Manufacturers and retailers produce and sell only what people wish to buy. Unlike people who have no experience of real life – those who base everything they ‘believe’ on equally unworldly and politically motivated brainwashing by university lecturers – the business community actually has to satisfy and serve people to make a living; they cannot sit back, splendidly isolated, in usually tax payer provided, ivory towers.

That’s why shops are laid out in boy and girl aisles. Unlike the author, they cannot just sit back and try to dictate what their customers should want. The customer is always right.

Those-who-know-what’s-best-for-the-rest of us also overlook instinct. Most males and females are born with male or female instincts, and there is nothing these social engineers can do about that, even though Ms. Crozier tried an engineering experiment on her own boys with a doll’s house. And, of course the boys ‘nasty’ dolls went to bed in the dolls house which their loved mum made for them: he-men and boys have to go to bed sometime, too.

What a grand experiment to base Ms. Crozier’s gender beliefs on! She doesn’t continue with her findings on the effects of her experiment on the boys.

The one with the little girl and the toaster, and the assumed “assumption” of “someone” is unbelievable.

When kids are forming their likes and dislikes, they have not heard of ‘gender bias’, ‘gender discrimination’, ‘women’s studies’ and so forth. It’s all about how they feel and want the want. Most of them end with what the want -except for the never-satisfied minority of both sexes

He Man and Skeletor had a "doll's house" playset called Castle Greyskull (figures sold separately LOL) my little brother had all the bits and bobs and what he didn't have he improvised out of Lego.
I have two daughters, no sons, my wife is a practical woman who is much at ease with Autocad as she is with a curling iron and I'm a tradesman so we're not Ken and Barbie. What have our little princesses wanted for Christmas every year since they were about ten? Makeup,clothes, skin and hair care products, expensive stationery and spending money.

if genders are not different why has the education system been dumbed down in order for boys to do badly and girls to do well?

Judy get out of the city the university, & away from the chattering classes, & try some observation. It really does work better than chatter at intellectual dinner parties.

I don't provide different toys to my colts or fillies. They all run in the same paddock for some time, until they quite naturally start to display their male & female characteristics. It is only at this time they are separated.

The colts don't even have a stallion as a role model, something I'm sure your chatterers would almost demand for boys, but their hormones do the job, just as ours do.

Amazingly, the same goes for my cows & bulls, even the nanny & Billy goats I had for a while.

It really is a pity that more humans are not too busy earning their living to have time for such idle garbage.

So the National Breast Cancer Federation is sexist? Pink logo, pink everywhere. Even on cricket stumps to fund raise.

No problem, easy solution, just turn the millions over for the presently vastly under-funded research into cancers affecting men. Pink cheques are fine.

Problem solved.

Ahem, now what about that purple, white and green 'iconic' colours of the women's movement? White is never right according to the left feminists. Or should that be white is always 'Right' (and hated white men), and wrong (so obviously!)?

Purple and green stand out as colours so often preferred by girls and women. Forgetting that though, weren't the big knobs of women's movement being sexist themselves, choosing purple and green?

Come to think of it, the Women's Electoral Lobby and radical feminists, especially the lesbian feminists, go ape over purple.

http://radfemspeak.net/the-fury/aust-radfems.html

Re that site, the symbolism of purple lilies is something else. Purple vaginas. You go, Grrls! LOL

Hey, why wasn't purple mentioned and what should be done about that blatant sexism? Green too, hear the hissing feminists saying that green is ours, iconic even?

What was that again about people who live in glass houses?

But honestly, what red-blooded man cares about colour? Take a man and a woman to choose a car and the guy is immediately fixated on mechanical stuff while the women is instantly transfixed by the colour choices. Only women can distinguish umpteen colours of red. Fashion. I never thought of it but I guess they can see different hues of pink, purple and green too.

Preferences differing, interesting but who cares, just rejoice, "Vive la difference!".

"Judy Crozier began as a baby journalist with the Melbourne Times!"

That must've created quite a stir among the other journalists, eh? Did they change her nappies?

Seriously though, humans receive non-stop conditioning from the moment they are born. They learn that to imitate brings them kisses and hugs and to rebel is to end up in a naughty corner or with a smack, or both.

The extent of human conditioning is shown by the almost universal acceptance of war and greed, both of which all too often combine and make a handful of folk very, very rich.

The impact of the endless conditioning and the sterility of our educational institutions is reflected in our complete inability to question. When was the last time you sat down and asked yourself: who am I and what am I doing with my sheeple-like life? Is being a consumer all I am good for?

What other skills and abilities do I have? Is living in 'Boxes without Topses' with others who mow the lawn every Saturday what I was born for?

Seven billion creatures of habit is what we are.

We deserve our empty, carbon-copy lives!

You have choices. Self limiting behaviour affects many. Whose rut is it? It is not all the fault of dad&mum and 'society'.

This is for fun,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_2lGkEU4Xs

runner sez: "if genders are not different why has the education system been dumbed down in order for boys to do badly and girls to do well?"

