Speaking of traditional masculinity, WHY does Joe Namath sound like such a whiney butt sissy boy in his commercial for Medicare Coverage?
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
'Traditional Masculinity' Is Harmful...
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostSpeaking of traditional masculinity, WHY does Joe Namath sound like such a whiney butt sissy boy in his commercial for Medicare Coverage?Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostYawn.
An example of the totally arbitrary ideas of masculinity being advocated as 'traditional' and 'conservative' I saw last week in the news was this, the new regime in Brazil was trumpeting its conservative bona fides:
Boys wear blue and girls wear pink
But if you look at the history of baby clothing, it goes:
* Late 19th century: White for both
* Early 20th century: Pink for boys, blue for girls (reverse of current 'tradition')
* 1940s-1960s: Blue for boys, pink for girls (first appearance of current 'tradition')
* 1970s: Back to unisex baby clothing and coloring
* 1980s+: Blue for boys, pink for girls if prenatal testing confirmed gender allowing pre-birth purchasing of clothes, otherwise unisex coloring acceptable.
So in the above example we have a senior politician of a new conservative regime communicating to their supporters their endorsement of traditional gender roles using the words "Boys wear blue and girls wear pink" which is (a) pretty much a totally arbitrary color scheme which has been entirely reversed at one stage and (b) a 'tradition' that is being 'conserved' that isn't even as old as my grandparents.
It's the standard 'conservative' 'traditionalist' ignorance, assuming that whatever arbitrary social and cultural fads happened to be common during their own childhood must be some sort of time-tested tradition or deeply valuable and biologically ingrained social order. Again, it's why studying Cultural Anthropology is the inherent antidote to conservatism because you see the idiocy for what it is.
You said that traditional ideas are "utterly arbitrary". Your source says that they're not.
Ladies' Home Journal article in June 1918 said, "The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl." Other sources said blue was flattering for blonds, pink for brunettes; or blue was for blue-eyed babies, pink for brown-eyed babies, according to Paoletti.
The politician you quoted above was referring to the fact that boys and girls are different, as evinced by the tradition of babies (and adults) of different genders wearing different colours, on a charitable interpretation. Naturally that's not one you would give him....>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, Yesterday, 11:06 AM
|
3 responses
112 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sam
Yesterday, 05:00 PM
|
||
Started by carpedm9587, Yesterday, 07:03 AM
|
16 responses
93 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Yesterday, 02:40 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 05-17-2024, 09:51 AM
|
0 responses
20 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
05-17-2024, 09:51 AM
|
||
Started by seer, 05-16-2024, 05:00 PM
|
0 responses
32 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
05-16-2024, 05:00 PM
|
||
Started by seer, 05-16-2024, 11:43 AM
|
219 responses
890 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Today, 09:34 AM
|
Comment