can't decide what sexism is because you're a man. A white person can't decide what racism is..." I honestly can't tell if you're joking or if you're actually this incredibly... I can't even think of a word. There's no way you're serious. If you're serious, it's gonna be hard talking to you from now on.
@mister_man did you seriously just try and agree with those ad? Even when men are portrayed in a certain way it's sexist, Women are put down so much in the media and you're trying to justify that it's alright?
@Harri - no, I didn't "agree" with the ads, I simply explained how they should not be considered sexist or misogynistic or anything along those lines. I'm not saying that it's alright that women are put down, I'm challenging the idea that women are put down at all. Attractive men and women are used to sell products, and that argument covers about 99% of what people consider to be "sexist" or "degrading" in media. If you could find me a modern, serious ad much like the ones Uglie-Boy posted a link to, I would be more inclined to agree with you guys.
@Uglie - I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying men cannot experience sexism, or they cannot tell a woman when she is experiencing sexism? And the whole point of bringing up Geraldine Doyle is to kind of elaborate on stereotypes. The whole story behind her is supposed to show that women can work the same jobs as men instead of being housewives and marrying rich guys. And what does she do? Becomes a housewife and marries a rich guy. I'm not saying that's a bad thing at all, my point is that everyone is looking up to her to be a positive role model for women wanting to enter the workforce with men, whereas she is truly just another... Shall I dare say it... Stereotypical housewife. WHICH IS NOT A BAD THING! The main point I'm trying to make is yes, she can do what she wants, but she portrays herself as a woman who "breaks the gender stereotypes," and that's what people look to her as, when the reality of the whole situation is that she basically enforced gender stereotypes.
@mister_man, there are many serious modern ads that promote equality and don't put any gender down. Just like there are many ads that are sexist, those types are ads are wrong and putting both sexes down
@Midnight1131 - we have stated that gender stereotyping is bad because it can cause people who don't conform to it to feel confused and upset, people might bully them because they don't like what they "should like". There are too many suicides and cases of bullying simply because people didn't conform to what their certain gender was told to like and what to do essentially
And with Geraldine Doyle , yes she was the face for the whole breaking the gender stereotypes (which she did) with WWll, but that doesn't mean she couldn't have a life of her own, and she didn't become the "stereotypical hous wife" she worked for majority of her life.
Harri, can you give me an example? And yes, Mrs. Doyle did work for some time, and is capable of having her own life. The message I'm trying to get across is that the job she was known for, the mining or whatever it was, she did for a total of two weeks, until she quit, married a rich guy, had children, and became a housewife. That's like me being a nanny for two weeks until quitting and working construction then telling everyone that men can be nannies too. Quitting after a couple weeks and doing a stereotypical "man" job isn't necessarily shouting "YEAH MEN CAN BE NANNIES TOO!!" Same applies to Mrs. Doyle.
As for an ad, one that promotes women in a equal way is deodorant ads (which is a shame because it's one of the only ads that see's women as equal and strong) but you have to remember Geraldine Doyle was scouted it wasn't her dream to break the ice with what women could achieve you have to remember we can't possibly imagine what she was feeling, back then women were so oppressed and she might've felt overwhelmed. She got married and had kids, she did what she wanted to do, and a lot of men get married and have children. What so bad about Geraldine Doyle doing it?
Well I'm actually looking for ads that degrade women or are sexist toward women. Ads that promote equality aren't necessarily helping your point. I've explained several times why using Mrs. Doyle as a "strong feminist role model" isn't the best. I never said it's bad that she did what she did, I'm simply saying if women want an example of a woman who worked a "stereotypical man's job," Mrs. Doyle isn't the best representation, as she quit her "stereotypical man's job" after two weeks, and went on to do be a "stereotypical housewife." I know that phrase, "stereotypical housewife," sounds kind of crass or degrading, but all I'm saying is (back then) most women stayed at home, married a rich guy, and took care of the kids and the house. People using Mrs. Doyle as an example of a woman who "broke the gender stereotype in the workplace" are... Well, wrong.
"You can be married with 6 kids and still be a strong feminist role model" - this is the exact thing feminists say is bad and promotes gender stereotypes. You're still missing the point. Nobody is looking up to her as a role model for her having 6 kids, they're looking up to her for "working a stereotypical man's job, and breaking the gender barrier regarding jobs," while in reality, she gave up on that job and went to do what people are worshipping her for not doing (when she really did just that).
Can you show me an example that is sexist toward women? I'm looking at an ad right now on the side of this page for "becauseiamagirl.Ca," which is basically saying to hell with boys, come support only women.
You obviously don't understand the concept of feminism then. Feminists don't think getting married and having children is bad, they think assuming that women should get married and have children is bad. Feminism is choice without judgement.
