So why are so many people bitching about Webby in the new Ducktales

>>94858390
Shipping and shippers will ruin it

I don't dislike her, but she is a bit of an obnoxious dork

Not quite into Mable Pines territory, but still

That being said, all of the kids are kind of worse for wear, except for Louie, who has become adolescent duck Bender if the first episodes are any indicator

>>94858390

I immediately know this character is insufferable by looking at her and your unprompted damage control only confirms it

I don't mind her in the new cartoon, but her creation in the original one was a mistake.

>>94858493
fuck off. she was cute. unlike you. you ugly piece of shit.

>>94858534
Waifufags are cancer.

>>94858534
Christmas tree ornaments are cute too, that doesn't mean they should be characters in cartoons

>>94858466
She is more like Dipper than Mabel so far. She's just a socially awkward nerd.

>>94858534

amazing how you can tell what someone's search history looks at with just one post

>>94858468
Anon, stop being retarded

>>94858493
Yeah, you could take her out and not really lose anything of value. Honestly most of what I remember about her from the original cartoon was whining about not going on adventures with boys and tea parties

>>94858390
She is like a fusion of Dipper and Mabel

>>94858390
>isn't overshadowing Huey, Dewey and Louie
But she does. She outclasses them in stealth, espionage tactics and combat.

>>94858390
the fact that she's an unironic improvement over the original webby says more about how bad the original one was than how good the new one is

>>94858590
w-what is it?

Not a complaint but I have this feeling eventually we'll find out Webby is Scrooge's daughter.

He keeps her in the dark about it to ensure she doesn't grow up into a spoiled entitled bitch like other heiresses.

>>94858673
What? That doesn't sound right at all. Especially since Scrooge is far older than Donald. that would be a weird implication.

Are people bitching? I didn't really see a lot of bitching here when it first aired.

Personally, I like what I've seen (of both her and the show itself) so far, and am optimistic that things will only get better - intro episodes are rarely as good as the stuff that follows.

>>94858673
That's just weird and I don't know where you're getting that from

>>94858721
A couple of threads here when it first aired and I've seen a bunch of bitching on various youtube vids about her apparently shitting on the boys

>>94858446
It's probably gonna be Pinecest all over again. Question is, which of the cousins is she gonna get paired with most?

>>94858982
The one that was putting post-it notes on all the stuff he was calling dibs on.

>>94858390
Misogyny.

She has a vagina and that's bad.

>>94858390
She's a massive improvement over old webby who was just a load who kept the show back.

>>94858628
dolphin porn

>>94858390
People are still scarred by how Mable turned out.

>>94858390
She's just too much like Mabel from Gravity Falls, if Mabel was a touch more awkward, a little less self-aware, and a duck.

>>94859145
Calling it now, webby is going to cause the end of the world and she won't get in trouble for it.

>>94859174
Mabel is a clueless spaz. All New Webby has is being socially awkward.

>>94858466
>>94859145
>Mable
It's always the haters who spell it that way, isn't it?
Sometimes I wonder if you guys watched it at all.

>>94858715
Rich men like to go for younger ladies which can result in autism in whatever kids they have. Scrooge could have banged some duck supermodel and took in their kid

>>94859399
*Which could explain why Webby is socially awkward but skilled in certain areas

>>94859399
Ok? But that isn't Scrooge's style though

>>94859309
damn they spelled it wrong, i guess they lose this argument!

I thought I heard her voice before.

Same voice as the little brother in Out There

They got sick of her archetype thanks to Mabel

>and isn't overshadowing Huey, Dewey and Louie
Only because they're equally abrasive.

I haven't watched it yet, but that type of character sounds annoying and unrealistic as fuck. Like the type who's dialog gets hard to listen to it takes you out of the show so much.

>>94859785
What kind of realism are you expecting from Ducktales?

>>94859919
Corkscrews.

>>94859174
How the fuck is she even like Mabel at all besides the fact she has a grappling hook? Webby isn't boy crazy, a social butterfly into arts and crafts and doesn't care about adventures or mysteries she is the opposite.

>>94859785
>I haven't watched it, but boy that sure SOUNDS bad second hand from people who may or may not be bullshitting, have strong biases or be blowing things out of all proportion.
This is the next stage, is it? Don't read comics or watch cartoons and don't even pretend to have done so before you form an opinion on them?

>>94860112
I didn't read your post but i fucking hate what you said and disagree with you entirely. I don't even know what thread I'm in but it sucks.

>>94860079
>isn't boy crazy
Too bad, cartoons desperately need more of those characters.
>doesn't care about adventures or mysteries
You aren't implying this about Mabel, are you?

>>94858390
I can understand why people would assume others would complain here with all the /pol/shit we've had recently, but I've seen a lot more people preemptively defending her than I've seen people actually complaining.

>>94858610
.....So like the old Webby?

File: 1502916877665.png (649KB, 746x700px) Image search: [Google]

649KB, 746x700px

>>94859029

File: Screenshot_20170823-015640.jpg (84KB, 383x470px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 383x470px

>>94858390
Why did she pin her old doll for the old series to the wall with a arrow?

>>94860469
*from the old series

>>94860469
I guess it's a symbollic killing of the old Webby, or to show she's older in this show and outgrown such things. Probably a bit of both.

>>94858390
horrible terrible awful voice actor, it totally killed it for me.

>>94858390
I like 2017 Webby more than the 1987 one because 2017 has an actual personalty, while 1987 basically was the annoying cute baby character who can't do anything.

>>94860222
Mabel didn't care about adventures or mysteries (the same way Dipper and Webby do) unless she could get some kind of reward out of it

>>94860561
It seems kinda dumb to me, like saying girls can't like dolls because thats not "feminist" enough

>>94858446
As always

>>94860747
What the fuck. No, what the actual fuck.
Dude, seriously, go rewatch GF right now. Do it. /co/ has warped your perspective on the show.

>>94859615
Also the voice of Sadie from SU

File: WebbyComic.jpg (2MB, 577x7350px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 577x7350px

>>94860469

>>94860822
>girls can't like dolls because thats not "feminist" enough
Currently it isn't.
Currently, because they change their definitions and values on a daily basis

>>94860636
But she saved the day several times in the original?

>>94858390
I think she's okay, so far at least. Definitely better than Dewey, probably better than Louie.

>>94860469
Kids get over toys faster these days.

>>94860922
Thats annoying

Seriously girls can like both adventures and dolls. I feel like sometimes these creators just go from one girl stereotype to another

>>94860921
10/10 This is my headcanon now.

>>94861021
Stereotypes exist for a reason

>>94861021
>>94860922
>>94860822

Hey, maybe it has nothing to do with a "feminist agenda" and is just a) a funny tidbit for people familiar with the old Ducktales and b) characterization of Webby being a rowdy child, which is something that's been made clear.

Kids will fuck up their toys when they play with them, this is not a mystery or anything new.

>>94861021
This is it essentially.
Currently Mable and Pacifica are the go to stereotype for girls at the moment.

>>94861084
>Mable
Who?

I dont have a problem with her. I feel like if she has been around McDuck Manor for a long time, Scrooge shouldn't act like he doesnt know kids

>>94860877
Show me three examples where she willingly went on adventures or mysteries not expecting anything in return.

>>94861201
>Yer grandkid can stay Beakly, but just keep 'er out of my way.

