No Girls Allowed

All this Political Correctness BS is a threat. We have to deal with Al-Quaida and others who want to destroy our Western Civilization from outside and then we have Leftists who do all they can to destroy it from inside.

Boys are usually more interested in computers. Males are more inclined to manipulate things (manipulate like in play, try to understand how they work, etc.) and relations that have to do with things. Females are more inclined to manipulate people (manipulate like in play, try to understand how they work, etc) and relations that have to do with people. And no, I don't have a scientific research to "prove" that. It's an observation that derives from common sense.

Ever noticed how women enjoy watching soap operas, but don't give a damn about a football game? Ever notice how men enjoy watching football game, but don't give a damn about a soap opera?

Because what men see in a football game that women don't is: strategy, tactics, manipulations, doing everything to win the game. Females don't see that there. They just see a bunch of brutes running around trying to get hold of a some stupid ball.

But women can definitely appreciate a soap opera. Because there they will see: strategy, tactics, manipulations, doing everything to win the game. Males don't see it there. Because this is not about things. It's about people and their relations. They are blind to that as females are blind to see interactions among objects. Males just see there a bunch of crazy people dramatizing.

Now, to expect this little girl not to play with dolls to mimic social interactions but to play with objects is BS. And pure Politicall Correctness. And that's a threat. I don't need my daughter to waste her life trying to compete in a game where males have natural advantage in their DNA. I'd rather have her spend her time analyzing people. Not objects.

That's all common sense dude. I'm threatened by you spreading enemy propaganda in my country. What about that? Go and teach that in Russia. Mess up their country. Not our own.

> "All the power in the world" is overstating the case a bit.

I don't think it is. Einstein said compounding interest is the most powerful force in the universe. That's what it gives you. Higher margins that can be reinvested into growing the company. Over the lifetime of, say, Coca Cola (incorporated 1892), a 2% annual ROI which is then reinvested into the company will result in a company which is not quite 11 times as large. Make the ROI 8% instead and the company will be more than 11,000 times as large.

> Competition isn't turned off because of marketing. Any company that has a poor product with a large margin is subject to a competitor selling a better product at the same price or a similar quality product at a lower price.

This is provided the competition has equivalent marketing. Take the companies that charge you money for getting your credit report even though you can get it for free. Or any of the services offered by local towns (e.g. use of gym at the community center) at or below cost, with any number of for-profit gyms just down the street which charge much higher rates and see no shortage of business. Or the people who pay for proprietary software when there exists superior free software. Or, most relevantly for this place, the scads of companies run by engineers without good marketing (e.g. Novell) that had superior products and failed in the market because someone like Microsoft came in with something inferior and marketed it better.

> McDonald's and Burger King sell competitive (to each other) products at razor thin margins for this reason, and, by the way, not generally at higher prices than smaller competitor with much smaller marketing budgets.

Higher prices, no. Higher margins, yes. Because that market is highly price sensitive so it is more successful to expand margins by reducing quality than by raising prices.

> If marketers could control what colors children want to wear, they'd change them every year to spur sales. Fashion isn't that predictable or controllable.

But they do. And it is.

They just don't need to do it for children, because they grow out of their clothes so fast. So it's actually a case in point that the "preferred" colours for children are somewhat more stable.

But if you look at adult's clothing, colours change every year, and every season. Pink shirts for men drop in and out of fashion. Models change every few years from big to slim to long to low to skinny

(seriously would anyone buy skinny jeans if they still offered a decent selection of boot-cuts at general clothing stores? ;) I'm kidding, I bet there's people that actually like the model)

I don't have my bookmarks here (maybe someone else can provide a link?), but I once read there was some old French lady in the fashion industry that would actually just pick and decide the "in fashion" colours for the next season, some influential big brands would just follow her direction, cheaper brands would copy the style, and that was that then. I read about it because she passed away a few years ago, but I bet they found a replacement fashion colour oracle soon enough.

nope, I like her style because she's unconventional, as many children are.

Perhaps 'amusing' is the wrong word - you may be right there. Perhaps it's a Britishism where I say one thing and mean another; I think it's cool, and it makes me smile.

You may also be right that she picks her activities to fit in, as well as her appearance - but I don't think so, from watching. Her older brother is actually quite timid about using the climbing frame in the garden, and the adults definitely don't use it as we might break it, but she happily climbs all over it, whether or not we're watching or talking about it. She particularly likes falling off high (ish) things - one of her favourite games to play with her dad is where he picks her up, dangles her in the air, and then drops her at an unexpected moment (her brother likes this one too.)

at least she won't be gender confused like your kid