Combating Misogyny in the Toy Aisle

[Terrie]

13 hours ago, TSOWOATNK said:

His physiology means it is easier for him to chop wood than I can because he has a greater upper body strength.

Thanks to polio, my great aunt had much better upper body strength than her husband. She did all the wood chopping. Perhaps we should have a polio and non-polio section of stores?

[louisa05]

I should not wade into this. Every time I do, people get very angry at me. 

But here it is: when we decide things are bad because they are considered too feminine or to use the language here "too girly", what we are saying is that those things that culture considered masculine are superior and are the default and those that are considered feminine are inferior. 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a girl wearing or liking pink or any other color considered "feminine" or "girly". There is nothing inferior about being a girl or preferring some traditionally feminine things. Labeling certain things and colors as "too girly" and demeaning or forbidding them sends the message that there is. Good thoughts on the matter in this article: 

https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/03/pink-and-princesses-why-does-girly-equal-lame.html

And when it comes to colors of clothing for children, I intentionally look at this all the time in primary classrooms due to the constant handwringing in our culture that girls only get "girly colors" and it is damaging them. What I see, every time, is girls dressed in absolutely every color on the spectrum and boys dressed in blue (but NEVER a pastel blue), green, black, brown or camo prints. The only exceptions to that short color list for boys is team apparel in other colors--most commonly red in this state. We don't have a real problem with girls being limited to a few color choices, we have a problem with boys being limited. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

13 hours ago, TSOWOATNK said:

If the Sacred Feminine is to survive and thrive, the Sacred Masculine must too.

I guess I'm the only one not clear on what this means?

[Terrie]

@louisa05 It's definitely a balance. I dislike labeling pink girly, because boys should be able to enjoy pink, too, if that's their color. I think putting toys as "kids" toys is a first step. My concern is not girls liking dolls or pink or cooking (cooking is a basic life skill). They don't even need to like things 50/50. But I worry when I see a girl who looks dipped in pepto bismol and wrinkles her nose and calls trucks "for boys" or is told not to do things because she'll get her dress dirty while her brothers are allowed to play. 

I recently helped with a STEM event for young kids. I was very pleased that there were a lot of girls willing to hold the pig heart we had to them to look at. It was about 50/50 on boys and girls for kids who went "Nope. No, no, no, no." and turned a little green. ? But every volunteered cringed when one mom went "Gross" and then told her boys "You should hold it. Boys like that kind of thing." Thankfully, it was during a lull and there were no little girls nearby to hear her nonsense.

[NotQuiteMotY]

I'm not looking forward to this part of having a child... Right now my son's a toddler. It's easier (though still not simple) to find clothes and toys that aren't aggressively gendered, but as he's getting older it's harder. Every time I clothes-shop for him (through thrift and consignments), I pull tons of shirts off the rack and put them right back. They're covered with moustaches, they say, "Mommy's tough guy," everything. It makes it hard when I try to buy stuff that's not obviously gendered, partly because of my own take that it's annoying and partly because I buy with an eye to eventually handing it down to a sibling or cousin. So much stuff is gender-neutral (monsters, animals, rocketships), but then they have a slogan underneath which makes it obviously gendered. Obviously, as he gets older part of what I buy is going to be influenced by his own tastes, whether that's pink or camo, but it's frustrating when I'm trying not to overtly reinforce stereotypes.

At least toys aren't awful yet. Right now he gets books and pretend play and Duplos, all of which are packaged neutrally and the extended family are happy to indulge him in. I suspect both sets of grandparents, thankfully, will be happy with the baby doll he's going to get for his next birthday; it makes it so much easier if relatives are onboard with it. It's frustrating when a store lists, say, play food as a "girl" toy, though. I'd be quite happy if all toys were organized by type/topic (building toys, car toys, kitchen toys, dolls) rather than gender. I spent enough time as a kid playing with my brothers' Micro Machines and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles action figures as well as my dolls.

[louisa05]

2 minutes ago, Terrie said:

@louisa05 It's definitely a balance. I dislike labeling pink girly, because boys should be able to enjoy pink, too, if that's their color. I think putting toys as "kids" toys is a first step. My concern is not girls liking dolls or pink or cooking (cooking is a basic life skill). They don't even need to like things 50/50. But I worry when I see a girl who looks dipped in pepto bismol and wrinkles her nose and calls trucks "for boys" or is told not to do things because she'll get her dress dirty while her brothers are allowed to play. 

