I'm so glad we're not politicizing science . . .
It's literally filed under the "politics & history" section. Sorry you got triggered that they acknowledged the existence of societal gender roles.
Girls and dolls in the Roman Empire
21–30 of 55 posts
Re: Girls and dolls in the Roman Empire
#22> These toys carried strong messages about girls’ expected roles in society. It's sad to see this Critical Theory nonsense trickling into real disciplines. Children play pretend, and they dress their dolls like their mothers and other people they admire. It's not an insidious plot, it's a culture and youthful admiration. If you can look at a toy a child loves so much that they were buried with it and see a ploy by so…
Spot on. I have two girls. Neither were "encouraged" to play with dolls, nor was it any sort of "gender role re-enforcement". Girls like dolls because it's roll play on many levels (relationships, role) as well as a way to nurture something, as is likely built into the female DNA and brain. If you think dolls are some sort of abusive form of biased gender conformity, you're sick in the head and we could never hang ou…
You're right. I would never want to hang out with someone who, because of a single difference in opinion about dolls, would conclude that I am "sick in the head" and therefore socially worthless.
And I'm not even touching your "female DNA" comment, though I'm sure if we dug our heels into that we'd find several more reasons you're no good to be around.
Re: Girls and dolls in the Roman Empire
#23> These toys carried strong messages about girls’ expected roles in society. It's sad to see this Critical Theory nonsense trickling into real disciplines. Children play pretend, and they dress their dolls like their mothers and other people they admire. It's not an insidious plot, it's a culture and youthful admiration. If you can look at a toy a child loves so much that they were buried with it and see a ploy by so…
Spot on. I have two girls. Neither were "encouraged" to play with dolls, nor was it any sort of "gender role re-enforcement". Girls like dolls because it's roll play on many levels (relationships, role) as well as a way to nurture something, as is likely built into the female DNA and brain. If you think dolls are some sort of abusive form of biased gender conformity, you're sick in the head and we could never hang ou…
You seem to be reading in a bit here. Observing how societal traditions and roles are passed on and reinforced is a far cry from "thinking dolls are some sort of abusive form of biased gender conformity."
Re: Girls and dolls in the Roman Empire
#24> These toys carried strong messages about girls’ expected roles in society. It's sad to see this Critical Theory nonsense trickling into real disciplines. Children play pretend, and they dress their dolls like their mothers and other people they admire. It's not an insidious plot, it's a culture and youthful admiration. If you can look at a toy a child loves so much that they were buried with it and see a ploy by so…
I agree with you that this article is a tiresome attempt to spot-weld an archaeological subject interesting in itself to the gender-and-power fad. However, with regard to this:
> If you can look at a toy a child loves so much that they were buried with it and see a ploy by society to control them
many toys sold in North America over the last several decades have been closely tied to media franchises, and there has been plenty of criticism of those media franchises for accepting strings-attached help from the US military to bolster its image, e.g. the Transformers movies [0].
Re: Girls and dolls in the Roman Empire
#25> These toys carried strong messages about girls’ expected roles in society. It's sad to see this Critical Theory nonsense trickling into real disciplines. Children play pretend, and they dress their dolls like their mothers and other people they admire. It's not an insidious plot, it's a culture and youthful admiration. If you can look at a toy a child loves so much that they were buried with it and see a ploy by so…
I agree with you that this article is a tiresome attempt to spot-weld an archaeological subject interesting in itself to the gender-and-power fad. However, with regard to this: > If you can look at a toy a child loves so much that they were buried with it and see a ploy by society to control them many toys sold in North America over the last several decades have been closely tied to media franchises, and there has be…
Yes, that's a very fair point. I do think hijacking childrens' toys and entertainment as a means of social engineering is an avenue of influence. I suppose what I mean to say is that the default case is not that, and to act as if it is is perverse.
A weak simile: the fact that a relationship can be abusive does not mean that all relationships are.
