Support NeoGAF

[stufte]

It's a safe bet most of those boys are packed up with Lego at home and the girls aren't, seems like a well-intentioned but ultimately misguided attempt to address that imbalance and the teacher has my support.

Even if that assumption were even remotely true, it doesn't at all excuse the method.

"Hey little boy, you don't get to play with lego today because of my personal political agenda."

 

[Kama_1082]

It's a safe bet most of those boys are packed up with Lego at home and the girls aren't, seems like a well-intentioned but ultimately misguided attempt to address that imbalance and the teacher has my support.

Any proof of that?

 

[Heavy_D206]

Group A = Here have some legos to play with

Group B = NO LEGOS FOR YOU!


That is a terrible way to teach Children. That is probably how they taught during the days of segregation.

 

[Fusebox]

Would you have problem with there being enough Lego for all the children to play with and learn from? Or are you actually in favor of promoting sexist education?

Of course not, but I'm a realist and I know kindergartens have tiny budgets and can't just fund Lego for the whole school. Most of the stuff at my daughters kindy is donated and when it's playtime the boys charge and take all the interesting toys first.

 

[stufte]

Of course not, but I'm a realist and I know kindergartens have tiny budgets and can't just fund Lego for the whole school. Most of the stuff at my daughters kindy is donated and when it's playtime the boys charge and take all the interesting toys first.

That's not the boys fault, it sounds like it's more of a problem in the teacher not reinforcing basic sharing.

 

[cyberheater]

She should be fired.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Wow, Legos are now involved in gender issues. Ok then.

Now involved? Lego has been a major example since the 80s.

Prior to the 80s-90s Lego was marketed to both girls and boys. When the 80s hit it became only for boys. All the marketing, all thecsets, everything.

 

[Agent Icebeezy]

All three of my daughters played with legos growing up. They play video games too. *pats on back*

 

[Oersted]

The OP article does not mention that but it makes it...somewhat better, maybe?

The article in the OP gained traction due to typical Reddit outrage. Reddit means outdated. It is based on this article

http://www.bainbridgereview.com/news/343127562.html

It was published on October 30th.

The same outlet published a followup to this article
on November 19th, declaring the practice stopped in October

http://www.bainbridgereview.com/lifestyle/351888341.html

On November 24th, the outdated story caught traction on Reddit.

 

[jond76]

Sounds like she is pissed that when the kids are given the choice during "free play" time, the little girls and boys play with what they like, and not what she thinks they should like. She shouldn't be teaching.

I find it funny that she said it was "free play" then goes on to state that she's deciding for them. Dumbass.

 

[SilentRacoon]

It's a safe bet most of those boys are packed up with Lego at home and the girls aren't, seems like a well-intentioned but ultimately misguided attempt to address that imbalance and the teacher has my support.

Everyone knows the root problem stems from parents doing just what the teacher is trying to enforce with the kids, denying them the chance to decide for themselves, her method is to block boys from playing with the legos in an attempt to make girls feel more enticed to play with them, it's fucking dumb, gender segregation only helps perpetrate the issue.

 

[SmackAttack]

because boys were flocking to the colorful blocks during their “free choice” playtime, while girls tended to play with dolls or crayons

So the kids decided what they wanted to play with on their own and she decided it wasn't what she wanted? That's not right at all. Who cares if boys want to play with Lego and girls want to play with dolls? If it's what they want then let them do it.

Also, what's wrong with crayons?

 

[Henkka]

Boys need the handicap.

Look at our patriarchy. What don't you understand? In order for the world to actually have gender equality, us men have to voluntarily take a hit in certain places. We'll live.



I do, however, agree with this for the most part. Poor execution.

What a stupid post. You get equality by empowering girls, not by handicapping young boys who have nothing to do with the "patriarchy".

 

[HoodWinked]

she wont get fired despite being a complete moron. why would you boast to a local paper that you're doing something so ridiculous. let me perform my grand social experiment on kids unknowingly awesome teacher.

 

[Not]

I know you guys are all mostly men and that's the core emotional reason you feel slighted by this story, despite the attempts at empirical logic and rational objective reasoning.

That said, I also know what this teacher did is an overreaction. It'd be like seeing the pink and purple girls aisle in a toys r us, with the brooms and the ovens and makeup and shit, and banning boys from the store because of it.