I recently helped with a STEM event for young kids. I was very pleased that there were a lot of girls willing to hold the pig heart we had to them to look at. It was about 50/50 on boys and girls for kids who went "Nope. No, no, no, no." and turned a little green. ? But every volunteered cringed when one mom went "Gross" and then told her boys "You should hold it. Boys like that kind of thing." Thankfully, it was during a lull and there were no little girls nearby to hear her nonsense.

Girls are not as easily damaged as we think by any of this: 

https://news.aamc.org/press-releases/article/applicant-enrollment-2017/

There are many STEM fields--15 majors in fact as of 2016 --where women outnumber men in college programs. 

Women in general outnumber men in undergraduate programs overall in the U.S. 

We don't need to tell girls they can't do something because it is considered for boys. I totally agree. But we also need to stop telling them they can't do something because it is considered to be for girls and we need to stop acting like anything considered traditionally feminine makes them stupid or shallow. Something I have been on the receiving end of for my whole damn life--I can't possibly be smart if I wear lip gloss to a graduate class or carry a purse or polish my toenails or whatever. It has been a constant for me. And I HATE that is is becoming more and more common to perceive girls that way--to tell them that anything "girly" is wrong and they must embrace "gender neutral" things that are, in fact, merely the default male standard. Sorry to be the one to break it to you, but a woman can be smart, accomplished, capable and still take ten minutes out of her life to paint her toenails pink. 

 

 

[Terrie]

2 hours ago, louisa05 said:

I should not wade into this. Every time I do, people get very angry at me.

Apparently, what you meant was "I take it personally when I inject my personal views into a tangentially related topic and people don't agree with me, word for word." You're seriously projecting here. I said it's fine to like feminine things but that I become concerned when I see a child who has exaggerated interest in the feminine paired with active rejection or discouragement of the non-feminine, and you come back with "a woman can be smart and wear nail polish." That's like responding to someone concern that a child's clothing is always torn and dirty with "Oh, every child tears their shirt sometimes."

*throws hands up* WTF is it with this topic that people are taking the idea of removing gender labeling from toys as an attack on the concept of the feminine? No one talked about getting rid of pink toys. You people have issues.

[samurai_sarah]

4 hours ago, Terrie said:

Thanks to polio, my great aunt had much better upper body strength than her husband. She did all the wood chopping. Perhaps we should have a polio and non-polio section of stores?

Just to add yet another perspective: In my village, chopping wood is traditionally women's work. I got gendered by having to learn how to handle an axe, while my brothers didn't. Different cultural expectations also play into the debate about "gendered" work/toys/language etc, as do individuals and different environments.

[TSOWOATNK]

The point wasn't about chopping wood versus breastfeeding in particular. It was about specifically my husband and I, not all women and all men. I didnt say a single word about all women in my statement did I? No, because there are plenty of women that can't breastfeed at all and I don't think they are any less of a woman than I am. I've breastfed all our kids, he has breastfed none. He has done all the wood chopping, I have done none. In our particular relationship my statement was true. Sure, in some cases women can certainly be the better wood choppers; that isn't the case in my particular relationship. I'm better at assembling things, which is traditionally a "masculine" activity. I absolutely love a good Ikea project assembly, he hates every second of it. 

My point was that women and men are different, and in my particular relationship that is a difference that certainly can be viewed as a typical one. The average man can chop wood better than the average woman because their musculature and physiology makes it easier for them to do. The average person has 2 arms and 2 legs, but I don't see anyone getting hot at bothered when people make generalized statements reflective of that reality. The average person doesn't have a form  colorblindness either; I don't see people getting offended because someone calls Christmas lights various colors. 

The average woman can breastfeed better than a man (because a woman being capable of producing ANY milk whatsoever is better than the average man that can't at all). When the average woman and man stand with their back near the wall and touch their toes, one can do it fairly easily and the other can not because the basic structure of their bodies is different such that their center of gravity is in a different location. Again; equal does not mean same. Although in any of my three brothers case they can certainly do that trick better than most because of our hEDS. There is also the chair lifting trick too that women can do and men can't. Our bodies are different even if our brains aren't entirely different.

 

But I must ask;

What do you think women are more talented at by nature?

What do you think men are more talented at by nature?

No making "some men are" or "some women are" statements. I mean a hard and fast statement. 

 

[formergothardite]

27 minutes ago, TSOWOATNK said:

What do you think women are more talented at by nature?