>>94860935
>But she saved the day several times in the original?
>>94861021
>Seriously girls can like both adventures and dolls.
Both of these are literally Mabel, yet /co/ despises her more than any other character I can think of right now.

>>94861084
>Mable

I don't know who this Mable you keep referring to is, but Mabel from GF wasn't as much of an "action grrrl" than you think, nor really comparable to what we've seen of new Webby. She still had plush dolls, wore pink and other pastels, and glitter bombed everything she touched. The only real "action grrrl" elements was when she thought she could get a boy or a pig out of it, otherwise she flat out just did her own thing.

New Webby's clearly a fangirl archetype more than a Mabel archetype. Like some anon said, she's more like Dipper than Mabel.

>>94861257
Mabel also almost destroyed the world due to her selfishness, so saving it kind of has less meaning.

>>94861257
Most of /co/ doesn't actually watch nor read cartoons; they just bitch to bandwagon for one reason or another.

If they did, there wouldn't be posts like those. anon.

>>94861233
>not expecting anything in return
You're gonna need to define that, because if we're actually talking "anything" I'd have trouble finding examples for Dipper too.

File: tumblr_ov5f4tBSag1tonmuso1_1280.png (183KB, 1094x957px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1094x957px

>>94858446
whaddayaknow

>>94861287
>she's more like Dipper than Mabel.
I'm sorry but that's bullshit. I never saw Dipper going Splinter Cell on anyone. Dipper had to have several episodes dedicated to him being more manly and assertive, whereas Webby was more of a man since episode 1.

>>94861257
Really? Never watched gravity falls so I wouldnt know why they hate her but I doubt its cause she liked both dolls and adventures

>>94861305
I don't know why I've pointed out like 50 times at least that she had no idea what she was handing over, who she was actually handing it over to, or how important it was and people will insist on conveniently ignoring it so that can blame her for shit. She literally has done enough shit things for you to legit hate her with plenty of actual reasons without tacking on a made up one. That whole business of replacing her brother with a fantasy yes-maam version of him is plenty.

>>94861287
>Mabel
>not an action girl
She's not a walking stereotype (because GF is a brilliantly written show, which is the level you need nowadays to avoid SJW pitfalls). But to say she's not an action girl is blatantly false.

>>94861422
MORE LIKE. Not exactly like. Learn English, Pajeet.

> whereas Webby was more of a man since episode 1.

She needed help to lie and one of her life goals is to eat a hamburger for once. Pinnacle of testosterone.

>>94861447
>That whole business of replacing her brother with a fantasy yes-maam version of him is plenty.
Not really, the bubble had a hypnotic effect on everyone inside it. Remember how as soon as the trial ended, she suddenly realized how bad the lighting and music was?

>>94861498
She doesn't have that many action girl tendencies. Even in the Last Mablecorn, she wanted to prove herself under the unicorn's made up rules rather than go the hard way like Actual Action Girl Wendy

She has action tendencies, but that's literally it. She'd rather spend her time trying to make out with a mermaid than get involved with the actual mysteries at hand (unless she's forced to or again, gets something out of it)

File: DH7YF_zW0AAPUb0.jpg (278KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 1200x1200px

>>94861422
>Webby was more of a man
I think there's something to be said about how what Webby does makes her "more of a man", but I'm not dedicated enough to do so.

>>94858390
First impressions, dumbass. She was introduced in promotional material as perfect girl who beats everyone due to being a perfect girl.

It doesn't matter how untrue this is now, the damage is already done.

File: Terrace femnazi.png (555KB, 612x871px) Image search: [Google]

555KB, 612x871px

>>94860822
Well look at who created her.

>>94861562
>Even in the Last Mablecorn, she wanted to prove herself under the unicorn's made up rules rather than go the hard way like Actual Action Girl Wendy
This is utter BS and you know it. She didn't want to get physical in that specific case ONLY because she wanted to prove she was a good person. She clearly didn't seem to have any qualms whatsoever going that route normally.

>>94861632
So they chose a blatant stereotype (from a deeply overrated show, I might add) over a character type with significant depth and nuance?

File: ned-flanders-picture.png.jpg (12KB, 284x319px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 284x319px

>>94861638
Gonna advocate for the devil for a bit and say, there's a difference between disapproving a toyline specifically made for girl appeal (IE Barbie) and a spin-off of a toyline that already has appeal for both boys and girls, thus has no real reason to exist except send the message that the original toys aren't meant for girls to play with.

>>94861721
No no no, you've read that backwards.

>>94860079
Mabel never used that grappling hook after the pilot. (Webby might not, either).

File: 1503537804689.png (139KB, 231x317px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 231x317px

>>94861638
You flippin off mai waifu? Fuck you, I hope you step on a fucking mismatched lego, cunt.

>>94861769
She uses it in the next episode, when she goes full retard over a nerf gun game.
Mabel does use it once again, but her relation with her grappling hook is WAY exaggerated.

>>94861769
>Mabel never used that grappling hook after the pilot.
>>94861809
>Mabel does use it once again

Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

>>94861638
So, LEGO sets from cartoons targeted towards boys are also bad, by her logic.

>>94861447
Even after Dipper told her what she did when she was in her fantasy world, she still didn't want to leave, and it took ages to convince her that she had to give it up.
Also, if she truly didn't realize something was up when the guy who was completely neurotic about keeping space-time right (and tried to kill them for messing it up) would just suddenly decide to do something like that, she is dangerously ignorant.

>>94860921
>Ducks with teeth.
A-are they retractable? Why would a duck evolve to have retractable teeth that big?

>>94861965
>Even after Dipper told her what she did when she was in her fantasy world, she still didn't want to leave, and it took ages to convince her that she had to give it up.
Read >>94861559 you Mabel hating moron.

>>94861737
I haven't.

>>94859262
>>94859496

>>94862090
It's a cartoon, anon. Drawn in cartoon style. Don't overthink it.

At least they don't look like in The Pebble and the Penguin.

>>94861638
Well he's not wrong, creating dumbed down gender specific versions of toys that were previously for everyone is retarded and greedy. Probably why the "girl" version of Kinder Surprise Eggs sit on the shelf forever while the original neutral version sells just fine.

>>94862228
While I agree with this, I am disproportionately angry that Rapunzel is getting the finger.

>>94861876
those aren't from a cartoon though, those are lego sets made specifically to target girls, so she does have a point there

>>94861876
That's not how that works anon
Her logic isn't that gendered toys are bad, her logic is that you're talking down to girls only marketing pink girly sets to them
Boys are marketed major franchises, incredibly complex sets, and general lego everythings
That's not forcing boys into a gender role, that's just giving them the best stuff because you have the mindset "These are a boy's toy"

>>94858466
>but she is a bit of an obnoxious dork
thats the point though, shes socially awkward and a little intense

>>94861638
There's nothing wrong with this. Pushing gender roles especially on girls is unironically bad. No way my daughter is playing with "LEGO Friends" unless she actually wants that shit. Nothing wrong with being prissy and girly but you dont want to stifle creativitiy.

>>94862283
They're all Disney Princess™ Lego sets. They're from movies.

>>94862403
lumped together in some bullshit girly pink amalgamation because they didn't want to take the time to make an actual set to build with
It's not like the girls are going to be rebuilding one of the castles from 1000s of blocks
No, they're supposed to be playing dolls with the little figurines

>>94858390
Because she doesnt have a feminine penis below that skirt. Duh.