Yeah, I think this is one of the cases where one should just let girls have equal time, not more time. That said, you guys KNOW men need a handicap, right? You understand that equality will never be a reality if we don't voluntarily sacrifice our own overwhelming dominance in certain instances, right?

I guess what I'm saying is don't let this one teacher's misjudgement color your perception of the whole issue going forward.

 

[stufte]

I know you guys are all mostly men and that's the core emotional reason you feel slighted by this story, despite the attempts at empirical logic and rational objective reasoning.

That said, I also know what this teacher did is an overreaction. It'd be like seeing the pink and purple girls aisle in a toys r us, with the brooms and the ovens and makeup and shit, and banning boys from the store because of it.

Yeah, I think this is one of the cases where one should just let girls have equal time, not more time. That said, you guys KNOW men need a handicap, right? You understand that equality will never be a reality if we don't voluntarily sacrifice our own overwhelming dominance in certain instances, right?

I guess what I'm saying is don't let this one teacher's misjudgement color your perception of the whole issue going forward.

I'd rather continue to teach my daughters to stand up for themselves and that they can be whatever they want, not that boys and men deserve to be shat upon under the guise of equality.

 

[TatteredHat]

I know you guys are all mostly men and that's the core emotional reason you feel slighted by this story, despite the attempts at empirical logic and rational objective reasoning.

That said, I also know what this teacher did is an overreaction. It'd be like seeing the pink and purple girls aisle in a toys r us, with the brooms and the ovens and makeup and shit, and banning boys from the store because of it.

Yeah, I think this is one of the cases where one should just let girls have equal time, not more time. That said, you guys KNOW men need a handicap, right? You understand that equality will never be a reality if we don't voluntarily sacrifice our own overwhelming dominance in certain instances, right?

I guess what I'm saying is don't let this one teacher's misjudgement color your perception of the whole issue going forward.

Behold, the pendulum of progression.

 

[Not]

What a stupid post. You get equality by empowering girls, not by handicapping young boys who have nothing to do with the "patriarchy".

Do you know what equality means? In order to "empower" girls, you're going to have to remove some of boys' lopsided current power-- even if they're too "young" and innocent or whatever to understand why.

Thanks for calling what I wrote stupid. That'll surely make me more likely to listen to and respect your views and personal ideals going forward.

 

[888]

I'd rather continue to teach my daughters to stand up for themselves and that they can be whatever they want, not that boys and men deserve to be shat upon under the guise of equality.

I agree with this.

I have one of each. My 8 year old is all boy but my little two year old girl is all about having bows in her hair and shoes she loves. But I will tell you what. She also loves Legos and Ninja Turtles like they are going out of style. I don't see the need to force things on or away from certain genders. Just let them choose what they want to play with.

My daughter has a bunch of stuffed animals and she holds them and talks to them. Puts diapers on them. But what I see is her learning to be affectionate and nurturing. Why would I not want that? But at the same time she will do the same with a Ninja Turtle or drive around a car while making car sounds etc.

 

[cpp_is_king]

Do you know what equality means? In order to "empower" girls, you're going to have to remove some of boys' lopsided current power-- even if they're too "young" and innocent or whatever to understand why.

Suppose you've got mathematical functions A and B, with different values and perhaps different slopes. Let's say B (men) have a higher value, and A is not increasing very quickly. So at the current rate, they will never (or not for a very long time) be equal.

To achieve equality, you do not need to decrease the rate of B, you only need to increase the rate of A relative to B. B is perfectly fine to continue along doing exactly what it's doing.

 

[Malvolio]

Do you know what equality means? In order to "empower" girls, you're going to have to remove some of boys' lopsided current power-- even if they're too "young" and innocent or whatever to understand why.

Thanks for calling what I wrote stupid. That'll surely make me more likely to listen to and respect your views and personal ideals going forward.

You're opening paragraph wasn't exactly conducive to mature debate. It's probably best not to assume motives if you are actually open to a rational discussion.

 

[ExVicis]

The article in the OP gained traction due to typical Reddit outrage. Reddit means outdated. It is based on this article

http://www.bainbridgereview.com/news/343127562.html

It was published on October 30th.

The same outlet published a followup to this article
on November 19th, declaring the practice stopped in October

http://www.bainbridgereview.com/lifestyle/351888341.html

On November 24th, the outdated story caught traction on Reddit.

Fair, had I know I would still be upset but maybe I'd feel less vitriol for the teacher. Would have been nice to have that in the OP though instead of half the story.