What do you think men are more talented at by nature?

No making "some men are" or "some women are" statements. I mean a hard and fast statement.

I'm drawing a blank. Besides like birthing a baby and having a penis. 

What do you think is the Sacred Feminine and the Sacred Masculine? Why keep the masculine and feminine sacred? What is sacred about them? 

And how does this play into toys that are labeled for girls or boys, something you have appeared to support? Especially since these are things used by both girls and boys so there is no need to label them unless we are sending the message that some toys are only for girls and some are only for boys. 

6 hours ago, Terrie said:

WTF is it with this topic that people are taking the idea of removing gender labeling from toys as an attack on the concept of the feminine? No one talked about getting rid of pink toys. You people have issues.

I honestly don't get it either. What is the big deal with having a doll aisle or a just having STEM toys? There is no need to label dolls for girls and STEM for boys except for the pink STEM stuff that are for girls. 

[Terrie]

9 hours ago, TSOWOATNK said:

What do you think women are more talented at by nature?

What do you think men are more talented at by nature?

No making "some men are" or "some women are" statements. I mean a hard and fast statement. 

Nothing. Even @formergothardite's ideas of having a penis and having babies doesn't really work, because then you have to pretend transpeople don't exist. I mean, you can't even decide if chopping wood is an example about you and your husband specifically or about the "average" man and woman, so why would those of us, who don't agree with you, have any examples?

[formergothardite]

2 minutes ago, Terrie said:

Even @formergothardite's ideas of having a penis and having babies doesn't really work, because then you have to pretend transpeople don't exist.

That is very true. I apologize for not thinking that answer through and as a result wrote something that excluded transpeople. 

 

 

[Augustus]

My son wears pink pjs, i pick out sparkley clothes for him(girl section) because is a toddler and doesn't care/likes sparkles. I think that people who get bothered and think that it "sacred" are too uncomfortable with the idea that gender is something that we as humans have constructed. But it is, and maybe my son will hate wearing pink and pick out all the camo when he is a little older. But in my home, and in a lot of homes now, my husband and I are comfortable with all the different ways he could express himself. 

[Palimpsest]

I'll just drop this in here.  https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-did-girls-start-wearing-pink-1370097/

And the answer is - not until the 1940s.  In the 1970s and early 80s gender neutral clothing was very popular but then the rot started to set in.  According to the article the reasons include:

• prenatal testing meant that affluent people could be conned into buying two sets of clothing and other baby necessities - one for boys and one for girls. Because Rufus forbid they share.
• women who had been forced into gender neutral clothing wanting pink and frilly clothes for their daughters.
• gendered advertising directed at children and increased consumerism by children. 

So basically the gendered clothing and toys are just a marketing ploy to sell more stuff-  but it still means that kids are restricted in their choices by the retailers and that is wrong.   

And a huge shout out to @dawbs.  Well done!  I have no reason to stalk toy stores these days, but if you identify more retailers who need to quit being sexist dicks then post the details here and I'll be delighted to drop them a complaint.

[TSOWOATNK]

If there is nothing special about being a woman or man in and of itself, why would it possibly matter if one calls themselves a woman or man? Obviously it matters to plenty of people to be called a man or woman, otherwise the entire trans community is making a big deal about something that doesn't matter at all.

I am a woman. I am happy and proud to be a woman. The fact that I am a woman is inherent, and a part of who I am. The entire issue regarding gender acceptance in the trans community is that very issue that they want their stated gender to be recognized and accepted. It is logically inconsistent to both say there is absolutely nothing special about being a man versus a woman while simultaneously saying that it is essential to recognize and accept transgender people for the gender they say they are. Either gender matters, or it doesn't matter. Which is it?

[formergothardite]

Care to explain how this relates to labeling toys that both genders enjoy as for either boy or girl instead of labeling them for all children? Or explain more why you think labeling them boy/girl instead of just a toy is best?

[TSOWOATNK]

If we are being insulting to a mtf trans child by calling them a boy; by extension aren't we saying that gender is important? Isn't allowing that mtf girl to dress in a manner that conforms to their stated gender an affirmation? Otherwise it doesn't matter if we allow or don't allow trans children to dress in a manner than affirms their gender, or let them play with toys that align with their gender. If all boys playing with traditionally "girl" toys, and wearing traditionally "girl" cloths are still boys, and there is absolutely no difference between boys and girls; why would it matter if we call them a little boy or little girl?

