The day The Young Turks became uncool

[Giliell]

Well, I'd nourished a soft spot for TYT and watched them more or less regularly.
I thought they were pretty cool and liberal until I saw this video:

OK, I fail at embedding again...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlCGEjjLFBE

Seriously, what's wrong with those people?
Buying a girl a baby doll with a bottle is totally OK, Barbie dolls where you can flip the womb open and take out the baby are OK, but a doll you can breastfeed is perverted (a disclaimer, I'd never buy it because I hate toys that require batteries)?
Just because it vaguely suggests that little girls (hey, boys could use it, too) have nipples and will one day have breasts they are freaking out?
Here's a clue: A doll imitating a natural function doesn't sexualize little girls, your insane misogynistic horror of breasts, nipples and the place where they one day might be does.

 

[sgrunterundt]

Here you go.

Oh and I completely agree with you.

 

[nemesiss]

its indeed an ackward topic of in itself, even if tyt wouldn't talk about it.
However, it does raise the question what one (personally) finds proper toys for children.
i found in the toystore that for girls they had washingmachines,brooms en vaccuumcleaner... if i ever have a daughter and someone gave such things, id return it to them but not before bashing in it their head.

p.s. (just for argument sake)
would you buy a doll that is shaped as a male that can have an erection, or atleast flexibel instead of a bulge shape?It's still just a natural body part

 

[televator]

I tend to to be pretty dismissive about these benign kinds of contradictions. You can't expect everyone to be consistent 100% of the time. Many people are highly subject to their current mood, group think influence, or some other inhibition that they find hard to totally let go of. Even if they are people you generally agree with, they can be subject to such factors. So I tend to think if you took the time to present a reasonable point to them and communicate it clearly enough they may admit either that they are wrong or that they still perhaps rely on faulty subjective opinion, but aren't clear enough to concede that your position is the correct one either.

Heck even TYT staff greatly disagree with each other on many issues...

 

[kenandkids]

Ya, I'm getting over them also, but at least in this case 2/3 have a logical position.

 

[Case]

its indeed an ackward topic of in itself, even if tyt wouldn't talk about it.
However, it does raise the question what one (personally) finds proper toys for children.
i found in the toystore that for girls they had washingmachines,brooms en vaccuumcleaner... if i ever have a daughter and someone gave such things, id return it to them but not before bashing in it their head.

Yea, if they're gonna be buying washing machines and vacuum cleaners, they better be real. Nothing wrong with kids doing some cleaning around the house.

p.s. (just for argument sake)
would you buy a doll that is shaped as a male that can have an erection, or atleast flexibel instead of a bulge shape?It's still just a natural body part

Is that supposed to be an analogy? Because it isn't analogous. What's your point?

 

[nemesiss]

its indeed an ackward topic of in itself, even if tyt wouldn't talk about it.
However, it does raise the question what one (personally) finds proper toys for children.
i found in the toystore that for girls they had washingmachines,brooms en vaccuumcleaner... if i ever have a daughter and someone gave such things, id return it to them but not before bashing in it their head.

Yea, if they're gonna be buying washing machines and vacuum cleaners, they better be real. Nothing wrong with kids doing some cleaning around the house.

they look realistic, but you could not use them for any choir in the house whic seems to stigmatize women.

p.s. (just for argument sake)
would you buy a doll that is shaped as a male that can have an erection, or atleast flexibel instead of a bulge shape?It's still just a natural body part

Is that supposed to be an analogy? Because it isn't analogous. What's your point?

it wasn't ment to be analogous, just an enquiry on what people think on anatomicly correct objects.
the topic started with regards to a "female" doll, but what do people think about "male" dolls?
what would people find too accurate and what not? what would be going too far?

 

[Case]

it wasn't ment to be analogous, just an enquiry on what people think on anatomicly correct objects.
the topic started with regards to a "female" doll, but what do people think about "male" dolls?
what would people find too accurate and what not? what would be going too far?

And where does it say "female doll"? It's about a girl with a doll (alternatively, a girl's doll, or a doll for girls), not a 'girl doll'. The kicker isn't that the doll is equipped with imitations of female body parts (as it isn't, as far as I can tell), but that the doll comes with a piece of clothing that emulates (pseudo-)female body parts so that said emulation can be picked up by the doll and elicit an imitation of infant suckling behavior.

