Ha, we posted the same response to Sagemind, only one minute apart:

http://videosift.com/video/Girls-Suck-at-Video-Games?loadcomm=1#comment-1023225

Welcome to the uphill battle.

In reply to this comment by Tagichatn:
>> ^Sagemind:

I can't agree with this.
Either you are a career person or you are a stay at home parent.
A dedication to the job at hand lets you succeed. No one can be expected to do both and be expected to excel at the same rate as the person who just chooses one. (male or female).
In Canada, yes, Men can get paternity, though most women would never give up their maternity to let them. (Only one parent can claim.) My wife took the maternity rights.
Yes, I was a stay at home dad (for a time) - and it was socially accepted - in fact I was commended!
NO! Woman are not expected to do the most - where do you get that from???
If the spouse isn't pulling their weight, it's a communication/relationship issue - talk to the spouse, don't blame "society" for something you let happen. (male or female)
Most of the (domestic)work falls to who ever is home with the kids, that's the way it is. Someone has to be there at some point. And when the other spouse gets home, they chip in, in equal portions. If they don't, then that says more about the relationship than society. By the way, while one spouse is at home working for the home, the other is out working to pay for it - It's not like they are away from the home avoiding responsibility).
This whole dad goes to work and brings home the bacon while mom stays home with the kids just DOESN'T exist in the real world for the average family. If you believe that, you're kidding yourself. No one can exist on a single income any more. If they can, then it's a privilege for the spouse who gets to spend the time at home with the kids and should thank the other spouse every day for their good fortune. (male or female) !!!
>> ^Tagichatn:
Men have children too, so why do women get picked on? Apparently it's "false logic" according to westy that women can have a full family and a full professional career but it's pretty easy for men. That's because even today, in 2010, women are generally expected to do most, if not all, of the care for the children. Men don't get paternity leave, being a stay at home dad isn't really socially accepted so it falls to the mother to do most of the work. It's not the 50's anymore so women at least have the option of maintaining a career but there's still that belief that the mom does the housework while the dad brings home the money.



It's great that in your relationship things were shared and done equally but how many times do I have to say this? Anecdotes don't matter! My mom was a stay at home mom so therefore 1950's housewives are clearly widespread! Anyway, that's not even my argument. I readily admit that 2 income households have come to dominate but my point is that the 1950's style of thinking still dominates. Even in 2 income households where both parents work and should therefore split the load of housework and childcare, women still are expected
to do the majority of the housework.

You said you've never seen women working for less. I can't speak for Canada but this is from the US Census: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/censusandstatistics/a/paygapgrows.htm
From a related study based on the census, "Even accounting for factors such as occupation, industry, race, marital status and job tenure, reports the GAO, working women today earn an average of 80 cents for every dollar earned by their male counterparts."

Too bad not every women works with you, otherwise they would totally be equal and it wouldn't be a problem!

2 income homes are not equal either. Women do more work and men have more leisure time on average. Here's a survey done by the New York times: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/15/politics/15labor.html

You can post about your personal experiences all day but your experiences are not everyone elses. This is a societal problem, anecdotes don't tell the full story.

>> ^Sagemind:

I can't agree with this.
Either you are a career person or you are a stay at home parent.
A dedication to the job at hand lets you succeed. No one can be expected to do both and be expected to excel at the same rate as the person who just chooses one. (male or female).
In Canada, yes, Men can get paternity, though most women would never give up their maternity to let them. (Only one parent can claim.) My wife took the maternity rights.
Yes, I was a stay at home dad (for a time) - and it was socially accepted - in fact I was commended!
NO! Woman are not expected to do the most - where do you get that from???
If the spouse isn't pulling their weight, it's a communication/relationship issue - talk to the spouse, don't blame "society" for something you let happen. (male or female)
Most of the (domestic)work falls to who ever is home with the kids, that's the way it is. Someone has to be there at some point. And when the other spouse gets home, they chip in, in equal portions. If they don't, then that says more about the relationship than society. By the way, while one spouse is at home working for the home, the other is out working to pay for it - It's not like they are away from the home avoiding responsibility).
This whole dad goes to work and brings home the bacon while mom stays home with the kids just DOESN'T exist in the real world for the average family. If you believe that, you're kidding yourself. No one can exist on a single income any more. If they can, then it's a privilege for the spouse who gets to spend the time at home with the kids and should thank the other spouse every day for their good fortune. (male or female) !!!
>> ^Tagichatn:
Men have children too, so why do women get picked on? Apparently it's "false logic" according to westy that women can have a full family and a full professional career but it's pretty easy for men. That's because even today, in 2010, women are generally expected to do most, if not all, of the care for the children. Men don't get paternity leave, being a stay at home dad isn't really socially accepted so it falls to the mother to do most of the work. It's not the 50's anymore so women at least have the option of maintaining a career but there's still that belief that the mom does the housework while the dad brings home the money.