I know you guys are all mostly men and that's the core emotional reason you feel slighted by this story, despite the attempts at empirical logic and rational objective reasoning.

That said, I also know what this teacher did is an overreaction. It'd be like seeing the pink and purple girls aisle in a toys r us, with the brooms and the ovens and makeup and shit, and banning boys from the store because of it.

Yeah, I think this is one of the cases where one should just let girls have equal time, not more time. That said, you guys KNOW men need a handicap, right? You understand that equality will never be a reality if we don't voluntarily sacrifice our own overwhelming dominance in certain instances, right?

I guess what I'm saying is don't let this one teacher's misjudgement color your perception of the whole issue going forward.

Do we need to have this "voluntary sacrifice" go all the way down to children? Won't that create more problems now starting from childhood? Especially if we're giving one preferential treatment over the others they're definately going to notice and that's going to influence their view of gender, maybe even for worse/

 

[peteykirch]

I remember in the 80s Lego had this one advertisement.

They didn't need to pander to girls with pink and purple lego like they do now, and how this teacher attempted to resolve the situation.

 

[DarkKyo]

Do you know what equality means? In order to "empower" girls, you're going to have to remove some of boys' lopsided current power-- even if they're too "young" and innocent or whatever to understand why.

Lol... I'm not sure how to even respond to this.

Yes, let's slow all of humanity so girls can catch up.

 

[SmackAttack]

I know you guys are all mostly men and that's the core emotional reason you feel slighted by this story, despite the attempts at empirical logic and rational objective reasoning.

That said, I also know what this teacher did is an overreaction. It'd be like seeing the pink and purple girls aisle in a toys r us, with the brooms and the ovens and makeup and shit, and banning boys from the store because of it.

Yeah, I think this is one of the cases where one should just let girls have equal time, not more time. That said, you guys KNOW men need a handicap, right? You understand that equality will never be a reality if we don't voluntarily sacrifice our own overwhelming dominance in certain instances, right?

I guess what I'm saying is don't let this one teacher's misjudgement color your perception of the whole issue going forward.

Boy and men do not need a handicap. Like stufte said, girls need to be empowered and you can absolutely do that without taking something away from boys. What I'm seeing here is that this teacher decided that what they kids THEMSELVES wanted to do wasn't what she wanted them to do and decided to take control of the non-situation and make it one by taking something away from the boys. Let kids decide what they want for themselves and let that be that.

 

[cyberheater]

Also the plural of Lego is Lego. Come on OP.

 

[Zornack]

I know you guys are all mostly men and that's the core emotional reason you feel slighted by this story, despite the attempts at empirical logic and rational objective reasoning.

That said, I also know what this teacher did is an overreaction. It'd be like seeing the pink and purple girls aisle in a toys r us, with the brooms and the ovens and makeup and shit, and banning boys from the store because of it.

Yeah, I think this is one of the cases where one should just let girls have equal time, not more time. That said, you guys KNOW men need a handicap, right? You understand that equality will never be a reality if we don't voluntarily sacrifice our own overwhelming dominance in certain instances, right?

I guess what I'm saying is don't let this one teacher's misjudgement color your perception of the whole issue going forward.

Boys are being left behind in education. They need assistance, not handicaps.

 

[Henkka]

Do you know what equality means? In order to "empower" girls, you're going to have to remove some of boys' lopsided current power-- even if they're too "young" and innocent or whatever to understand why.

Thanks for calling what I wrote stupid. That'll surely make me more likely to listen to and respect your views and personal ideals going forward.

Right, as if you've never, ever used similar language to describe something you disagreed with. Spare me. It's not as if you've presented a cogent argument... You've mostly just begged the question with your posts so far.

 

[Azih]

Not: Academically boys are at a disadvantage to girls. The power imbalance of rich men in the corporate sector does not extend to young boys in early school.

 

[Scrooged]

Do you know what equality means? In order to "empower" girls, you're going to have to remove some of boys' lopsided current power-- even if they're too "young" and innocent or whatever to understand why.

Thanks for calling what I wrote stupid. That'll surely make me more likely to listen to and respect your views and personal ideals going forward.

You're advocating sexism against boys in order to be progressive. It's a patently ridiculous claim. And this is about kids toys for crying out loud. They are happy playing with what they want. It is not up to teachers to be pushing this shit on people's kids.

