Posted on 03/03/2013 6:04:59 AM PST by Kaslin
This past week an episode of Sesame Street set off a firestorm of debate over whether a boy muppet named Telly should be ashamed that his muppet friends caught him playing with dolls.
In one corner "traditionalists" who called out the episode as gender and sex confused. In the other "modern feminists" who were offended by almost everything the traditionalists said and believe.
In light of these op-eds and arguments I decided to do a bit of personal surveying for myself.
I popped the question to my bride and her best friend as the two couples were headed to Gramercy (in Manhattan) for dinner on Friday night.
"What do you think about boys playing with dolls?" I asked.
"If the dolls are laying around (belong to another child), then it's unlikely to bother me," one of them replied. "If they happen to pick it up, if they are at friend's homes that are girls then it's almost unavoidable."
"But would you ever buy a doll for your young son?" I followed up.
"NEVER!!!" came the reply.
The fervor with which they answered the second question intrigued me. In essence it boiled down to the reality that boys are boys, they are designed to do boy things, and grow from boys into men. Throwing feminine play into the mix delays, interrupts, or intrudes on the development of masculine identity.
In one article Caryn Rivadeneira, writing for Christianity Today, in her even more boldly titled piece, "God Made Boys To Play With Dolls," she argues that: "When we say baby dolls are for girls, that only girls should cuddle and coo dolls, we claim that babies are women's domains, that only mothers should rock and coo and play with their children."
Even though I disagree with her premise, I also disagree with her comparison, and the implied conclusion.
She is arguing that boys should play with dolls because men should become the primary or equal caregivers for newborns? Really?
In a world where abject fatherlessness already exists. In a world where that fatherlessness has single-handidly created the largest welfare state in American economic history. In a world where discernment and wisdom about appropriate sexual behavior is threatening the very well being of our children's future...
Do we really need to question whether or not women are--by nature--designed to be--better at nurturing children?
There is a fascination with the theological and political left in America to appear to have an absence of judgment against immorality, while simultaneously attempting to judge the theological and political right so as to win popularity with the culture, to appear to be intellectual, and to imply that God would love it all.
But to be candid, we are entering "stupid territory" now.
I even confessed to the girls last night that I imagine it won't be all that long into the future before someone writes an article for Christianity Today on the idea of allowing the man to carry the baby to term (since it appears to be medically possible) and that in some way some person will write an article defending it as the ultimate sign of feminist justice.
Meanwhile God sits and laughs at us.
Why? Because we are going to such great lengths to go the other way around the universe to arrive at a simple conclusion: "What's best for children?"
No God didn't make boys to play with dolls. God created boys to grow up and become strong men who would provide for their family and would protect them from the harmful elements of this life. That is the true core of manhood at it's most basic element.
But men that I know personally who excel in that, also generally tend to be some of the most tender-hearted fathers I've ever seen. Fathers whose children feel their love, appreciate their sacrifices, seek diligently to obey or to make them proud, and even desire to pass on a similar legacy when they become parents themselves.
Sometimes the modern feminist (someone who believes in "sameness" between men and women and NOT "equality") ties themselves into pretzel-like knots to argue something foolish to replace something traditional--almost always for no good reason.
In life children are a blessing. In training them to become responsible for their own behavior and consequences it is important to groom them with truth. And the truth is few boys who ever became great fathers ever "played with dolls."
Taking responsibility for your future, owning your actions and behaviors, understanding the choices you make in this life will affect those you love, and preparing them to be ready for it, is what our young men most need to learn.
Miraculously... Having affection for their flesh and blood, learning to be tender with them when they are little and can't sleep, and loving them with all their heart comes much more instinctually to fathers than most feminists would like to believe.
And I should know...
That humility, affection, tenderness and love grew deeper with all three of my sons, and I never played with dolls.
The main way to keep little children from becoming homosexuals is to make darn sure they don’t get molested as children. That is a very common denominator.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
One important factor is to protect the natural modesty of children.
The sex education courses that now start in kindergarten in our nation’s godless and socialist-entitlement K-12 schools destroy this natural modesty.
Also....Our nation’s godless and socialist-entitlement K-12 schools are well on their way to being fully taken over by homosexuals.
Stop STALKING ME
Learn the words to some other songs.