>>94862459
>No, they're supposed to be playing dolls with the little figurines
What the fuck's wrong with that?

>>94861822
Ok I guess I forgot. Was it in the final episode or something?

>>94862529
Yes, the very last one

>>94862512
the point of lego is to build something and play with it
it stifles creativity
there's literally no difference between that and a dollhouse
why is lego marketing dollhouses instead of the normal sets that everyone else gets

>>94858390
She's so wildly different from Webby the only similarity she shares is that her name is Webby. She may as well have been written out of the show completely considering most people didn't even remember there was a four duck kid.

But you know no one at Disney would look at a cast of five boys on an adventure and go, "Yeah, that's good". So they kept her around for 1% of gender diversity, even if it means bloated cast and no reminiscence of her former self. Despite changing her personality, she's still the token girl.

>>94862459
And yet they sell. I get what you're saying, I played with Space and town legos when I was a kid, and that's more or less what I got for my daughter. It's not entirely fair to fault a company for making a product that actually sells. Besides, If my daughter had asked for those sets, I'd have got them for her. She just never asked.

>>94862529
>>94862546
She actually uses it 3 times after the pilot, and in the 3 most pivotal episodes to boot. The fact that /co/ keeps "forgetting" this (you're far from the only ones to do so, sadly) is quite telling.

>>94861422
And when the fuck did Mabel ever go Spinter Cell on anyone?

However we did see Dipper:

1. Make a conspiracy bulletin board to figure out mysteries
2. Fanboy over an adventerer (Ford)
3. Be socially isolated and awkward
4. Obsess all day about mysteries and adventure
5. Contribute by quoting his knowledge of monsters and magic objects

Which are all things Webby did also. What did Webby dot that Mabel did besides having a grappling gun that Mabel barely even used?

>>94862581
>And yet they sell
not the point

> I'd have got them for her
Also not the point

>It's not entirely fair to fault a company for making a product that actually sells
just because a company can make money from doing something, doesn't mean they should

>>94861023
Same

>>94862561
Because that's what that series is. A little dollhouse version of regular lego. The other lego sets don't stop existing just because this one does. If your girl is into creativity and building shit you buy regular lego, if she's into imagination and playing with figurines you buy her this set. It's not fucking complicated.

>>94862588
realtalk: I've forgotten almost everything about Gravity Falls.

>>94862630
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Why is the Duck Tales reboot so much better than the recent Mickey Mouse shorts?

>>94861876
>LEGO sets from cartoons targeted towards boys are also bad

Yes they are. The point is that LEGOs are just fucking LEGOs. Making "boy LEGOs" and "girl LEGOs" when LEGOs are just fucking blocks is just shitty marketing to be greedy and make more money.

>>94861638
Everyone bitching about these doesn't seem to realize that the kids aren't the ones deciding to buy the products, the parents are. And if a grown adult falls for a basic marketing scheme like, "Pink is for girls", then there is more to worry about for their kid other than they're getting "girls toys".

Also, sometimes marketing is just based on patterns that already exist, they don't randomly create them. Little girls often lean towards cute things, playing dress-up, and horses while little boys will lean towards dinosaurs, cars, and big explosions. It doesn't stifle your kids creativity for marketing to exist only if you're a dolt parent and don't buy them a variety of shit to begin with.

>>94862665
Same. It never got much traction with kids, either. This is already starting out extremely strong though.

>>94862704
>the kids aren't the ones deciding to buy the products, the parents are
"DADDY DADDY DADDY BUY ME THIIIIIS!" You don't have kids do you?

>>94862704
It's just obnoxious because it's a cynical marketing ploy just like The Emoji Movie is. The Emoji Movie wasn't hurting anyone either and you're not forced to watch it. But people are free to bitch about it.

>>94862683
Are you that House of Mouse shitter?

>>94862721
>It never got much traction with kids, either.
/co/ doesn't represent kids you moron. The finale gave the channel its highest ratings to date AFAIK

>>94862648
>It's not fucking complicated.
It is when gender roles are being indoctrinated
There are studies done on this all the time, especially about how impressionable kids are
beyond society as a whole, maybe you forget how awful children are if you're different. you'd get picked on pretty harsh if you chose to play with the wrong toys or hang out with the wrong crowd, you don't need the media making you feel like crap
it might seem objectively obvious to us, but for a child learning his or her place in the world, it's not so easy

here's an example:
a relative wants to buy a female child a present for some holiday. they don't know exactly what the child wants, but knows some things like "lego"
they end up picking the "girls" lego toy, simply because the ads for that franchise feature girls playing with it and not boys. the child receives the present and disheartened to find a shitty girly set that doesn't let them flex their creativity through building, a glorified dollhouse
it's easier to impress on children then you're making out, that child could easily think they aren't allowed to play with non-girly toys

>>94862630
What exactly is the point then? Because I'm a little confused, you seem to be going in circles.

This is just going to keep going, through to the end of the series and beyond, isn't it?

>>94862676
and you haven't made a legitimate argument

>>94862741
neither do you
you think a child gets whatever toy they beg for just because they begged for it
pshaw

>>94862806
the point is that marketing those specific things towards girls creates an unnecessary divide between girls and boys in which girls are being told that they are only supposed to play with what are essentially dollhouses
I'm not going in circles, you're just avoiding dealing with the point

>>94862793
Bullshit. I don't care what the latest dumbass studies says. Those 'experts' change their minds all the fucking time. Good parenting is key. Indoctrination my ass. Know your kids. Talk to them. It's not hard.

>>94862813
You don't have kids do you?

>>94862746
Everything is a fucking marketing trick. Ducktales is being made to capitalize on nostalgia. Food commercials are designed to make you hungry. Mac purposely makes it difficult to repair their products while also making them not so sturdy to profit off of replacement parts and their own internal repair team. If you want to get away from it, go live in the country and become self sufficient. You can bitch about it sure, but it's wasted energy. You may as well be bitching about how rapists and murderers are bad. No shit.

>>94862741
>DADD DADDY BUY ME THIS PLEASE
>No daughter, it conforms to gender stereotypes and I refuse to have you partake in such a wretched ploy

The kid already clearly decided they like the object for what it is. Either you buy it for them because they asked or you don't because they have too many toys. It's parents buying their kids gender-specific things because they think they have to which is a problem, not the girls who have already decided they like princesses.

>>94862891
You're sounding like an awful parent who caters to what his kids want.

>>94862869
Nobody's being told that's the only thing they're allowed to play with! There's a whole bunch of choices available. Christ, what is it with SJW's? They want everybody to be special little snowflakes but at the same time want everybody to be the exact fucking same.

>>94862793
What the hell do you think you're doing when you forbid your daughter from playing with dolls? You're enforcing a gender role. A non-traditional gender role, but a role no less. Why not just let your poor kid play with whatever the hell she wants to play with?

My daughter never did tea parties with her stuffed animals, she went on nature hikes with them, not because we pushed nature hikes on her or discouraged her from having tea parties, it's just what she wanted to do. She played with space legos. She wanted to be an astronomer for one summer, an archer for three years (thank you Brave, Hunger games and Young Justice) She's now gotten old enough to get into makeup and boys. We aren't discouraging that either.