Oh and quoting from the TYT video: "Why does a little girl need to pretend she's breastfeeding a little baby?"
- Whether the girl needs to is not the issue. The reason girls may do this is because they like to play-pretend.
Whether the whole halter top thing is required for a round of play-pretend may be questioned as well (anyone who ever spent longer than a minute with children who are playing this immensely popular game knows children don't even need real objects to play, that's what's so great about the game, everything is possible!), but the 'argument' that little girls shouldn't play 'mother' is fairly ridiculous.

 

[kenandkids]

it wasn't ment to be analogous, just an enquiry on what people think on anatomicly correct objects.
the topic started with regards to a "female" doll, but what do people think about "male" dolls?
what would people find too accurate and what not? what would be going too far?

And where does it say "female doll"? It's about a girl with a doll (alternatively, a girl's doll, or a doll for girls), not a 'girl doll'. The kicker isn't that the doll is equipped with imitations of female body parts (as it isn't, as far as I can tell), but that the doll comes with a piece of clothing that emulates (pseudo-)female body parts so that said emulation can be picked up by the doll and elicit an imitation of infant suckling behavior.

Oh and quoting from the TYT video: "Why does a little girl need to pretend she's breastfeeding a little baby?"
- Whether the girl needs to is not the issue. The reason girls may do this is because they like to play-pretend.
Whether the whole halter top thing is required for a round of play-pretend may be questioned as well (anyone who ever spent longer than a minute with children who are playing this immensely popular game knows children don't even need real objects to play, that's what's so great about the game, everything is possible!), but the 'argument' that little girls shouldn't play 'mother' is fairly ridiculous.

I've had four daughters, each has put things in their shirts and pretended to nurse their dolls. Anyone who is alarmed at the doll needs to take a breath, kids already do this.

 

[Welshidiot]

There are a great many things I could say here, because after all...I'm right and you're wrong,.....but whilst I was considering my own brilliance a small logistical detail started to nag at me,....namely: don't little girls have nipples already? Why do they need a special apron in order to pretend to suckle their young?

So I vote against it as it is a pointless excrescence, and a waste of money.






(BTW the TYT staff don't say that the doll/apron sexualises children, they say it makes them grow up too early,....the only one who called it "perverted" was Ana Kasparian,...so it must be her who has the "insane misogynistic horror of breasts, nipples and the place where they one day might be.")

 

[Doc.]

It did make me feel uncomfortable. Did your children ever pretend to breastfeed their dolls? if yes, why do they need plastic nipples if they can play without them anyway; If no, then they didn't think of it in the first place.

bottom line is that I just don't like it because it looks awkward and unnatural. professionals should deal with the rest.

 

[Giliell]

it wasn't ment to be analogous, just an enquiry on what people think on anatomicly correct objects.
the topic started with regards to a "female" doll, but what do people think about "male" dolls?
what would people find too accurate and what not? what would be going too far?

And where does it say "female doll"? It's about a girl with a doll (alternatively, a girl's doll, or a doll for girls), not a 'girl doll'. The kicker isn't that the doll is equipped with imitations of female body parts (as it isn't, as far as I can tell), but that the doll comes with a piece of clothing that emulates (pseudo-)female body parts so that said emulation can be picked up by the doll and elicit an imitation of infant suckling behavior.

Oh and quoting from the TYT video: "Why does a little girl need to pretend she's breastfeeding a little baby?"
- Whether the girl needs to is not the issue. The reason girls may do this is because they like to play-pretend.
Whether the whole halter top thing is required for a round of play-pretend may be questioned as well (anyone who ever spent longer than a minute with children who are playing this immensely popular game knows children don't even need real objects to play, that's what's so great about the game, everything is possible!), but the 'argument' that little girls shouldn't play 'mother' is fairly ridiculous.