Re: Girls and dolls in the Roman Empire
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Spot on. I have two girls. Neither were "encouraged" to play with dolls, nor was it any sort of "gender role re-enforcement". Girls like dolls because it's roll play on many levels (relationships, role) as well as a way to nurture something, as is likely built into the female DNA and brain. If you think dolls are some sort of abusive form of biased gender conformity, you're sick in the head and we could never hang ou…
You're right. I would never want to hang out with someone who, because of a single difference in opinion about dolls, would conclude that I am "sick in the head" and therefore socially worthless. And I'm not even touching your "female DNA" comment, though I'm sure if we dug our heels into that we'd find several more reasons you're no good to be around.
I get that the female DNA comment might sound ignorant, but I was going down a rabbit hole about why girls play with dolls and came across the article below. It says that there might be some biological factors why girls gravitate towards things like dolls. Basically, girls might be wired to prefer “socially interesting” toys whereas boys like “mechanically interesting” toys. Obviously, it’s not 100% guaranteed what your kid is going to like based on DNA, but I thought it was an interesting article anyways.
https://www.romper.com/p/do-little-girls-really-prefer-playi...
Re: Girls and dolls in the Roman Empire
#27Re: Girls and dolls in the Roman Empire
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Spot on. I have two girls. Neither were "encouraged" to play with dolls, nor was it any sort of "gender role re-enforcement". Girls like dolls because it's roll play on many levels (relationships, role) as well as a way to nurture something, as is likely built into the female DNA and brain. If you think dolls are some sort of abusive form of biased gender conformity, you're sick in the head and we could never hang ou…
You're right. I would never want to hang out with someone who, because of a single difference in opinion about dolls, would conclude that I am "sick in the head" and therefore socially worthless. And I'm not even touching your "female DNA" comment, though I'm sure if we dug our heels into that we'd find several more reasons you're no good to be around.
You know that "female DNA" is a fact right? XX vs XY anyone? Do you really believe that human beings are 100% blank slates, biology has no effect whatsoever?
Re: Girls and dolls in the Roman Empire
#29Is every discipline now destroyed by Intersectional nonsense?
"Analyzing the dolls of elite girls shows that playthings reinforced gendered expectations but also allowed for imaginative play."
"Barbie dolls tend to get a bad rap. Critics rebuke them for promoting harmful body standards and other sexist tropes in the minds of young children."
Except for the millions of girls who like playing with them?
"But some scholars note that the dolls also allow for versatile, wide-ranging play, because of their lack of prescriptive narratives. Despite their faults, Barbies can become anything—or anyone—the child wants them to be."
Some Scholars ?
We are now attributing 'Kids Like Toys And Have Imagination' to the narrow testament of scholarship?
"These toys carried strong messages about girls’ expected roles in society. Like modern Barbies, they mirrored the body ideals of Roman times, in this case small breasts and wide hips. Because they resembled adult women, they were likely intended to help young girls contemplate their future as wives and mothers."
So dolls aren't 'toys'?
They are just fascist propaganda?
If they are 'long and thin' they reinforce 'Evil Gender Stereotypes'?
But if they have wider hips and more 'body natural' they reinforce 'Evil Gender Stereotypes'?
The doll makers were regrouped by the 'Domninus Cultural Senate of Men' led by 'Claudius Mansplainus' to make sure they made evil dolls for conformity?
Or is it perhaps 'many girls like dressing up and being pretty and Barbie is a doll some girls like' ... and 'ancient girls also liked playing with dolls, representatives of older women who they aspired to be'?
And that despite 2000 years of advancing knowledge, we still have not figured out how to see basic truths through a wall of ideological noise?
Did they miss the most important point and how 'Ancient Dolls related to Trump's disgusting Tweets'?
This was painful to read and the scholarship was lost.
What is 'remarkable' about the toy is that it seems to reflect almost perfectly the aspirations of people in similar situations today.
The 'dolls' really aren't that far off Barbie, and probably represent in young ladies most of the same social artifacts and aspirations.
Re: Girls and dolls in the Roman Empire
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always wonder what kids could play with in other time periods. I guess that woodwork always was pretty excellent, so there could be all sorts of stuff that is lost by now.
My aunt growing up in Korea (just after WWII when it wasn't nearly as rich as today) used carrots that had two legs for her dolls. Kids can make anything work.
My daughter literally put a smiley face on a roll of tissue paper and used it as a stuffed toy, so yeah they can be pretty creative given the chance.