Just let your kid like what they like and stop pushing your own biases and politics onto them.

>>94862929
As opposed to a parent that makes their kids do whatever the parent wants them to do or be?

>>94862874
>Good parenting is key. Indoctrination my ass. Know your kids. Talk to them. It's not hard.
that's a decent message, but not one everyone is going to focus on
Just because that's what's right, doesn't mean that's what's being followed
The message that girls only enjoy the girly stuff is played far more in the media than your good parenting message
I'm not saying that we shouldn't do what you're saying, I'm saying we should unnecessarily tell girls that they are different or lesser than boys in areas that are meaningless

>Those 'experts' change their minds all the fucking time
the way science works is that you test a theory until you know everything
they aren't changing their minds, they are getting as much data as possible

>>94862929
And you sound like someone who doesn't have any kids. Answer the fucking question.

>>94862942
>What the hell do you think you're doing when you forbid your daughter from playing with dolls?
I'm not saying girls can't play with dolls, I'm saying they shouldn't be told they should only play with dolls
You've missed my point entirely, focusing on the wrong thing, never have I said that girls shouldn't be allowed to play with dolls

Let me make my point clear:
Girls shouldn't be told that they have to play with gender specific toys.
Not that they cannot play with gender specific toys, but that gender specific toys shouldn't be the only toy they are allowed or told to play with

>>94862960
It doesn't matter what my fucking answer is on an anonymous board, you faggot, because there's still no way to back it up without me resorting to pathetic levels of uploading a picture of my kid on a board that sexualizes cartoon children.

Even people without kids know that if a kid whines to buy them something, you don't have to say yes. And if they throw a tantrum, you definitely don't say yes. You sound like the parent who shoves an iPad in front of their kid to shut them up.

>>94862942
Not them, but your reading comprehension needs some work. You're arguing a strawman.

>>94862956
>they aren't changing their minds, they are getting as much data as possible
And that's why you shouldn't base your parenting on whatever the latest fads and advice is. It's always going to be incomplete, always going to change. Parenting should be unique to you and your child. The latest studies might help point you in the right direction but following them religiously is stupid.

>>94863010
>You sound like the parent who shoves an iPad in front of their kid to shut them up.
No dude, that's you
You're the one giving into whatever demands they have
And if you actually had kids, you'd know that kids want ipads and electronics more and more

>>94862942
Also, this is a really bad assessment of your OWN situation. Your daughter is affected by her environment. If you NEVER presented her with those options, you honestly do not know what your own child likes. And the same goes for your boys. Stop pretending like your a good parent when you don't give all of your children equal access. Like, fuck you. You're shit.

>>94863001
So we agree that it's perfectly fine for a company to make different types of toys and that the parent should be trusted to buy the toys their kids want?

>>94862906
>You can bitch about it sure, but it's wasted energy.
It was a person making a joke about it on twitter. Comedians and other people joke about (bitch about) all the other things you mentioned all the time, too. It's funny and blows off steam.

>>94863001
They aren't being told that. It's just shit that actually happens naturally. Much like how the results for Pintrest between men and women are predictable "cars, sports / makeup, clothes", the same thing exists with children. Companies are appealing to the kids who already like that stuff, they aren't pushing gender roles unless the box specifically says, "Now 100% more for girls!". It's still up to the parent to present them with variety just like it's up to the parent to introduce them to a lot of shit in the world.

>>94863045
That wasn't really my point, I was just telling you how science works

> Parenting should be unique to you and your child
I don't understand why you seem so bent on disagreeing with me
my entire point is that girls shouldn't be told that they have to play with a specific type of toy

>>94863010
Yeah, you definitely don't have kids and you don't know the first thing about parenting. You just see a child throwing a tantrum and scoff. You've clearly never experienced it for yourself. Sometimes you DO give in to a child throwing a tantrum. It all depends on the context. Raising kids isn't just about teaching them what you want them to be, it's about encouraging their own individuality and personality to shine through.

>>94863084
Dude, you're either insane, or insanely ignorant to think that media/society has no influence on gender roles.

>>94863103
Not that person, but the anger seems to be rooted in the fact that the toys exist. Because just because the company makes them doesn't mean they are requiring girls to play with them.

>>94863118
Yes, but the parent has a bigger role for the kid up until a point. If the kid goes to school and all their friends are slapping a toy car out of a girl's hands and going, "That's for boys!", that's a result of bad parenting.

>>94862942
They didn't say girls shouldn't be allowed to play with dolls though. Kids will play with cardboard boxes for hours they don't give as much of a shit about this as adults in my experience. Boys and girls are about the same. Buy them a ton of expensive shit both genders will ignore it to climb under the box for hours so they can pretend to be in a cave or some shit. They don't give a shit.

She wasn't as bad in the pilot as I expected. She wasn't placed ahead of the triplets and seemed awkward and lonely; genuinely very happy to meet other kids her age.

>>94863117
>It's about encouraging their own individuality and personality to shine through.
>By rewarding them when they throw a tantrum so you don't feel embarrassed for 10 seconds in a public place

You definitely have no fucking clue what you're saying.

>>94863103
>my entire point is that girls shouldn't be told that they have to play with a specific type of toy
And my point is nobody is saying that except you. You are looking at one option and getting all offended that it's the only option available when its not.

>>94861638
Why don't people get as pissed off at the Cars toy line-up for obviously catering to boys like they do the Disney Princess line-up?

>>94863084
>They aren't being told that. It's just shit that actually happens naturally
The advertisements do not happen naturally. The fact that people think "dolls are for girls" is something that was created out of society. I don't understand how you can say "it's up to the parents" which is a completely individual experience and say "it happens naturally" as if all kids are the same
My point is that girls shouldn't be told that they have to enjoy a specific toy. The media does reinforce this, gender roles are being pushed. You don't have to be told this is for girls to understand that they intend that for girls. If a bunch of girls are playing with the pretty pink princess set it tells girls that they should play with this one and boys that they shouldn't play with that one

>>94863204
They do, just not to the same degree.

>>94863167
No, you don't. It's not about rewarding bad behavior, just for a few seconds of peace, or escape from embarrassment. It's exactly what I said. Encouraging personality and independence. A child is always growing, testing limits, pushing. Sometimes, it's better not to push back, to let them get away with something. Pushing a child down all the time will only destroy their confidence and self worth.

>>94863157
Yeah, I was pretty content with her depiction.

>>94861638
I actually want a bunch of incomplete boxes of these sets and regular sets and make something out of that.

>>94863126
>they are requiring girls to play with them
you're right
they want as many people to buy those toys as possible
But while selling those toys, they shouldn't imply that girls should buy those toys and not other toys through their advertisements where a bunch of girls play with the toys.
honestly, the toys shouldn't exist. They don't really capture the spirit of lego, it's a glorified dollhouse. But those toys were created, created for girls, because executives and designers thought "we want more girls to buy our products"

And honestly, the argument that they just want to reach more markets is a flimsy one because if that were true they would sell more than lego toys under that brand.

I don't usually say this, but I think this thread needs to be nuked. Once one anon is questioning the parenting techniques of another, it's time to stop.

>>94863220
The media just operates in a way that lets them sell shit. You don't like it, raise your own kids better. That's not directed at you personally but at society as a whole. You can't rely on the media to teach your child ANYTHING. That's your fucking job.