This exactly
I would never ever buy the doll as such (I abhor toys that need batteries anyway and generally, they have little "play value" because they're only designed to do one thing), I hate how the toy market pushs boys and girls into very old gender roles again, but that isn't the point.
The point is what's bad about a girl play-pretending to nurse a doll?
Dolls that come with plastic bottles with "magically" disappearing milk have been around for decades. And yes, there are baby-dools who pee. I think there even was one that could poo.

Did your children ever pretend to breastfeed their dolls? i

Yes. And her teddy bears. Even think of it, the Jungle Book in reverse.

bottom line is that I just don't like it because it looks awkward and unnatural.

Am I getting you right that you think breastfeeding is awkward and unnatural?

BTW the TYT staff don't say that the doll/apron sexualises children, they say it makes them grow up too early,....the only one who called it "perverted" was Ana Kasparian,...so it must be her who has the "insane misogynistic horror of breasts, nipples and the place where they one day might be."

And who said that women can't be misogynistic? Some of the most misogynistic fuck I've ever heard/read came out of the mouths/fingers of women. The fact that somebody is emancipated on a general level doesn't mean that they don't utter misogynistic BS once in a while or hold some misogynistic or sexist positions.


On a related note I'd really recommend you to read this article about the perception of children and their bodies in our society

 

[Doc.]

Am I getting you right that you think breastfeeding is awkward and unnatural?

You are not getting me right.

 

[Giliell]

Am I getting you right that you think breastfeeding is awkward and unnatural?

You are not getting me right.

Would you then bother to elaborate your position or can I just fuck off and ignore you?

 

[Doc.]

Would you then bother to elaborate your position or can I just fuck off and ignore you?

as much as option B sounds very tempting I think I'll elaborate.

I feel uncomfortable when I see little girls pretending to breastfeed their dolls with plastic things attached to them, maybe without them too. I would also feel uncomfortable if I saw somebody shit, even though I know it's natural. are you interested why? I can only speculate, I don't really care why, nor do I get why is the whole thing such a big deal.

Furthermore, I don't watch young turks but you shouldn't expect every single point they make on their show to match your own viewpoint.

 

[Welshidiot]

And who said that women can't be misogynistic? Some of the most misogynistic fuck I've ever heard/read came out of the mouths/fingers of women. The fact that somebody is emancipated on a general level doesn't mean that they don't utter misogynistic BS once in a while or hold some misogynistic or sexist positions.

After numerous viewings of TYT I really couldn't buy into the premise that Ana Kasparian displays misogynism? Could you?

And again, AK was the only one to call the idea "perverted", and even then she did it only once.

I humbly suggest that you might have had an overreaction.

On a related note I'd really recommend you to read this article about the perception of children and their bodies in our society

It's an ok piece I suppose, but it doesn't say anything that I haven't previously read, heard, or considered for myself.

One of the things it doesn't cover is the corporate exploitation of children's sexuality,...an example of that is the range of Playboy products that are (were?) made for children.

IMO it's one thing to debate the artistic merits of the photography of Robert Mapplethorpe, but it's a totally different thing to try to justify the "I'm a Playboy Bunny" t-shirts that were made for young girls, or the range of beach-wear that allowed parents to dress their sons and daughters in posing-pouches, and g-string thongs.

I don't believe the motivation behind the Playboy products for children was paedophilic, it was entirely about making money from as many sources as possible, and the minds behind that corporate exploitation didn't care that the end result was little girls wearing a slogan that, when roughly translated, read as: "I'm one of Hugh Hefner's prostitutes."

Ultimately there is no easy answer to this question,...as with many things in life there is no solution, only a constant process of re-evaluation and negotiation as to what is acceptable and/or healthy.
I think humans often lose sight of the fact that most issues don't have single "magic-bullet" answers, and that constant argumentation isn't a failing, but rather the sign that we are doing things correctly.

In closing I'd just like to say that I agree with your sentiment in general, but I think you're overreacting in this specific instance.

 

[Baranduin]

IMO it's one thing to debate the artistic merits of the photography of Robert Mapplethorpe, but it's a totally different thing to try to justify the "I'm a Playboy Bunny" t-shirts that were made for young girls, or the range of beach-wear that allowed parents to dress their sons and daughters in posing-pouches, and g-string thongs.
I don't believe the motivation behind the Playboy products for children was paedophilic, it was entirely about making money from as many sources as possible, and the minds behind that corporate exploitation didn't care that the end result was little girls wearing a slogan that, when roughly translated, read as: "I'm one of Hugh Hefner's prostitutes."