It's great that in your relationship things were shared and done equally but how many times do I have to say this? Anecdotes don't matter! My mom was a stay at home mom so therefore 1950's housewives are clearly widespread! Anyway, that's not even my argument. I readily admit that 2 income households have come to dominate but my point is that the 1950's style of thinking still dominates. Even in 2 income households where both parents work and should therefore split the load of housework and childcare, women still are expected
to do the majority of the housework.

You said you've never seen women working for less. I can't speak for Canada but this is from the US Census: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/censusandstatistics/a/paygapgrows.htm
From a related study based on the census, "Even accounting for factors such as occupation, industry, race, marital status and job tenure, reports the GAO, working women today earn an average of 80 cents for every dollar earned by their male counterparts."

Too bad not every women works with you, otherwise they would totally be equal and it wouldn't be a problem!

2 income homes are not equal either. Women do more work and men have more leisure time on average. Here's a survey done by the New York times: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/15/politics/15labor.html

You can post about your personal experiences all day but your experiences are not everyone elses. This is a societal problem, anecdotes don't tell the full story.

>> ^quantumushroom:
I have a better idea to keep kids from fcuking, or at least have them think twice: end all welfare payments, "reduced price" welfare food and "free" childcare for anyone unmarried, under the age of 25. No more society having to foot the bill for bastards. Shouldn't you arrogant atheists be a little more supportive of personal responsibility, since, after all, you're the Ultimate Morality, not any kind of religious or moral teachings?


Don't mind QM, he always get's a bit tetchy when he doesn't get his christian side hug... X D

>> ^quantumushroom:
I have a better idea to keep kids from fcuking, or at least have them think twice: end all welfare payments, "reduced price" welfare food and "free" childcare for anyone unmarried, under the age of 25. No more society having to foot the bill for bastards. Shouldn't you arrogant atheists be a little more supportive of personal responsibility, since, after all, you're the Ultimate Morality, not any kind of religious or moral teachings?


Did you miss the part where she puts forward that Sex Ed might decrease the rate of unwanted pregnancies? There by reducing the need for government assistance in teenage pregnancies, among other things?

I have a better idea to keep kids from fcuking, or at least have them think twice: end all welfare payments, "reduced price" welfare food and "free" childcare for anyone unmarried, under the age of 25. No more society having to foot the bill for bastards. Shouldn't you arrogant atheists be a little more supportive of personal responsibility, since, after all, you're the Ultimate Morality, not any kind of religious or moral teachings?

This has been on the sift before, but seems to be gone.

I said it then, and I'll say it now, parent's who do this attachment style of parenting, allowing the children to 'make their decisions' (when to leave the parents bed, when to stop breast feeding, when to toilet train etc. etc.) show more about their own issues than any good intentions towards the children.

The ones I know demonstrate serious issues to do with self worth and the need to be needed.

Children cosseted in this way may grow up ok, but more than likely will have issues pertaining to attachment and not getting what they want whenever they want.

Society has in all likelihood gone too far the other way and is trying to force kids to grow up too quickly these days, and push them into childcare etc. BUT the answer is not to fully swing in the opposite direction and mollycoddle kids into children who can't function fully in the 'real' world.

The thing about the CEO of a childcare centre being in jail and the correlation to the church is scarily accurate though...

I think this video raises excellent points and does a good job of questioning something that most people take for granted: the subtle messages contained within movies. You could say that this video itself is questioning popular culture.