>>94863220
And you seem to think that these toys manifest these girls interests in the first place. Even if these ads didn't exist and all her friends STILL chose to enjoy pretty pink dresses, that last girl is always going to feel like the odd man out due to that being how peer pressure and conformity works in the first place.

Much like how if you're in high school and your friends say Pokemon is such a baby game, that leads you to never wanting to admit that you play it. Despite the fact that half the adverts are adults playing Pokemon games.

People like you think the solution is to eradicate all these "gender specific" toys and make the box look at neutral as possible when that wouldn't actually solve the problem. There is a difference between something like Brave which is forced into the pretty pink line-up despite not appealing to that crowd at all and Rapunzel doing it when she already naturally appeals to that group. But people end up lumping in with Rapunzel or Cinderella as also being the problem, and then it becomes too much of, "Everything should be gender neutral!" which is unrealistic.

File: 1481918335093.png (25KB, 662x166px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 662x166px

>>94863314
This is the power of femnazi beliefs.

File: jokerblank.jpg (49KB, 576x432px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 576x432px

>everything is a social construct
1. Not true
2. Social constructs can by and are informed by biology

>>94863177
>And my point is nobody is saying that except you
The advertisements imply that those toys are specifically for girls
Why are all the cases in pink? that certainly doesn't match the colors of each separate set
Why are girls the only ones playing with those sets in the commercials? You realize people had to fight to get girls to appear in the regular lego set commercials, right?

Nothing is stopping girls from playing with other toys, but they are being told which toys are intended for girls to play with

and here I was expecting porn, fucking hell.

>>94863382
>arguing a strawman

>>94863396
So
Fucking
What?

It's an advert, not an instruction.

>>94863401
There's a whole board just for that anon, for crying out loud.

>>94863396
I really feel like the only real complaint you have here is that the box is pink and the rest of your argument is a bunch of waffling because you know it's retarded that the only thing your upset about is the box color.

>>94863382
It was also scientifically proven that race may lead into intelligence factors, but those are ignored because those are facts that pushes a narrative certain people don't want.

Despite being pro-science, this modern group will still pick and choose their facts to match what they believe the world should be.

Also why the fuck are we arguing about cheap marketing ploys on a Disney thread of all places.

>>94863320
>You can't rely on the media to teach your child
But they are going to learn things from the media
The problem isn't that not enough parents are teaching their children the right thing, it's that the media is teaching the wrong thing
Yeah, people should take better care of their children, but that doesn't mean it's okay for the media to do the opposite
Just because you clean up the environment doesn't mean it's okay for other people to shit it up somewhere that isn't immediately around you

>>94863467
>that doesn't mean it's okay for the media to do the opposite
The media will do what it's always done. Try to sell as much shit as fucking possible. Do you complain this much about shampoo commercials that claim to have 'hair strengthening technology'?

>>94863382
We have CRISPR now. Biology is rabidly becoming our bitch

>>94863333
I don't understand how you can take anything from my argument except "girls shouldn't be told that they can only enjoy a specific type of toy"

>People like you think the solution is to eradicate all these "gender specific" toys and make the box look at neutral as possible when that wouldn't actually solve the problem
That wouldn't solve the problem, but it would help because leaving it like that is actively making the problem worse.

> that last girl is always going to feel like the odd man out due to that being how peer pressure and conformity works in the first place
But if we teach children that it's okay to like a bunch of different things, instead of that they should only like specific things, situations like that happen less and less

The only reason to not do the things I'm suggesting is 1. laziness or 2. you're fighting against it because you actively benefit from creating unnecessary distinctions between genders

>>94863466
"may lead." IQ tests that support that swath of research are pseudo-science.

>>94863512
>The media will do what it's always done
Only if we don't speak up
It wasn't long ago that girls were absent from typical lego playset commercials

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfhV3Q4LJPM
This commerical only exists because people like me said "girls like lego too"
You'll notice that the girl has the typical general non-specific type of lego AND the girly playset lego
My point isn't that girls shouldn't play with gender specific lego sets, it's that they shouldn't be told that they can only play with gender specific lego sets

>>94863586
>Only if we don't speak up
>Girls like lego too
So you spoke up to help the media sell more shit. Yeah, I think there may be a small flaw in your tactics.

>>94863586
Or we could just let them play with whatever they want to play with and not get all bent out of shape and insert politics into what toys our kids play with. Fuck sake, I feel sorry for your kids and how much money they are going to have to spend on psychiatric help when they become adults.

>>94861730

That wasn't why Lego Friends exists, though. Lego Friends exists because girls aren't playing with what is inherently a unisex toy. The set is basically pastel color bricks and flats and a moderately more detailed minifig, anyway. DESU I want those pastel colors available as a bucket set.

>>94863521
>But if we teach children that it's okay to like a bunch of different things, instead of that they should only like specific things, situations like that happen less and less
We can, these products never stop parents from being good parents. And I'm willing to bet the majority of girls or parents who are browsing this thread can attest that they were never forced or force the daughter into only playing with dolls.

There is simply no evidence that supports you thinking these adverts alone create gender specific mentality in kids and doesn't just cater to kids who already have an interest in it. And considering these tactics have existed for decades and despite all this, we still have a wave of feminists who are actively against it and grew up hating it despite the fact that they were never forced into it, I'm willing to bet that theory of, "It makes girls believe that ___" doesn't actually exist. If kids believe anything, it's the result of their parents first and foremost. Not the ads. If their friends believe something, it's the result of those parents, not the ads.

Marketing is not something exclusive to little girls. Make-up commercials advertise exclusively to women. Beer, car, and sports commercials to men. Laptop commercials are advertised to young people, you rarely see the elderly going, "I love my new Macbook Air!". Get Rich Quick commercials cater to the desperate by flashing MONEY and GOLD in big letters. You can't go, "Think of the kids!" for this without making it sound like you want to put a band-aid on the giant gash on your arm.

>>94863633
>>94863650
JFC, not them, but you guys are infuriating. You refuse to argue against the points they actually put forth.

>>94863701
Because they keep recycling the same point that all boils down to: Pink = Evil!

>>94863633
>Yeah, I think there may be a small flaw in your tactics
I'm not anti-media selling shit

>My point isn't that girls shouldn't play with gender specific lego sets, it's that they shouldn't be told that they can only play with gender specific lego sets


>>94863650
Not every child is outspoken. Sometimes children will ask for things they think they should ask for and not what they want to ask for.
Just because you have an open mind, doesn't mean your child does too.
My point isn't that girls shouldn't play with gender specific lego sets, it's that they shouldn't be told that they can only play with gender specific lego sets


And honestly, having to constantly reinforce the notion that you shouldn't let gender roles consume you only means that there are so many places that gender roles are being forced upon your child

>>94863701
They're not putting forward any actual points all they have is 'girly things are bad' and its the medias fault.

>>94863701
Because you keep arguing facts of, "Commercials will harm your kids by doing this and that!" without citing any evidence other than personal feeling, and then contradicting yourself by showcasing how protesting has CHANGED these companies mindsets and made them release both girly and unisex toys.

In reality, you just want there to be no more pink boxes like >>94863456 said.

>>94863717
>>94863717
No, they don't. You're putting words into their mouth because that's easier than having a nuanced discussion.

>>94863721
>they shouldn't be told that they can only play with gender specific lego sets
You keep saying this. You don't seem to get it. NO ONE IS TELLING GIRLS THAT. NO ONE.