But this latter is not different than many other christian-branded products. And not so long time ago even the Brights had some 'atheist/bright-branding' products. The difference is that these are just socially accepted, whilst the former are associated with sex, something dirty for many. I find interesting that more people has far more troubles with t-shirts associated to sex while having no problem with pot or alcohol, something potentially worse. You don't even need to "roughly translate" those slogans.

My position in this is that breastfeeding dolls are unnecessary, just like pooing or belching or having-an-erection ones; but business are business, there will be parents ok with it who would buy it and parents thinking it's evil who won't. As long as there's no evidence that it's harmful, I'm ok with it. Posing pouches and g-string thongs? The problem is in our eyes, but those pieces of clothing are not sexual per se. They don't sexualize western kids more than they sexualize others, or going naked does. As they become mainstream, people gets used and the sexual "meaning" is lost. Hell, why is a loincloth more "sexual" than going naked? Because it hides? I guess, Ladies, that you should take your shirts off. They are sexualizing you.

As an aside, I would point out to the dolls industry that they are doing it wrong. If they aim for realism, they shouldn't be targeting diapers and feeding (or vaccines! That's for sure something skeptics and medical authorities would support!). But the most prominent feature of babies is that they wake you up in the middle of the night... as many times as they please.
And I'm sure those dolls would be far cheaper than giving the girl a little brother. Quite a solution for the global overcrowding.

 

[Welshidiot]

But this latter is not different than many other christian-branded products. And not so long time ago even the Brights had some 'atheist/bright-branding' products. The difference is that these are just socially accepted, whilst the former are associated with sex, something dirty for many. I find interesting that more people has far more troubles with t-shirts associated to sex while having no problem with pot or alcohol, something potentially worse. You don't even need to "roughly translate" those slogans.

I wouldn't condone any of those slogans being on child oriented products, and I find them all equally unacceptable on the grounds that there's a good chance that the children wearing them will not be in a position to make an informed choice as to whether they agree with the sentiments expressed.

My position in this is that breastfeeding dolls are unnecessary, just like pooing or belching or having-an-erection ones; but business are business, there will be parents ok with it who would buy it and parents thinking it's evil who won't. As long as there's no evidence that it's harmful, I'm ok with it. Posing pouches and g-string thongs? The problem is in our eyes, but those pieces of clothing are not sexual per se. They don't sexualize western kids more than they sexualize others, or going naked does. As they become mainstream, people gets used and the sexual "meaning" is lost. Hell, why is a loincloth more "sexual" than going naked? Because it hides? I guess, Ladies, that you should take your shirts off. They are sexualizing you.

My position is that breast-feeding dolls don't sexualise children at all, I never thought they did, nor did I ever express that sentiment.

However wearing an "I'm a Playboy Bunny" slogan does run the risk of doing so, because the existence of the Playboy Bunnies is entirely predicated on sex and sexuality. Context is all in this case.

Similarly, children wearing a traditional Japanese costume does not bother me, but children wearing an article of clothing that was designed for adults who want to flaunt their bodies in a sexual way, does bother me. Again, context is a key element.

As I said before, I don't believe there is a magic-bullet/one-size-fits-all answer to this issue, and trying to find one is a fruitless task.

 

[Baranduin]

Well, the first paragraph was meant to be an extension of what you were saying, while the second one contained my position about a couple of aspects talked about in the thread. I was by no means implying you said they sexualized kids, and I apologize for the messy structure of my post.

[ . . . ]

I wouldn't condone any of those slogans being on child oriented products, and I find them all equally unacceptable on the grounds that there's a good chance that the children wearing them will not be in a position to make an informed choice as to whether they agree with the sentiments expressed.

However, this argument has the problem that it bars every possible message in children clothing. The kid might not agree with the sentiments expressed in t-shirts stating that "my dad is the BEST dad in the world", "I'm a little princess", "I <3 ham", or designs that may imply rolegaming, a sport team, national flags, etc. The now-grown kid may or might not like that his parents let him prance naked in the beach, have long hair, have short hair, go to a singing contest, participate as a stunt in a film, whatever.