[TSOWOATNK]

The differences between boys and girls before puberty are almost non-existent (although, it has been scientifically proven that there are medical differences. Example; premature girls are typically better at breathing than boys for some reason). Affirming the stated gender of a  trans child is essentially entirely related to clothing and toys as well as name. The number of boys as well as girls named Jamie is pretty high. Evelyn or even Lindsay is a unisex name as well historically. It would be incredibly easy to call a girl by a "boy" name, or a boy by a "girl" name and no one would bat an eyelash.  Allowing children to use the bathroom that conforms to their gender isn't too big a deal either because little boys and girls often use both bathrooms depending upon which parent they are with. Allowing mtf children to play with "girl" toys, and wear "girl" clothes is an essential part of gender affirmation. If there is no girl toy unless it is operated with genitalia, and there are no specifically girl clothes, then allowing mtf children to play with those toys doesn't mean anything. 

[formergothardite]

You aren't actually answering the question. Why label toys for a certain gender when there is nothing innate about that toy being liked by that gender? Are you saying you agree with pushing the idea some toys are for girls and others  are for boys?

[TSOWOATNK]

Interestingly, ftm children don't really have this issue regarding toys or clothes. No one thinks that a girl playing with boy toys and wearing boy clothes means anything related to gender identity. Playing with boy toys, and wearing boy clothes isn't really confirmation of their gender. Nor does using a "boy" name matter a heck of a lot because plenty of girls are being given traditionally "boy" names. 

 

Boys and girls view their gender identity as an essential part of who they are. It is important to them that they are a boy versus girl and vice versa. They don't know a toy is for a boy versus girl unless someone tells them it is for a boy versus girl.

Gender filters for toys are an exclusively online thing (I am unaware of brick and mortar stores that have a toy section labled boy toys versus girl, although there could be outside the PNW and my experience. My local Target certainly doesn't have aisles dedicated to specifically boys and girls). As an online sorting tool it is valuable to wade thru the tens of thousands of options on some sites. If you know precisely what you want to get you don't need filters. You want paint, you search for paint. If you want lego, you search for lego. If however you have no idea what to get for a little boy or girl, and you are just looking for gift ideas the gender filter is helpful for narrowing down the search results. It is also valuable to be able to search by age. If I can filter the bazillion of gift ideas for children 3-5 by putting in girl versus boy because I want something that is often liked by boys versus girls, all the better. If I don't want a gender filter I don't have to use it. Gender filtering isn't mandatory.

[Vivi_music]

Thank you @louisa05

I think that is what bothers me sometimes in this whole ''fight'' against misogynist toys. I agree that a lot of things are gendered (either boy-gendered or girl-gendered) for nothing but I feel we often target girls toys as the main category we need to ''fight'' against. I think it is normal. The feminist movement has focused on liberating women and making sure they have the freedom to chose their lifepath as they wish.

But the patriarchal system hurts men and boys too. I have explained it a bit in my first post. I see it in my own family. One of my brothers has a boy and a girl, the other one has two boys and my last brother has a girl. My siblings are all pretty much left-leaning hipsters (I say that with affection) and those who had girls were very much conscious of making sure they would not gender their toys. I think they were able to do it quite well. But for my nephew, they failed. Whilst my nieces can play both toys labeled for boys and girls, the boys have no typically ''girl toys'' at all. And TBH I feel this is bad for them. Boys can certainly benefit to play with what is considered typically feminine. I think deep down this comes down to the fact that a girl playing with typically masculine toys is okay because deep down we thrive for our girls to have strong characters and channel traits that are considered typically masculine. It bugs me to no end because even that way of thinking if influenced by a patriarchal point of view. Like typical masculine traits of character are more valued. But if a boy likes something labelled feminine, it will be seen has inferior and weaker. Which I am certain people don't even realize consciously.

It is important to make sure girls have the choice they want, and it starts when they are little. But the same for boys. Boys need to have choices in life. A boy can like to play with Barbies and wear glitter too please. These things are not inferior.

I think you are right that the main solution is to make sure all toys are considered ''kids' toys''. No gender for any of the toys, may they be trucks, dollies, nail polish or science kits.

[Lisafer]

25 minutes ago, TSOWOATNK said:

Interestingly, ftm children don't really have this issue regarding toys or clothes. No one thinks that a girl playing with boy toys and wearing boy clothes means anything related to gender identity. Playing with boy toys, and wearing boy clothes isn't really confirmation of their gender. Nor does using a "boy" name matter a heck of a lot because plenty of girls are being given traditionally "boy" names. 