This convo is getting tedious with one person insisting that the media is forcing young girls to bend over and buy their toys. They aren't, little girls want Elsa's dress because they fucking love Elsa more than boys happen to, despite it making a billion dollars between boys and girls both. I'm willing to bet it's that Dana chick who is the one bitching that nonsensical point, too.

Seems most SJWs want their solution in life to be Timmy Turner's wish of having everyone turn into a grey blob so we're all even, even though the lesson of that episode was that people would still act the way they want even if we were all the same.

>>94863698
>And I'm willing to bet the majority of girls or parents who are browsing this thread can attest that they were never forced or force the daughter into only playing with dolls.
I'm not super duper interested in personal anecdotes

>There is simply no evidence that supports you thinking these adverts alone create gender specific mentality
it reinforces it, but you're right, those advertisements don't solely create gender specific mentality
They just reinforce it by showing girls playing with the girl toys and boys playing with the boy toys

>Laptop commercials are advertised to young people
Bad example
Apple, which is pretty much the only definitely reinforces the "hip cool teens buy our products" more than anything so that teens will buy their products
particularly because teens are more likely to buy their product if they do

>>94863742
I have literally been arguing for better parenting and understanding while pointing out the flaws in blaming and relying on the media, the opposition, for lack of a better term, keeps repeating a non-argument of 'stop telling girls what they can't do' it is not I who is lacking nuance.

>>94863721
>My point isn't that girls shouldn't play with gender specific lego sets, it's that they shouldn't be told that they can only play with gender specific lego sets
Unless you cite actual evidence in which this is the case, this is just as much of a blanket statement as, "Bullying helps kids build a backbone and stand up for themselves" or "Women don't like sex" which are proven wrong when there's, you know, actual research done.

>>94863761
>NO ONE IS TELLING GIRLS THAT. NO ONE.
the advertisements that depict girls only playing with the girly toys do that thing exactly

>>94863835
Do you have an actual point to make?

>>94863853
>the advertisements that depict girls only playing with the girly toys do that thing exactly
It's an advert. AN ADVERT. Not a law that must be obeyed.

>>94863721
>it's that they shouldn't be told that they can only play with gender specific lego sets
I agree. But your solution seems to entail that the company shouldn't OFFER the gender specific toys. In which case, what about the girls that WANT those toys? Also you're going on about how bad it is that these companies are pushing these toys onto girls, when you want to push gender neutral toys onto girls.

>>94863853
Have you considered the possibility that perhaps companies market girl toys to girls because girls might prefer girl toys?

>>94863651
Lots of girls have always played with the unisex LEGOs though.

Christ the thread is fucking cancer. Please shut the fuck up both of you. Jesus Christ.

Well guys, I think we've thoroughly killed this thread.

https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/45638/11199_2005_Article_1195.pdf
Sixty-two first and second grade students (28 boys, 34 girls) were exposed to one of three commercial videotapes in which either all-boys (traditional condition) or all-girls (nontraditional) were playing with a toy. ... Participants in the nontraditional condition were more likely to report that the manipulated toys were for both boys and girls than were participants in the traditional condition, who were more likely to report that the manipulated toys were for boys.

Like 10 seconds on google, come on guys

>>94863957
Again, so what? Advertisements don't exist for the benefit of society's progression. They exist to sell as much shit as possible. That will never change. Never.

>>94863898

Not when taken with half the population as a sample size.

>>94863865
>>94863851
>>94863884
>>94863892
>>94863894

Sorry I didn't reply to you guys directly
I'm looking for more sources but my computers are a little slow
My point still isn't that girls don't or cannot prefer gender specific toys, it's that the media often pushes the idea that they have to

See >>94863957

>>94862375
>>94862228
>/co/mblr actually defends it

>>94864032
And you're pushing gender neutral onto them, assuming that it's better, instead of letting them make up their own mind.

>>94864005
>They exist to sell as much shit as possible
Again, I don't have a problem with companies trying to sell shit
It's about how they sell shit
Just because they are trying to sell shit doesn't mean they can't sell shit in a different way

And it's not like arguments like mine are falling on deaf ears, see >>94863586


And saying something won't change isn't an argument against why it should change.

File: Huey Freeman.jpg (80KB, 861x1080px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 861x1080px

>>94858390
>Fuck off to play vidya for like two hours
>come back to this

I was expecting more talk about cartoon ducks and not parenting techniques, but alright then

>>94863379
Alex Hirsch and his beard are the two worst people in the entire animation industry.

>>94864063
I'm not pushing anything
my point has always been you shouldn't force specific gender roles onto children
Not that gender roles shouldn't exist, not that girls cannot play with girly things, but that the way those girly sets are advertised is bad and that LEGO shouldn't sell dollhouses instead of actual lego play sets that let you actually do things like literally any other lego set

File: latest.jpg (428KB, 1802x1076px) Image search: [Google]

428KB, 1802x1076px

Well honestly, while I don't hate the new Webby I really miss the original one. Yeah I know I'm in the minority opinion but she used to be one of my favorite characters. She was very cute, well mannered, and her relationship with Scrooged warmed my heart. I get that this version is supposed to be older that the original but still it feels like a completely different character. But to be fair the boys as well as Ms Beakley also seem like completely different characters. I also understand that maybe a character closer to the original Webby wouldn't fit in too well in the Disney XD line up. It's just a tough adjustment.

>>94864032
That's fair enough and I agree, my point is of course the media pushes an idea, they're trying to sell a product to a specific target. that's the way the media works. It's the way it will always work.

It's not the media's job to teach progressive gender values to our children or to benefit society as a whole. That's our job as individuals. Complaining that the media says 'pink is for girls' is stupid. It's no different from a stain remover commercial. The proper response is to go "Pfft, yeah right, you're just trying to sell more pink" not go "Waargharblarbleyouareevliandmustdie!"

>>94864034
No one defends it, they just think the extreme of "get rid of all marketing tactics" is an unrealistic solution to a problem that is rooted in observation.

They can advertise boys wearing dresses all day, boys still may never ever want to buy the dresses because they don't see their dad doing it and follow their same-sex guardian figure more than they do commercials.

>>94863946
I'm gonna bail and use this time to look for cute art to post for when the next good duck thread rolls around.

>>94864134
She can still have a similar relationship with scrooge, it just won't be one that's so dependent

>>94864165
This.

>>94864078

Shit, you wanna talk about cartoon ducks? Fuck nigga, I love cartoon ducks. Lets talk about cartoon ducks.

DO you think Scrooge's money swimming ability is going to be an actual thing in this series?In the 80's series it was mostly a joke but here he used it pretty cleverly to get the drop on Glomgold. I hope we get to see more amazing, crazy bullshit from Scrooge and some form Donald.

>>94864156
But just because they can sell something doesn't mean they are doing it in the right way, or that they should do it at all
The commercial I posted earlier is an example of a good commercial that doesn't enforce gender roles
The commercials for the actual disney princess playsets don't follow a similar makeup
At the same time, both commercials exist, what is the problem with trying to get them to push one idea over the other when they are targeting the same audience?

>>94864119
We're going in circles. The girl can decide if she wants it or not. The advertisement isn't a demand. My older sister never liked "girls" toys growing up, my younger sister loved them. Just because an Ad exists and targets one gender role doesn't mean it's requiring anyone to conform.