So my take is usually expansive, rather than restrictive. What the kid wears is a way to judge the parents, but it's irrelevant for the kid. As long as the kid isn't harmed in any permanent way (circumcision/genital mutilation, tattoos, piercings, etc; include here reasons to be teased by schoolmates, etc) nor neglected (homeschooling, no vaccination, etc), I consider the parent's right to choose their kid's clothing, just like they'll choose its food, sleeping times, TV shows, music, books, videogames... [And of course, as the kid grows, that right is progressively replaced by the kid's right to choose, with the adult being a mere arbiter].

Similarly, children wearing a traditional Japanese costume does not bother me, but children wearing an article of clothing that was designed for adults who want to flaunt their bodies in a sexual way, does bother me.

Well, I wouldn't link the moral implications of an object with the reason it was designed or its use in the past, but with its presence in the present and its implications for the future. Thongs are no longer used only as a sexual bait, so as they become more mainstream, the sexual connotations are lost; we can keep reminding those by establishing a taboo, or allow them to fall into oblivion.

 

[Giliell]

After numerous viewings of TYT I really couldn't buy into the premise that Ana Kasparian displays misogynism? Could you?

And again, AK was the only one to call the idea "perverted", and even then she did it only once.

I humbly suggest that you might have had an overreaction.

Well, it wasn't only the word "perverted", but their whole reaction. They were freaking out, not because this doll is a fucking useless waste of money, but because it is simulating breast-feeding.
As said before, nobody is ever freaking out about bottle feeding dolls. Giving little girls a doll when mummy has a baby is kind of traditional, so they can have "their baby", too (mine got a Muppet Show style monster, go figure). They want to imitate. There are times when all the plushies have to wear diapers. Or when the kids stuff a ball under their shirt claiming that they're pregnant. It has nothing to do with any sexual context or pushing them into gender roles, it is simply imitating. There are boys who are devastated when they learn that they can't become pregnant.
Maybe I'm a bit hypersensitive because I've had one or two pieces of advice too many in my breastfeeding times. Like stuffing the baby under a wide shirt, or not leaving the house at all.
I'm sick and tired of people constantly pushing their prudery onto other people.

It's an ok piece I suppose, but it doesn't say anything that I haven't previously read, heard, or considered for myself.

One of the things it doesn't cover is the corporate exploitation of children's sexuality,...an example of that is the range of Playboy products that are (were?) made for children.

IMO it's one thing to debate the artistic merits of the photography of Robert Mapplethorpe, but it's a totally different thing to try to justify the "I'm a Playboy Bunny" t-shirts that were made for young girls, or the range of beach-wear that allowed parents to dress their sons and daughters in posing-pouches, and g-string thongs.

Yes, that are some tendencies that seem to be contradictory, over-sexualized clothes on one hand and this taboo of nakedness on the other.

The problem is in our eyes, but those pieces of clothing are not sexual per se.

That is true, yet a consensus in a society is what matters in my eyes. Is the code understood. For example, in the middle ages, prostitutes would wear yellow. In a painting, a woman dressed in yellow would be the mistress of somebody. I think back then parents would have thought it unacceptable to dress their little girls in yellow. Today it's a none-issue, hardly anybody knows that old code.
Yet other items have become the code for "sexually avaible". Most of them are much more explicit than the simple colour yellow. So I think putting them on children is wrong.

As an aside, I would point out to the dolls industry that they are doing it wrong. If they aim for realism, they shouldn't be targeting diapers and feeding (or vaccines! That's for sure something skeptics and medical authorities would support!). But the most prominent feature of babies is that they wake you up in the middle of the night... as many times as they please.
And I'm sure those dolls would be far cheaper than giving the girl a little brother. Quite a solution for the global overcrowding.

Reality was faster, those dolls exist. They are often used in educational programs to teach young people, especially women the horrors of parenthood.
Interestingly, even though those dolls don't give you back the emotional satisfaction that comes with a real baby and only do the nasty crying, often the girls find it difficult to hand them back at the end of the time.