I'll address each person, now that I have a moment. Forgive me for the previous tone, White. I was on my way out with kids and was feeling overwhelmed by the negative response to something I see as very worthwhile. I'm blessed to have a husband who shares childcare equally, so now I can sit and write, while he puts them to bed.

Kreegath: The video never tries to imply that masculinity equals sexism. It says that when movies show the male characters as being sexist, this sends the message that men are supposed to be sexist.

Now as adults, we can see that Gaston isn't doing too well, since 'he doesn't get the girl' (another problem with movie themes that I have, but that wasn't even raised in this video) but the scene they show, is a valid one, in that he's obviously a powerful person, since he has so many flunkies running after him and the women in the bar at least think he's pretty good.

So the message the video is objecting to, is that powerful men are dominant and violent and sexist. Where in Disney movies do they show effective or powerful men as quiet, meek and physically diminutive? Even the beast, who does manage to get the prize, is a big hulking, sometimes scary figure.

BillO: Man gets girl is not the only theme in real life, right? How about man conquers mountain, or man loves his neighbour, or man is humbled by his failings, or man learns about himself through adversity? Disney movies may explore some of these themes, but they are usually the means to the first end-that man through all of this, gets the prize of the babe. So, the video is saying that the message of most Disney movies, is that to be an effective man, he needs to impress/ win the heart of the main lady. Aside from this meaning that homosexual relationships continue to be seen as not the norm (I know you don't care about this idea) it also means that all other pursuits are less important. I also have a problem with this idea, because I feel that for children, learning what it means to be a fully fledged human being through the path of self-discovery and relationships with both men and women, is the most important thing to be exposed to.

fjnbk: You and I understand that Gaston isn't the hero and maybe that becomes evident to children by the end of the movie, depending on their age, but certainly throughout the movie, Gaston is shown to be a powerful man. He has girls keen on him, he has people running around doing his bidding and he has a powerful position in the village.

White: You're right, Hercules is meant to be the strongest man in the world, according to Greek mythology and isn't it interesting that he would be chosen as a hero, as opposed to say, a character like Charlie Chaplin or more diminutive figures that previous generations saw as heroes?

Jmzero: I also feel that especially small children may not grasp the overall theme, instead accepting behaviours modeled in certain scenes. I also think that the most important point that the movie makes, which you, nor anyone else in this thread acknowledges, is that boys in particular, are being given warped models of what it means to be a man and that this can only be harmful for future generations of men. Disney movies rarely show heroes as vulnerable or weak. They don't show men overcoming their weaknesses, or learning to compensate for them,or learning to accept them somehow. I see so many people, both men and women, struggling with vulnerability, feeling that they must be strong, must always show the tough exterior/attitude, etc, or they will be beaten,used or abused and this leads to so many relationship problems.

Kids movies could be so good. But in general, they are not. I do not think they are getting any better. So long as they reinforce stereotypes and show people as one-dimensional beings, they can only get worse.

How can men and women learn to accept each other, warts and all, when from when we are babies in diapers, we are told that to succeed, we must be the fittest, the strongest and the most stunning?

Calling it "pro-abortion" or "pro-choice" is really nothing more than your chosen use of buzz words, one's just more pleasing to the ear. Lets not pick at people for the one they wish to employ. What you are for or against is the ability for women to have a pregnancy terminated that they feel is too much of a burden to continue with. This may be due to a large variety of causes (eg. rape; socio-economic limitations; unintended pregnancy, due to faulty contraceptive or perhaps a partner deceitful about fertility; mental immaturity; etc.).

Obviously these are pretty harrowing conditions shown in the film, such as why most of these pregnancies aren't simply avoided by adequate birth control - an obvious lack of community or individual education, which leads not only to the terminations but the huge problem of childcare for the unwanted. Abortions are not (and should not) be simple, care free procedures and I think anyone (pro or against) would like to see that the consequences of a termination are known to all women, so that the need for one is avoided as often as possible.

The reasons against abortion are fairly obvious, as I don't think any well minded person would like the idea of seeing an infant looking fetus being cut and expelled. But I assert that we have to consider the effect of continuing an unwanted pregnancy, should it lead to an abandoned child to a life in foster homes or the streets. Because lets face it, there just cannot be an abundance of caring adoption families for every single ovum that gets fertilised.