Again, like I said before, your solution is to remove gender targeting from advertising altogether, instead of actually letting people decide for themselves. I don't know how much plainer I can make it. You have a choice. You always have a choice. Advertising is meant to make you want to buy something, but you don't HAVE to buy it or even want to buy it. You can choose to not like that. And this isn't some theoretical thing. It's the way things are right now. You don't have to buy pink toys. Especially with Legos since there are gender neutral sets.

>>94864207
>Someone once bet five dollars Scrooge he couldn't swim in gold
>Scrooge spent decades training himself, toughening his body until he could pull it off
>He won those five dollars

>>94864207
People love the money swimming, so I don't see why they wouldn't use it. Plus they already got it in the pilot and intro


>>94864266
I'd believe that

>>94864260
>The advertisement isn't a demand
that doesn't mean it's not bad
that doesn't mean people won't be influenced by it
you do realize that even though it's illegal for people under the age of 18 to smoke, big tobacco advertised in high schools all over america, right?

The point of an advertisement is literally to influence how you feel about a product, it's naive to say that "you don't have to buy something" when the point of an ad is to make you feel otherwise

>>94864259
>But just because they can sell something doesn't mean they are doing it in the right way, or that they should do it at all
I don't think you understand, the media will always, ALWAYS, use whatever method generates the most sales. They don't care about the right way or the wrong way and they're NOT SUPPOSED TO either. What they're supposed to do is sell the most shit. That's their job, your job as a consumer is to not be fooled by their shit and not freak out over it the way you are now.

>>94864303
>The point of an advertisement is literally to influence how you feel about a product
If you understand this why are you complaining about it so fervently? Advertisements are doing exactly what they are supposed to: advertise.

>>94864319
>They don't care about the right way or the wrong way and they're NOT SUPPOSED TO either
If that were true, the commercial I posted earlier would not exist
And you'd be ignorant to suggest that the opinions of people don't sway the media or that the method that generates the most sales is the one they'd pick.
Often times, they pick the cheapest one or one that they can reuse or even one that paints their company in a better light. It's not just about directly getting the most sales from a single product, sometimes it's about getting the most sales by establishing yourself as a company that cares about the people they are selling to.

>>94861638
I mean, as a little girl I would have loved to have those sets. My parents never bought me my own set of legos because they just gave me my brothers old ones

>>94859061
The real reason is actually more pathetic than this one, and that's the sad part.

>>94864394
>Advertisements are doing exactly what they are supposed to
It's about how they are doing it, not just what they are doing it
It's negatively impacting children by reinforcing gender roles. Children see ads like that and think "well only certain children can play with toys like that" and that mindset feasibly follows and affects other areas
I posted a link about how children are swayed by commercials of children of specific genders playing with toys, I neglected to follow up and find more stuff because honestly I think I've reiterated and proven my point to the point that I'm not even specifically arguing about that with some people

>>94864421
>If that were true, the commercial I posted earlier would not exist
No, that commercial exists to sell more shit. That is all. "Hey, you mean there's a demographic we haven't targeted? Well fucking include that in our next commercial." It has absolutely nothing to do with right or wrong. You are just delusional at this point.

>>94864485
It's like you completely glossed over literally my entire post

>>94864303
I may be way off the mark here, but I think the meat of the disagreement is you're upset that girls may choose to conform to traditional gender roles, so you want to hide them as much as possible so that girls will choose gender neutral due to a lack of exposure to anything but that.

I don't have such a concern about the influence of gender roles and whether someone chooses to conform or not. I don't much care for censorship or hiding things. I have faith that people can choose for themselves what is best for themselves, even in the face of corporate shilling.

>>94864497
I read it and thought it was uninformed stupid nonsense, much like every other argument you've made.

>>94864482
>Children see ads like that and think "well only certain children can play with toys like that"
No, they don't. Not with good parenting and positive influences from their friends and family. If they don't have a good upbringing, well, you can't blame the media for that. No matter how hard you try.

>>94864517
You're off the mark

>>94864529
But you responded to those arguments
So my guess is you're lying and you can't find any real flaws in my argument so you're nitpicking
Because if you thought everything else I said was bad, but still responded to it, it means your own argument is so poor you think it stands against mine
But not you're not responding, so maybe I finally broke through to you and you can't come up with anything else to say

>>94864567
The prenentiousness of this post leads me to believe it was elaborate bait the whole time.

>>94864555
>Not with good parenting and positive influences from their friends and family
You can't guaratee that anymore than I can guarantee the opposite
granted I only posted one, I'd like to see a study backing your argument that good parenting and positive influences prevent people from being influenced by any media

Because that's literally the argument that you just made in that post there.

>you can't blame the media for that
but I can blame them for pushing gender roles in the first place

>>94864567
My god you are actually fucking insane.

File: 1276277251737.jpg (73KB, 428x510px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 428x510px

>>94861721
>female character with significant depth and nuance
>made by Hirsh
choose one.

>>94864589
>>94864598
Let me know when you want to respond with an argument and not a personal criticism

>>94864596
>Post a study that proves good parenting is good
Seriously? Dude. Seriously?

>>94858598

Original Webby would have leftists cancelling their cable subscriptions.

Then we would never get our beloved reboot.

>>94864632
Oh look, another strawman.

>>94864626
Let me know when you're not delusional.

>>94864626
There was plenty, but your stubbornness has led you to believe that the media influences a kid more than upbringing or a kid referencing their role models.

>>94864632
that is literally and explicitly not what I wrote

You said that parenting and positive influences prevent kids from becoming influenced by the media
I say that's wrong, because the media is so constant and ever-present, it's impossible not to have some bias formed by the media

I'm not going to call you a strawman, but that's not what I wrote or what I am arguing

>>94864646
You cannot be fucking serious. I'm done. You have nothing.

>>94862793
This argument is so stupid to me because it can be easily fixed with ya know actually TALKING with your child. Ask them what they want, regular legos or the more girly set. Its not that fucking hard. And you know what, if you happened to get the wrong toy and the kid doesnt like the girly one you kniw what you can do? Exchange it! Its not difficult

>>94864664
Good. Can we get back to talking about Webby?

>>94864658
You are literally saying that parent is incapable of telling their kid 'don't believe what you hear on tv' and demanding proof that a child would believe it anyway.

>>94864664
I'm not the anon you responded to.

>>94864652
>your stubbornness has led you to believe that the media influences a kid more than upbringing or a kid referencing their role models
My point has always been that the media shouldn't tell kids that they belong in specific gender roles, or you know, paraphrased
I do think the media plays a large role in shaping people's lives, whether or not it's the greatest role, I'm not arguing that
I'm arguing that the media DOES influence kids in negative ways, I mean, essentially that but specifically towards gender roles and lego
I even posted a study about it

Like, the fact that you can teach your kids better isn't an excuse for awful people to try to teach them the opposite
That's a terrible argument

>>94864032
That study is inherently flawed by using toys that the kids are familiar with. Notice that there's almost no variance at all for girls with the Harry Potter toy. You can begin to see the girls-only responses creeping in on the second toy, but because it's still a Lego clone, kids already come with a pre-existing notion of who they're targeted for. You'd probably get a much different result if you used an unfamiliar toy.