I have actually heard gubmint lawyers talking about 6 year old kids “perping” on one another and I have said “ridiculous”, kids don’t even think that way. Of course it was an overweight, never married, no children whacked out liberal gubmint lawyer.
With a body like that G.I. Joe better be giving her some action.
GI Joe is great for tying to firecrackers, blasting into space with slingshots or CO2 rockets, or dragging behind your bicycle.
action figures are emulating positive male role models.
dolls emmulate female behavior.
there is no “q***r” eye for the fashion guy dolls for actual play for little boys for a REASON.
a doll is barbie and though GI Joe can be called a doll it certainly is not a girlie thing.
Letting boys play with their girlie crap is the same as raising a future homosexual and then some wonder why some boys today are little sissies who have never had a fight in their lives.
BTW, Yes I have boys and girls, my boys would never go near some girlie toys like easy bake ovens and then play with the girls.
that is stupid
EXACTLY
Dolls are Barbies etc, Gi Joes are action figures designed to fight.
I remember one woman telling me how boys can be born future homosexuals, yes she was trying to tell me at that point that boys will grow up to like having sex with feces.
ARRGGHH
I asked her if the boy she knows plays with these dolls because he wants to and doe she ask his other for them.
She replied no the mother actualy goes out and buys them fro her son, yes buying barbies for her son and then encourages her son to play with dolls, easy bake ovens etc and stops her son from playing wiht anything like soldiers or getting dirty.
It’s like the boys which go riding on their bicycle today with knee pads, helmets etc and even worse a grown girle man riding with a helmet on,
however did he get through childhood back then with no helmet ARF
“But would you ever buy a toy gun for your daughter?” I followed up.
“NEVER!!!” came the reply.
The fervor with which they answered the second question intrigued me.
stupid, what is stupid about ?
as another freeper said, Barbies are dolls which are girlie dolls which are the slim, dress up with skirts etc, GI Joes are action figures which have a soldier fighting look.
You claim one freeper never raised kids and now I told you I have then you now say I;m stupid,
think about that and how many times you are on this thread making your point of view.,mmmmm
What makes you think He's laughing?
Hence the term, "Action Figure".
When I was little and didn’t have my toy guns with me, a Barbie Doll bent at 90 degrees and gripped by the legs made a pretty good substitute. Is that what they mean by “playing with dolls?”
“6 year old kids “perping” on one another and I have said “ridiculous”, kids don’t even think that way.”
I know a former child welfare investigator. This does happen, in children much younger than 6.
IMHO, it is filled with true premises and countercultural wisdom. God created them male and female and wired us VERY differently. Equal, yes, with our own separate dignity, but in no way the "same" which is the agenda behind boys playing with dolls.
Ask yourself, why did the women react so negatively to the idea of buying "dolls" (i.e. Barbie/Ken not GI Joe or other action figures) for their sons? I think it has much relavance to this article ...
Parents of transgender first-grader file discrimination complaint. From the article ...
Coy was born with male sex organs but has identified as female since she could express herself, her mother said.
Uh huh. I'm sure that Coy was given plenty of opportunity to express himself with all types of liberal nonsense that he figured out how to manipulate Mom using her confusion.
Transgender children experience a disconnect between their sex, which is based on their anatomy, and their gender, which includes behaviors, roles and activities, experts say.
Good God. Who are these supposed "experts". There is no such thing as a "transgender"! And there is no difference between sex, which is stamped upon our anatomy by God our Creator, and gender, which is a creation of ignorant liberal anti-God and anti-Creation minds.
This is all a part of the LGBT movement and these rabid activists seek to impose their "re-education" on you and your children if they aren't opposed ...
Attorney Michael Silverman of the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund, which is representing Coy, said the complaint -- which was filed with the Colorado Civil Rights Division -- is intended to have an impact beyond a single family or school. "The world is going to be looking at the school," he said, which can "send a message to the world and teach tolerance, fair play and equal rights."
Why is it stupid?
You either think males and females have a fundamental wiring difference or you don’t. It comes back to the nature versus nurture argument.
There is no doubt that it is not ALL nature or ALL nurture. But there is no doubt about it at either end of the spectrum.
Just as people like me are inclined to think nature will largely take its course if un-interfered with by the nurture crowd, I also do not discount the effect that the meddling that our society has undertaken to feminize males has had in the last 40 years.
But I also recognize that some men still become men despite that infernal meddling.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.