 

Boys and girls view their gender identity as an essential part of who they are. It is important to them that they are a boy versus girl and vice versa. They don't know a toy is for a boy versus girl unless someone tells them it is for a boy versus girl.

Gender filters for toys are an exclusively online thing (I am unaware of brick and mortar stores that have a toy section labled boy toys versus girl, although there could be outside the PNW and my experience. My local Target certainly doesn't have aisles dedicated to specifically boys and girls). As an online sorting tool it is valuable to wade thru the tens of thousands of options on some sites. If you know precisely what you want to get you don't need filters. You want paint, you search for paint. If you want lego, you search for lego. If however you have no idea what to get for a little boy or girl, and you are just looking for gift ideas the gender filter is helpful for narrowing down the search results. It is also valuable to be able to search by age. If I can filter the bazillion of gift ideas for children 3-5 by putting in girl versus boy because I want something that is often liked by boys versus girls, all the better. If I don't want a gender filter I don't have to use it. Gender filtering isn't mandatory.

I do not understand what you're trying to say in your posts on this thread. Are you trying to say it's important to have gendered toy sections so that trans children can affirm their gender by shopping in a certain toy aisle? Because that's not how it works. Maybe an 8 year old transgender girl wants an LOL doll, or maybe she wants Hot Wheels. If I needed to buy a gift for her, I'd try to find out what she liked, before assuming "girl" stuff was the correct choice.

Are you saying toys need to be filtered by gender for your shopping convenience? If you're buying toys for children you know, can't you search by their interests instead?

[WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?]

1 hour ago, TSOWOATNK said:

Gender filters for toys are an exclusively online thing (I am unaware of brick and mortar stores that have a toy section labled boy toys versus girl, although there could be outside the PNW and my experience. My local Target certainly doesn't have aisles dedicated to specifically boys and girls). 

my bold

With regard to the sentence I bolded, it's only been 3 years since Target removed the signs in the toy aisle labelling "building sets" vs. "girls' builing sets". 

(I found this tweet in this article. I was looking for the sign, because I remembered a thing about Legos sets at Target. I only skimmed the article.)

Target didn't change the aisles, just the signs. (At least in my Target stores in the inland northwest.) The Barbies, Polly Pocket sets, and Disney Princess toys are still all in an aisle together. The Transformers, Hot Wheels, and action figures are still together. Even without the "boy" and "girl" signs, it's not hard to find a toy. If online shopping were filtered by the type of toy (dolls, Paw Patrol, Barbie, Star Wars) it could be just as functional as labelling by gender.

You've mentioned transgender children more than once. I hope you understand that gender is better described as a spectrum than as a binary, only 2 choices concept. I don't know your background or experience, and you don't know mine, but I do know that my transgender family members have stretched my understanding of gender identity. I've also seen how hard it is for them to deal with other people's ideas about gender expression.

1 hour ago, TSOWOATNK said:

Interestingly, ftm children don't really have this issue regarding toys or clothes. 

I don't know about statistics, but that hasn't been the case in my experience. It may be more subtle, but my trans sibling got a lot of flack for dressing "too masculine" at every age, and was always aggressively complimented when he wore a dress, heels, or other "feminine" attire. I really need to apologize to him for asking him to wear a dress and heels when he was an attendant in my wedding. My only defense is that I didn't understand at that time how much I was hurting him.

He was also strongly encouraged to play a "feminine" instrument, take "feminine" electives in school, and play with dolls. This was back a few decades, but I still see some of this type of cultural pressure with grade school kids currently. 

[nelliebelle1197]

On 12/16/2018 at 7:38 AM, Augustus said:

My son wears pink pjs, i pick out sparkley clothes for him(girl section) because is a toddler and doesn't care/likes sparkles. I think that people who get bothered and think that it "sacred" are too uncomfortable with the idea that gender is something that we as humans have constructed. But it is, and maybe my son will hate wearing pink and pick out all the camo when he is a little older. But in my home, and in a lot of homes now, my husband and I are comfortable with all the different ways he could express himself. 

My son carried a purse and wore nail polish in kindergarten. He carried dinosaurs and dirty rocks in his purse. His preschool teacher told him at three that he could not play in the toy kitchen because it was for girls. It was one of the reasons she got fired. He is still a sweet, sensitive boy at 11, but he is likely straight and cis (truth time: I would be the best mom to a gay boy ever. I had some secret hopes but alas, he is straight).