We note that runner has on this very site recorded that he did not do well at school, and that his womenfolk have higher degrees.

Maybe it was dumbed down for creationists (like in the USA) and runner still did not make the cut?

Rusty

'Maybe it was dumbed down for creationists (like in the USA) and runner still did not make the cut? '

sorry to disappoint you Rusty but I have a son (taught to think) doing well in med school. As one uni maths professor rightly says 'atheism is ultimately nothing but one great self contradictory delusion.

btw I was one of your mob (hopelessly lost sinner) when I struggled so much at school. Learning to think outside that dogma has helped me greatly.

Runner, *you* claimed it had been dumbed down. Perhaps this is the real cause? Is that the reason why your wife and daughters passed? *you* proposed it as the reason why females in particular were passing. *maybe* it is the reason your son is too.

I would suggest that your son's success has little to do with the flawed reasoning you yourself display.

You are not qualified or able to asses whether a mathematics professor "rightly" thinks anything. You have used such pompous non-quotes before and been found ignorant of the clear views of those you so ambiguously refer to. Which mathematics professor? when? in which journal or textbook? See here for an example of your tedious dishonesty, and how easy it was to find a clarification at odds with your own views.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10176

If you find yourself at odds with our education system, I would regard that as an endorsement of our universities.

Rusty

Judy probably does not know the story of the King with no clothes. If she did she would know that all the adults in the town had all gone to university, had all studied either sociology or social science and journalism and couldn't see the truth that was before their eyes.
It was left to a child not afllicted by false opinions to see that the king had no clothes.
In much the same way parents, who take their boy child into the pink aisle of the toy shop, and who build doll houses for him while lamenting the stereotypical language that makes the child want to run around outside shooting with a toy gun or chasing a ball or climbing a tree or wrestling with his friend, are blinded by their opinions to see the truth about the difference between boys and girls.
But the boy child knows.

Yea Yea Rusty try Dr John Lennox from Oxford. Stop rading only the athiest bigots.

you

'If you find yourself at odds with our education system, I would regard that as an endorsement of our universities. '

by the same token if you find yourself at odds with the bible, I would regard it as an endorsement of it validity.

No, I believe children are born the way they will always act, with a little help from their environment/significant others.

Having known a close friends family for over 25 years, I watched her twin boys grow up in the same environment. Mum and Dad were married, church-going Christians , and Dad worked from home in his business, while mum worked part-time as a nurse.

From an early age, one twin was a really 'masculine' boy, playing sports and enjoying cars and guns etc. the other twin liked tap and ballet dancing, and was constantly playing with his sisters dolls and clothes, as well as liking to put on his mums makeup.

His worried parents tried everything to steer him towards more male pursuits, but he remained very 'arty' all his school years.

He 'came out' as being gay at the age of 19...

Marketing has a lot to answer for in developing children's preferences. Who would like that garish 'Barbie pink' without a lot of conditioning? I recently saw Eau de Toilette in a chemist, not only made for children but branded with kids movie motifs like Spiderman and Cars. Weird beyond belief.

Amazingly, the same goes for my cows & bulls, even the nanny & Billy goats I had for a while.
Hasbeen,
Only because you were too stingy to send them to University :-)

Oh jolly good runner, when pressed you can give a name but no other details. Given your history of bearing false witness on the views of scientists (Lipson, Whitten) I can give you no congratulations for having guessed a creationist this time. In reality, just another one you haven't read for yourself and have no honest capacity to comment upon. Does "christ" approve of you bearing pompous false witness?

Returning to gendered education: You have stated that education has been "dumbed down" for girls, how does that reflect on the higher degrees of your daughter and wife? Do you think them undeserving? Perhaps the "dumbing down" permitted your son in too? Please explain clearly whether you regard their achievements as a benchmark to be proud of or as a cheapened trinket to make fun of. I think you are being hypocritical in wanting it both ways. If you dodge the question a third time, It would only be the usual creationist dishonesty.

runner, I Don't read any bigots, which leaves out most creationists. I am often at odds with the "bible", I think it bears as much resemblance to truth as Colonel Sander's Military pretensions. You will need to find original copies to arouse more than stark boredom from me.

Rusty.

get caught out red handed Rusty and all you do is carry on your lies. Oxford uni obviously does not count for you. I suppose no problem for a moral relativist.

Caught red handed at what runner? Not trusting a known false witness? Can't apologise for that, but you can. I don't trust you. You have previously misrepresented the professional opinions of Whitten and Lipson, using poorly referenced quotes to support your poorly derived and shallowly held opinion. You have borne false witness of others in defence of your position as a witness of your alleged "lord". I would be ashamed of myself if I were to trust your statements. That you are so undeserving of trust in these matters is your shame, not mine.

The great number of Oxford educated scientists who understand and support evolution and regard creationism as tat are the ones I respect runner. Unlike you, I passed school well and have higher degrees in science specialising in molecular genetics, with a personal interest in molecular evolution. I am qualified to regard Lennox's work directly. He does not "rightly" condemn atheism, he embarrasses himself and should stick to mathematics.