 

[DeaviL]

It's stupid to say men need a handicap, regardless you're getting your way after all.

 

[kswiston]

If we are talking about elementary school, it already favours girls.

 

[SilentRacoon]

Do you know what equality means? In order to "empower" girls, you're going to have to remove some of boys' lopsided current power-- even if they're too "young" and innocent or whatever to understand why.

Thanks for calling what I wrote stupid. That'll surely make me more likely to listen to and respect your views and personal ideals going forward.

Really? What lopsided current power are you referring to in this particular scenario? They are kindergarten toddlers, they are given a free choice play time and that only changed the moment this moron started blocking the kids from playing with certain toys.

 

[Griss]

Do you know what equality means? In order to "empower" girls, you're going to have to remove some of boys' lopsided current power-- even if they're too "young" and innocent or whatever to understand why.

Thanks for calling what I wrote stupid. That'll surely make me more likely to listen to and respect your views and personal ideals going forward.

I'm praying you're a troll, I really am.

The answer to inequality is to give the disenfranchised or disadvantaged group the same opportunities as the advantaged group. It's not to take good, beneficial experiences away from the advantaged group. Which goes double when the group in question is innocent children.

And what's funny is that when it comes to education, boys are the disadvantaged group. But fuck it, sins of the father and all that, no lego for you.

 

[Not]

Suppose you've got mathematical functions A and B, with different values and perhaps different slopes. Let's say B (men) have a higher value, and A is not increasing very quickly. So at the current rate, they will never (or not for a very long time) be equal.

To achieve equality, you do not need to decrease the rate of B, you only need to increase the rate of A relative to B. B is perfectly fine to continue along doing exactly what it's doing.

Interesting. So you think applied gender equality in this sense isn't a pie graph? That we all we need to do is increase women's opportunities and cease increasing the rate of opportunities for men?

If that is truly how it works, I don't have a problem with it. But you still need to deal with men complaining they no longer have as many opportunities as girls.

EDIT: Wow, it's going to take me a while to respond to all of these. Hopefully I don't get banned first, if it turns out my not-well-thought-out "you're all men so of course you're angry" bullshit stepped over the line too hard.

 

[888]

If we are talking about elementary school, it already favours girls.

Yeah I was always behind the girls in education at those ages.

Hell I even see it with my children. My daughter now two is leaps ahead of where my son was at two.

 

[God Dayumm]

I know you guys are all mostly men and that's the core emotional reason you feel slighted by this story, despite the attempts at empirical logic and rational objective reasoning.

That said, I also know what this teacher did is an overreaction. It'd be like seeing the pink and purple girls aisle in a toys r us, with the brooms and the ovens and makeup and shit, and banning boys from the store because of it.

Yeah, I think this is one of the cases where one should just let girls have equal time, not more time. That said, you guys KNOW men need a handicap, right? You understand that equality will never be a reality if we don't voluntarily sacrifice our own overwhelming dominance in certain instances, right?

I guess what I'm saying is don't let this one teacher's misjudgement color your perception of the whole issue going forward.

Equality is not about handicapping anyone. Otherwise who would be dumb enough to support such thing? What incentive is there?

 

[entremet]

Interesting. So you think applied gender equality in this sense isn't a pie graph? That we all we need to do is increase women's opportunities and cease increasing the rate of opportunities for men?

If that is truly how it works, I don't have a problem with it. But you still need to deal with men complaining they no longer have as many opportunities as girls.

EDIT: Wow, it's going to take me a while to respond to all of these. Hopefully I don't get banned first, if it turns out my not-well-thought-out "you're all men so of course you're angry" bullshit stepped over the line too hard.

That's a terrible way to look things. It also only creates bitterness from one side.

 

[BobbyRobby]

Not, who taught you that young boys have to be handicapped? Is this from academic gender studies or online feminist blogs?

Maybe this case and reactions to it are a sign that gender tribalism is getting a bit out of hand.

 

[Averon]

Sorry, but I'm not going to sit back and retard the growth of my son's educational development over some need to fight the patriarchy. You get equality by opening up opportunities for girls, not take things away from boys. And if it is true that boys are already falling behind in education, having sexist education is the last damn thing we need.

 

[cpp_is_king]

Interesting. So you think applied gender equality in this sense isn't a pie graph? That we all we need to do is increase women's opportunities and cease increasing the rate of opportunities for men?