My eight year old daughter has totally reject the pink and doll nonsense. She wants to code and roller skate. She has had crushes on girls and boys. Right now the love of her life is a YouTuber named Denis who is the most annoying Canadian in the world.

Kids are kids. Let them be.

9 hours ago, Lisafer said:

I do not understand what you're trying to say in your posts on this thread.

Lisa, I think this is the entire problem. This poster is arguing a point she does not have fully articulated. It's a feeling, not a logical argument. Therefore, it is not cohesive and coherent for the rest of us.

[RidiculousFundies]

On 12/12/2018 at 8:51 PM, TSOWOATNK said:

Maybe I'm just old (I'm 40), but I like the boy/girl filters. I use them to divide the wall of pink from the wall of sports crap. My eldest is 17, and she preferred "boy" toys, so I often shopped in the boy section. I don't want to be doing a present search by age, and find a bunch of crap I know my kid won't be interested in to wade thru in order to get to what they do want. If I want to get soccer gear for my son who wants masculine colors, being able to filter out the girl's sizing/colors is helpful. If I want to get non-girly colors for my daughters, it is helpful to look under the boy filter too. I've used the girl filter to find a baby doll for my son that wanted a baby doll (it was this really cool doll that had a dinosaur pacifier). I also wear shoes from the little boys section of the shoe store. I'm a woman with tiny/wide feet, and little boy shoes fit me extremely well. 

I've never for one moment ever thought that those categories are meant to be strictly adhered to. Up to a certain age, I prefer to look at boy clothing because designers make more practical/warm clothing for boys than girls. I don't fault the stores for putting them in the boy section, I appreciate knowing it will have actual functional pockets, and thicker fabric because it is a boy versus girl item of clothing. If I need a jock strap for my son, or a bra for my daughter I go to the corresponding section of the store. That isn't be exclusionary, it is having those items in an easy to find place. Unlike stores that put the crackers in the bread aisle, or the cookie aisle, or the snack aisle depending upon the individual whim of the store. 

I know that the point is supposed to be inclusivity. Unfortunately, inclusivity just makes wading thru the marketplace of thousands upon thousands of goods arduous. It isn't like going to the now-defunct Toys r Us and going to the girl versus boy aisle. Using those filters properly can take my search from thousands of options to hundreds of options, and I appreciate that ability to filter.

 

 You absolutely NEVER utilize gendered categories in your life to narrow your search?

Personally I don't have the issue with the filters and boy/girl departments like toys and clothes.

The issue enters for me when society in general stereotypes children and even adults in the gender roles. My son again wanted a doll to cut its hair, apparently all kids go through a hair cutting phase and I got him a cheap doll with long hair. My daughter was in her pram and an older lady behind me commented how cute it was that I was buying my baby a doll. I told her it was for my son and I nearly caused her a heart attack. My daughter wears anything other than fucking ribbons and pompoms and headbands and people say oh what a cute boy. So I just nod and say yes he is beautiful. And as a woman, being made to be inferior in general, we aren't as strong, clever, capable. It just grinds me a lot and I will fight it to the death so that my kids don't grow up with blinkers on. My son feeds his teddies like babies because he sees me feed his sister. I encourage it so that one day he isn't an asshat who believes that child care is 'wimmins work'. 

It makes me ragey

On 12/15/2018 at 6:58 PM, Terrie said:

Thanks to polio, my great aunt had much better upper body strength than her husband. She did all the wood chopping. Perhaps we should have a polio and non-polio section of stores?

This so much. My husband had a lower back spinal fusion, and although he is back to normal, there are things that he can't do or things that he needs help with or he will damage the surgery. I'm thankful he doesn't have an ego too big to ask me to do it or ask to help him, because he knows I am capable. 

Also someone said that the gender issue doesn't affect girls that much. I agree, because with feminism, it's easier now to let a girl be girly but she needs to be strong and stand up for herself etc. 

But I'm worried about my son, because if a boy takes any interest in a doll or a 'girly' activity, he is 'wuss' or gay. And my son is sensitive, he cares, like a deep caring little boy. But he plays rugby and loves dirt and dinosaurs. But he is starting grade R this coming year and I'm nervous that if he shows that soft side, he will be bullied. It's not fair to boys.