<![CDATA[Jezebel: gender politics]]> http://tags.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/jezebel.com.png <![CDATA[Jezebel: gender politics]]> http://jezebel.com/tag/genderpolitics http://jezebel.com/tag/genderpolitics <![CDATA[Building Blocks: Are Legos A 'Boy Toy'?]]> Interesting post on Feministe about the "gendering" of Legos. (Okay, that may not sound that interesting, but bear with me.) Apparently Lego's on the carpet for alleged gender stereotyping in its catalog... interesting, as legos have traditionally been gender-neutral toys. The writer of the piece, Holly, is a former Lego employee, so she has the inside scoop on the scandale:

The Swedish org "Trade Ethical Council against Sexism in Advertising" (ERK) (because the actual Swedish words are presumably different), decries the Lego photo spreads thusly:

As the post recounts, the Danish company started out in the 70s as deliberately gender-neutral and high-mindedly concerned with cognitive development. When the stridently gender-specific toy market of the 80s came around, Lego started a girly pastel line called "Paradisa." In this regard, Feministe's Holly points out, they were right on trend with ideas about gender differences and similarities, which waxed and waned throughout the 80s and 90s.

One interesting thing I noticed during my tenure in the land of plastic bricks — when someone’s watching them, peers or adults, kids are much more likely to adhere to stereotypical divisions of play, and gravitate away from what’s clearly labeled as “for the other gender.” When we looked at statistics from the Lego website, however, where kids of a certain age range were often playing by themselves in front of a computer, we often found that the gender division of who was playing little online web games was much more gender-neutral. In other words, girls on the Lego website were playing the sports and (Lego-sanctioned, relatively non-violent) combat oriented games. This wasn’t a huge surprise, since the conventional wisdom was that of course there were some girls who liked “boy stuff,” and nobody bothered to market to them separately. More surprisingly, there were plenty of boys who also played the princess dress-up games. I always though that spoke volumes about the role of social observation in many kids’ adherence to gender rules.

What's funny about the whole controversy is that, were there ever a toy that seemed like it didn't require the bells and whistles of boy/girl marketing, it would be Lego. At the end of the day, after all, it's always blocks. Its limitless creative potential and essential plainness is probably what devotees love and what I, as a child, found unspeakably dull. The case raises several questions, none of them new: is this sort of "gendering" inherently offensive; is it based on anything but societal construct (as Holly seems to suggest; having been a wholly stereotypical small child myself, I will self-recuse); are the kids who find Lego intriguing already a subset; and, is this kind of marketing even effective? Lego's an interesting test case because the toy is itself so very neutral, in its appeal and presentation, that the sex-specific trappings are wholly superficial and, as such, make for an interesting control of sorts. (It's also why, ironically, it can be such a good medium for weirdness.) That "cognitive development" has become less a touchstone for marketers than its more commercial corollaries is probably a comment in itself — although more on the buying public than a company that, at the end of the day, has always just wanted to shill plastic blocks.

Gasp! Kids’ Toys Are… Gendered? [Feministe]
JC de Castelbajac's Lego Fashion Show [Shopping Blog]
Cultural Issues On Color & Sex [Colour Lovers]

[Image via JeongMee Yoon's Pink & Blue Project]

]]>
http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5102946&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[5 Rules Of The New Chivalry]]> This morning on Today, "experts" weighed in on the hot button issue of chivalry, and whether the concept is dead, outdated, or just plain unfeminist. We don't think that chivalry is dead, and we don't think that women on the receiving end of it are less feminist, but we do think some of the rules of etiquette need to be revamped to reflect the shifts in gender roles. The misconception is that, deep down, all women want a bad boy. Untrue: We just don't want someone who kisses our asses or behaves like a doormat. But that doesn't mean that manners should be thrown out the window. We know it seems like we want it both ways: equality and courtesy. But why must the two be mutually exclusive? Besides, shouldn't there be a few trade offs, or benefits, for the crap we have to put up with as women? We've come up with an updated list of rules of the new chivalry for the modern man…and woman.

1.) Give her your seat. Not because she's a woman, but because her shoes hurt more than yours. Like really a lot more.

2.) Get in the cab first. This is something that men just don't get. They try to be polite and open the cab door for a woman to get in, and then the woman has to slide over—usually in a skirt—holding her bag, and it's all awkward and shit, and she kinda slides off the seat of her coat and then the back of her coat is like shifted and kinda next to her, and then there's all his readjusting that needs to happen. Just get in the cab first, ferchristsakes.

3.) Pick up the check. We'll pretend to offer and you'll pretend the offer was real. We honestly don't mind putting our pride to the side when it comes to this.

4.) Wipe the cum off her first before you wipe it off yourself. There's seriously nothing ruder than blowing a big wad all over a girl and then cleaning off your dick first before you go get her a towel or some tissues. Extra points for not getting any cum in her hair.

5.) Offer to do everything for her when her nails are wet. It sucks when a woman pays good money to get a manicure and then she has to get something out of her purse when her nails are still tacky. Help her out by lighting her cigarette, opening her can of soda, or wiping after she pees.

Related: Is Chivalry Dead? [NBC News]

]]>
http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5092080&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Mad Men: Where Blatant Sexism Meets Chivalry]]> I only just got into Mad Men this weekend: in fact, I watched the entire first season in one day in order to prepare for the premiere of the second season last night, and I am now obsessed. Aside from the fact that stories are compelling, complex, and wonderfully layered, I love how much focus is placed on the gender politics both at home and in the office, and getting a glimpse at how accepting everyone — including women — were about following a set of rules that they really had no part in making up. In the clip above, the main character, Donald Draper (Jon Hamm), exhibits these same innate, dichotomous values of objectifying yet "respecting" women when he directs his employees to create an ad for an airline by showing more of a stewardess's thigh, and then becomes enraged when two men speak crassly in front of a nearby female. Clip above.

]]>
http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5030064&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA['Kid Nation': Girls Rule, Boys Drool]]>
Last night's episode of Kid Nation — the show that's like Survivor meets Lord of the Flies and set in the Old West — featured a mini-battle of the sexes. With an impending election, the town split up into boys-against-girls. It's really evident in the clips how much more socially-sophisticated and domineering girls are when compared to boys that age. Oh, and the last 30 seconds is priceless, when 11-year-old Kelsey explains why 10-year-old Taylor would make just a good a president as George W. Bush.

]]>
http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=312519&view=rss&microfeed=true