If that is truly how it works, I don't have a problem with it. But you still need to deal with men complaining they no longer have as many opportunities as girls.

Certainly it takes longer that way, but I don't think the goal is (or should be) to minimize the amount of time in which equality is achieved, all else be damned.

I honestly don't even think pure equality is ever achievable. There are biological factors involved too. That girls gravitate towards "girly things" and boys toward "boyish things" is a universal trait that transcends cultural and geographic boundaries.

But I do think there are lots of girls who feel left out of or excluded from the things they are interested in, or pushed towards a certain category of things and never even realize they were interested in other things.

If we approach with the goal of just giving everyone equal opportunity to achieve their natural, inherent interests and talents, instead of with the goal of meeting some arbitrary equality metric that can be measured with a statistic, I think the end result will be much better.

I've always disagreed with the premise that the goal should be "Get more women into STEM". I think the goal should be "Make STEM more accessible to women".

 

[RDreamer]

Yeah, I think this is one of the cases where one should just let girls have equal time, not more time. That said, you guys KNOW men need a handicap, right? You understand that equality will never be a reality if we don't voluntarily sacrifice our own overwhelming dominance in certain instances, right?

Except when it comes to academics women are starting to get a big advantage very fast. The thing about the effects of patriarchy is that it pushed men into tough physical labor type positions, and those jobs are going away quickly. Girls are now more suited to both schooling and then what comes after schooling. There are currently way more girls in college (I believe the ratio is nearly 60/40), and girls graduate high school at a much higher percentage (72% to 65%).

Yes, women are still behind in pay and in getting those large CEO type positions, but I'm pretty sure given these academic numbers they'll be there pretty quickly.

So with that in mind the answer really isn't to take an activity that's smart and analytical away from the boys in favor of the girls. Both should have a lot of access to those types of toys all the time.

 

[Kimawolf]

I know you guys are all mostly men and that's the core emotional reason you feel slighted by this story, despite the attempts at empirical logic and rational objective reasoning.

That said, I also know what this teacher did is an overreaction. It'd be like seeing the pink and purple girls aisle in a toys r us, with the brooms and the ovens and makeup and shit, and banning boys from the store because of it.

Yeah, I think this is one of the cases where one should just let girls have equal time, not more time. That said, you guys KNOW men need a handicap, right? You understand that equality will never be a reality if we don't voluntarily sacrifice our own overwhelming dominance in certain instances, right?

I guess what I'm saying is don't let this one teacher's misjudgement color your perception of the whole issue going forward.

No way are you serious. This is definitely a troll effort. A horrible one. If you believe this truly then you need to reassess your life.

 

[bonesmccoy]

Also the plural of Lego is Lego. Come on OP.

Thank you.

 

[TheOMan]

I know you guys are all mostly men and that's the core emotional reason you feel slighted by this story, despite the attempts at empirical logic and rational objective reasoning.

That said, I also know what this teacher did is an overreaction. It'd be like seeing the pink and purple girls aisle in a toys r us, with the brooms and the ovens and makeup and shit, and banning boys from the store because of it.

Yeah, I think this is one of the cases where one should just let girls have equal time, not more time. That said, you guys KNOW men need a handicap, right? You understand that equality will never be a reality if we don't voluntarily sacrifice our own overwhelming dominance in certain instances, right?

I guess what I'm saying is don't let this one teacher's misjudgement color your perception of the whole issue going forward.

Genuinely can't tell if trolling or not...if you are, bravo. If you aren't...

Edit: I see this has already been addressed, sorry didn't mean to pile on.

 

[Not]

I'd rather continue to teach my daughters to stand up for themselves and that they can be whatever they want, not that boys and men deserve to be shat upon under the guise of equality.

It's my belief that that's not enough. If you're truly invested in gender equality in the future, you need to make an effort to go out and change out current culture rather than just raising women to be autonomous and "empowered," even though that's to be commended.

You're opening paragraph wasn't exactly conducive to mature debate. It's probably best not to assume motives if you are actually open to a rational discussion.

Yes. Definitely. (Not being sarcastic). I don't know why it's my style to just want to cut through what I view as "the bullshit" and address the chief problem beneath all the layers of semantics and repeated arguments that we all probably agree about.

It seems that just won't fly with most people.