Okay forget I said that. My point is everyone looks up to Ms. Doyle for "breaking the gender barriers in the work place, showing women can do any job a man can do," when in reality she didn't do that at all. That's the only thing I'm trying to say, people worship her for something she really didn't do. There's not much more I can say on this topic so if you still choose to ignore this fact then there's no point in continuing. Regarding the sexist ads... I'd like to see some.
"How the hell is not getting married and having children immoral?"
It sounds pretty complicated to me. The only way so far that I see it could not be perceived as immoral would be that you refuse to have kids on the grounds that you know your contribution to the future would be negative, therefore you are doing better by not extending your qualities toward the future generations. But how could you possibly know that?
Not having them for personal or selfish reasons would of course make it immoral. I don't think anyone would agree that this generation or any ones past thought that acting in your life solely for yourself was a virtuous thing. At least in the example above your intent was toward the betterment of society ... So there'd be some morality involved there.
@uglie-boy and @FreedomBeforeEquality: Extending the family bloodline is the responsibility of every child. It ensures that the spirit of your parents, your grandparents, you ancestors will not be discontinued at your generation, which is a very shameful thing. I don't know if this is the case in the West but here, wishing someone to have no offspring is a horrible insult.
I agree. It is also an insult here, though probably to a bit lesser a degree. I'm just saying that perhaps you would be doing your family an even bigger service by not having offspring in some instances. An instance where you would be spreading something shameful or genetically harmful to future generations. Perhaps even ancestors could come to appreciate that sort of sacrifice.
I'm just not sure how you could be fully sure that what you're doing (what you're saving future generations from) is entirely a good thing. Perhaps even the bad needs to be around to help temper the future generations. Without it they may begin to take things for granted.
@misterman - how bout the snickers ad with the construction workers, i've managed to find a link to some recent sexist advertisment http://www.buzzfeed.com/robynwilder/ridiculously-sexist-and-racist-adverts-from-the-present-d#.ellMWgQDj
And as for being immoral for not having children. You do know the world is overpopulated and if anything people should stop having children. But there's nothing wrong with choosing to have children and there's NOTHING WRONG with choosing not to have kids.
"But there's nothing wrong with choosing to have children and there's NOTHING WRONG with choosing not to have kids."
There could be something wrong with either of those choices. If you chose not to because there was a crisis of overpopulation ... You might could justify it. If its just for your own convenience that you might abort a child and choose not to have children ... I don't see anything admirable about that.
"I don't see anything admirable about that." there's nothing admirable about choosing to have children or choosing not to have children, it's not a matter or if it's admirable it's a matter of choice and there is nothing wrong with choosing either
But of course there IS something admirable about choosing to have children, as there is with choosing to adopt and care for them, as there is donating to their medical care and schooling, etc. That's just a fact of life.
As for choosing not to ... That's the only thing debatable here.
If you think otherwise, you're living in the wrong society. I don't think there are many like you that would argue time and money towards our children, toward future generations, is not well spent. Its most certainly admirable to support that dynamic.
@FreedomBeforeEquality , I was wrong in saying it wasn't admirable. But isn't it also admirable when people choose to pursue a career and benefit society too? While having children is admirable, not having children can lead to just as admirable situations
@harri: Your responsibilities towards your family are far more important than those towards society. If you contribute to society at the expense of your family, that is not admirable. Not having children is failing to fulfill your responsibility towards your family.
@Diqiucun_Cunmin, how does anyone have any responsibility to there family to have children? 'If you contribute to society at the expense of your family, that is not admirable', no ones saying at the expense of your family, what i'm saying but I can't speak for others is that it's admirable if you choose to have children and it's admirable if you choose not to have children
"You're the one living in the wrong society. It's not the 1950s anymore ..."
Time doesn't matter. The 1950's wasn't solely marked by caring for future generations and human survival. Every decade that ever was has been marked by that drive. I don't care if it's the year 3000, people don't stop caring about that. You just keep up your sycophantic relationship with the poor and disenfranchised to try and get that idea of yours into the mainstream. You'll see what i mean. The human self-preservation instinct isn't going anywhere.
Harri - I don't consider any of these "sexist." The creators of these products/ads simply took into consider what most people of that demographic like. Girls tend to like pink more than guys, so when they make ads geared toward girls, they incorporate things that most girls like, to get more sales. I'm sure nobody would but something that was a mess of colours so "one wasn't left out because that'd be sexist," lol. I might actually make a video about how "not sexist" all these "sexist" ads from Buzzfeed are someday if I'm bored.
The only word in that category that I'd use would be "objectification," as a couple of these are pretty much just "here's a hot girl, buy our stuff," but even then, that definitely isn't sexism, and sex sells. Nobody considers men or women less than human because of some ads, lol.