One last time runner: Simple Simon Says...Please clarify your opinion that education has been dumbed down (for girls) in light of the fact that your own kids have benefited.

Rusty

'The great number of Oxford educated scientists who understand and support evolution and regard creationism as tat are the ones I respect runner.

says it all Rusty. Closed and bigotted just like you claim Creationist are.

Please clarify your opinion that education has been dumbed down
Rusty Catheder,
Once they attain your level education it can be seen as worthwile but let me tell from my perspective on the ground it certainly does give the impression of education having been dumbed down. We can't get apprentices because too many are too dumb to be apprentices of a trade so they take the next available opportunity which is the Public Service. The rest is in the daily evidence.

Individual, I see no dUmbing down in my areas. My partner is a Surgical nurse, paleobiologist and Head trainer at her hospital who saw lowered standards by private training organisations but excellent training of university-trained nurses, particularly from Griffith uni over the last five years.

*runner* claims that courses have been dumbed down (through no direct experience whatsoever of his own) specifically to benefit females. I think that is rich considering how proud he is of his own daughter's degree, and his son's current enrolment. Is he proud of the clear objective benchmark they reached, or derisory of their "dumbed down" achievements? He can pick one of these any time he likes.

"Dumbing down" might well be real, but I think creationists (in the USA most notably, but a demonstrable affliction worldwide) need it inordinately more desperately than females, on average.

rusty.

Rusty,
In circles such as medicine for the elitists of course the high standards are order of the day but in the everyday community there is a definite dumbing down. Even some in the elitist circles are affected by dumbing down as is evident by drug dependency just for social reasons.
The more stupid get hooked on the el cheapo Hooch which compliments their poor mentality.

Gosh, what a lot of vituperation! Well, a few points I suppose:

* the term 'baby journalist' is humour, and maybe a bit of self-deprecation. You might have to look that up;

* the entire piece was about my observation. The point is that we see what we want to see, not necessarily what's there. Boys play with dolls, when they think these are 'models';

* the real world puts labels on things that, as i said, we have been taught to believe, but may not stand up to scrutiny;

* of course the pink aisles are there because of a view that there is demand. There is demand because people have been encouraged to believe in absolute differences between the genders. This is a very circular argument,don't you think - notions of gender difference are taught (partly to encourage market demand), so the market responds in kind, so ....

* my boys are fine thanks. They have broad interests, they aren't bigots, they are pleasant to their fellows and they've never hit anyone;

* I'm not actually saying there are no differences between men and women, boys and girls - what i am saying is that, firstly, we don't know what they are and, secondly, they probably don't matter much.

* my point is about clear thinking.

Incidentally, it's not really about the colour pink, or purple. Though these are, as pointed out by that strange person without an actual argument, used symbolically.

Some use pink simply as a symbol of girls, girl-power etc; some - such as toy vendors - appear to use it to stamp gender on to particular toys. That was my point, of course.

There is nothing at all wrong with using colour, or anything else within reason, to aid in making a cause or demographic more prominent.

There is a problem when it is part of something that negatively defines people.

Perhaps if people could read the article for the simple point it makes.

If you think little girls think entirely independently of the gendered blather of everyday media and commerce, do say so. Then tell me how.

I'm not sure where the antipathy to intellectuals come from - but yes, sure, I went to uni some years ago. I even did history, though my interest in history began well before that and continued on well after.

It's a very interesting subject. For example, men's fashions had surpassed women's for gaudiness by the 18th century, and it was Beau Brummel who led the revolt with his very sleek fashions of the very early 19th century. This was the precursor of our modern suit-and-tie. I guess before Beau, men too could have been tested and found to have a very broad range of colour perception. Who knows.

I assume too that a few assumptions were made about what was 'natural' for men then, too. Along with the assumption that really gained sway in the 19th century that somehow women's brains would explode if they had too much education. And of course there was the assumption that women were poor wee weak creatures who shouldn't be asked to do too much...unless they were servants. Or black.

I have a private theory that views such as the exploding-brain one appear in order to counter trends in the other direction - Victorian times also saw some quite radical (for the times) changes in women's status and what women did

Hi, NeverTrustPoliticians; Jay Of Melbourne; runner; Has been; onthebeach; David G.; Ovid - I have made various responses to your various comments. Please see above.

Incidentally, Ovid, I've looked and looked and can't see anywhere where I have advocated forcing boys not to play active games. What I said is that boys already play with dolls, but we tend not to recognise that; and i followed up with comments on how I used to play - games that included, by the way, climbing and wrestling. My point is that this is how children play, and trying to direct them into gendered play is harmful in that it doesn't recognise who they are. That's my point. What's yours again?

Further, Jay Of Melbourne, peer pressure and the onslaught of media are great influences on children. Almost as great as parents', sadly

Many thanks for your understanding comments, Candide and Rusty Catheter