Do we need to have this "voluntary sacrifice" go all the way down to children? Won't that create more problems now starting from childhood? Especially if we're giving one preferential treatment over the others they're definately going to notice and that's going to influence their view of gender, maybe even for worse/

Yes, perhaps, but I guess what I should've said is I'm not upset about limiting opportunities for boys as much as I am about limiting them for girls. I'm definitely more into supporting girls rather than actively discouraging boys, even though the reverse has largely been the standard for the last few thousand years.That said, there is a finite amount of opportunities in the world, not an infinite resource, so one can't be upset if things aren't how they were for boys in the past.

Lol... I'm not sure how to even respond to this.

Yes, let's slow all of humanity so girls can catch up.

That's pretty inaccurate summary of what I've been saying if I understand this comment correctly. Since when do boys = "all of humanity?"

Boy and men do not need a handicap. Like stufte said, girls need to be empowered and you can absolutely do that without taking something away from boys. What I'm seeing here is that this teacher decided that what they kids THEMSELVES wanted to do wasn't what she wanted them to do and decided to take control of the non-situation and make it one by taking something away from the boys. Let kids decide what they want for themselves and let that be that.

Again, I'm all for that, up to the point where idealism becomes ignorance towards the current actual situation of gender inequality.

Boys are being left behind in education. They need assistance, not handicaps.

Yeah, and I think a lot of people might take what I wrote to mean I don't fully understand that boys are having trouble in school right now when compared to girls. But those boys are still growing up to a world where they're paid more, allowed to do whatever they want with their bodies, and become marginalized in several areas, especially globally.
I don't want to stop supporting human beings. I'm just saying that some girls work twice as hard for half as much payoff after their education.

Right, as if you've never, ever used similar language to describe something you disagreed with. Spare me. It's not as if you've presented a cogent argument... You've mostly just begged the question with your posts so far.

OK, this post is just you excusing and justifying your own vitriol by presuming things about the way I debate outside of this thread and criticizing my (obviously) flawed writing techniques, rather than giving me measured reasons for why I should think the way you do. I've misused the term "ad hominem" in the past, but I think(?) that's close to what your posts amount to.

You're advocating sexism against boys in order to be progressive. It's a patently ridiculous claim. And this is about kids toys for crying out loud. They are happy playing with what they want. It is not up to teachers to be pushing this shit on people's kids.

No, I'm not advocating sexism against boys. My statement was apparently too broad. That's my debate style, flawed as it may be-- to enter with a grand sweeping generalized statement, and then whittle it down to the finer points. It's clear I should've added a caveat in my initial remarks beyond me saying I ultimately disagreed with the teacher's methods.

Really? What lopsided current power are you referring to in this particular scenario? They are kindergarten toddlers, they are given a free choice play time and that only changed the moment this moron started blocking the kids from playing with certain toys.

I'm not referring to only "kindergarten toddlers." I already chastised the teacher earlier in this thread, and clarified my beliefs in regard to overreacting about toys and child's play in general. I'm talking about all males currently alive on the planet.

*And this might be really dumb and reductionistic but it's the first response that came to mind and I want to try it out so bear with me:*

Every single Gamergate dude was once a kindergarten toddler. Somehow they ended up with the idea that women were less than human. It's possible, maybe even probable, that that belief originated somewhere in childhood. Whether that's mostly the fault of the education system, parenting, or some other factor is definitely something we should focus on and figure out.

 

[stufte]

It's my belief that that's not enough. If you're truly invested in gender equality in the future, you need to make an effort to go out and change out current culture rather than just raising women to be autonomous and "empowered," even though that's to be commended.

My almost 14 years of experience in raising girls says your belief is wrong.

 

[GorillaJu]

She doesn't get it at all. She's like a GAF poster in real life.

Really?

...

Really?

 

[Deleted member 17706]

You gotta be kidding me, Im sorry but if she was teaching my son and I read this I would have very unpleasant words with her.

Yeah, she needs to be fired and never allowed to teach again.

Kindergarten kids... and she already has such vile thoughts for them.

It's my belief that that's not enough. If you're truly invested in gender equality in the future, you need to make an effort to go out and change out current culture rather than just raising women to be autonomous and "empowered," even though that's to be commended.

You're seriously saying that other people need to be shit on or taken down a peg for proper equality to happen? Fuck your version of gender equality if that's the case.

 

[TwEE-N-Toast]

Really?

...

Really?

Things have gotten too meta.