>>94864672
>This argument is so stupid to me because it can be easily fixed with ya know actually TALKING with your child
Just because you can solve the problem, doesn't mean that there should be a problem in the first place

You can clean up dog shit on your lawn, but that doesn't get rid of the dog shitting on your lawn in the first place
Telling the owner not to let their dog shit there, placing signs up that remind owners to bring bags, telling your local official institute policies that punish people who don't clean up after your dog, those are all effective ways to prevent people from letting dogs shit on your lawn

The problem isn't there's dog shit on my lawn, the problem is that there are people letting dogs shit on my lawn

The problem isn't that kids are following gender roles, the problem is that there are people telling kids to follow gender roles

>>94858390
DUCK GANGBANG

Sooo...how about them ducks?

Actually, since I'm here, I found Dewey a bit annoying, significantly more annoying than Webby.

>>94864706
>Gender roles = negative
>Don't teach and trust your kids to think and choose for themselves, change all of society instead.
Still sounds like I was right above.

>>94864706
>My point has always been that the media shouldn't tell kids that they belong in specific gender roles
But you don't want to listen to the counter argument that the media isn't trying to do that. They're just advertising stuff to as many demographics as possible. There are commercials aimed at boys, commercials aimed at girls, and commercials aimed at gender neutral groups. But nooo, you think one of those is wrong and bad. You keep trying to paint the media as some sort of villainous mastermind out to brainwash our children

>>94864689
Well if your argument is that kids won't believe it, I'd like to see some evidence
Yes, I only posted one critical source about it, but I haven't seen anyone post anything against it

Is this show worth checking out?

>>94864744
>Just because you can solve the problem, doesn't mean that there should be a problem in the first place
If only the world was all rainbows and cupcakes and everyone agreed on everything. But alas, reality intrudes on your dreams anon.

>>94864780
I thought it was pretty good. Scrooge was more interesting than he was in the original.

>>94864747
Quiet anon, we're arguing.

>>94864748
where in my post did I say gender roles were negative?

>>94864770
>But you don't want to listen to the counter argument that the media isn't trying to do that
Just because the media isn't trying to do that, doesn't mean they are trying not to do that OR that they aren't doing that
It's not a counter argument, it's a distraction that misses the point of my argument

>>94864747
I honestly can't remember which was which. I was irritated by the one following Scrooge, if that was Dewey, then I agree.

>>94864780
Only an hour long pilot so far. If you have the time, I think it's worth having a gander.

>>94864786
Just because you can treat the symptoms doesn't mean you shouldn't diagnose the disease

Just because you can clean up dog shit, doesn't mean you should let dogs shit on your lawn

Just because you can be an effective parent and tell your children to think for themselves, doesn't mean you should let others tell them otherwise

>>94864805
>I'd like to see some evidence
Now you're resorting to semantics. You don't have a compelling argument at all.

>>94864706
And even if the media were to change like >>94864165 pointed out, gender roles would still stay in place because kids observe what their parents do. Look at how many little girls naturally inclined to wanting to take care of a baby doll because they see their mother doing it. That isn't media pushing dolls, that's learned behavior.

It's why we have so many modern day feminists like you saying, "Don't enforce gender roles!" most likely because so many of their parents grew up in the 70's were that movement was huge. And despite there being an abundance of media pushing roles, you still fought against it showing what a low impact commercials have in comparison to upbringing and conformity.

>>94864836
>Now you're resorting to semantics
Only because you're not addressing my actual argument
Only because you're focusing on the words I'm saying and not the actual meaning behind them, literally the definition of semantics

And to say that you're "resorting to semantics" is a poor argument because the meaning of the words is always related to whatever argument you're arguing

And yes, I would like to see evidence

>>94864835
>Just because you can be an effective parent and tell your children to think for themselves, doesn't mean you should let others tell them otherwise
Do you actually want the entire world to conform to your point of view? Do you really believe no one should be allowed to tell you their opinion if it's different from your own? Are you really this delusional?

>>94864810

Yeah, that's the one.

Hewey=Bluey=Sonny Jim

>>94864870
>Do you actually want the entire world to conform to your point of view?
I'm literally arguing that others shouldn't influence people to conform to a specific view

>>94864744
>The problem isn't that kids are following gender roles, the problem is that there are people telling kids to follow gender roles

How? Cause there is a girl version of a toy? No one is telling them they should play with ONLY that? They can easily ask their parent to buy them the regular legos as well if they want. Unless their parents were an asshole and forced their kid to play with gender specific toys I dont see a problem honestly.

>>94864891
>I'm literally arguing that others shouldn't influence people to conform to a specific view
By saying you shouldn't let anyone tell you their view?

>>94864881
Louie = Green (Likes Leaves, L = Leaves)
Dewey = Blue (Blue dew, like water)
Huey = Red (Last one)

>>94864846
Girls can buy dolls, no problem with that
But the media shouldn't make children think only girls can buy dolls, in that only girls can buy dolls and girls can only buy dolls

>>94864881
>Sonny Jim
That was good. Yeah, Hewey was fucking irritating. I didn't really have a problem with webby.

One thing I did have a problem with was that I kept having to back the video up and listen to everything Donald said twice because I couldn't understand him.

>>94858607
>fusion of Dipper and Mabel
>becomes a duck
So they fucked up the fusion dance?

>>94864869
Because you're going in circles and ignoring everything that doesn't agree with your gender neutral views. You are legitimately refusing to discuss this rationally and just repeating your own claims while demanding proof from anyone who disagrees. And you've even resorted to arguing the semantics of 'semantics' Surely you can see the irony there?

>>94864892
>Cause there is a girl version of a toy
Having a girl version of a toy directly implies that all other versions are not for girls

>>94864919
>By saying you shouldn't let anyone tell you their view?
Specifically enforcing gender roles in children, because that's what this argument is about
Not a generalized completely alternate argument that can be extended to other facets of life
Specifically media enforcing gender roles in children


>>94864923
Huey = HUE, Red is the first color in RGB
That's kinda shitty, but as long as you remember first and hue you got it

>>94864924
But that's marketing, plain and simple. This again is not exclusive to just kids, this is all of capitalism. Make-up is never advertised to men and the only types of cars that are advertised to women are safe family SUVs.

You are again trying to suggest an unrealistic solution to a problem and thinking you're smarter for it.

You already showed a commercial that showcased advertising to both girls and boys while girl and boy-centric products exist, so what's the problem here?

File: Doug shrug.jpg (26KB, 375x281px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 375x281px

>>94861638
>"There aren't enough women in STEM fields. We need to encourage girls to like building things and science and such."
Hey good idea! So I took this popular building toy and partnered it with something that's already popular with girls. That way we can get more girls to use the building toy that they're not currently using!
>"WHAT THAT IS SEXIST DOWN WITH PATRIARCHY HOW DARE YOU MRA NOT OKAY!"

>>94864978
>Specifically enforcing gender roles in children, because that's what this argument is about
>Not a generalized completely alternate argument that can be extended to other facets of life
>Specifically media enforcing gender roles in children
Ah, so you don't want to silence every dissenting voice, just this one in particular.

>>94858390
Her voice sounds tortured.

>>94864965
>gender neutral views
I'm not really ignoring much, just because I'm not relenting in arguing doesn't mean I'm ignoring any argument

>And you've even resorted to arguing the semantics of 'semantics'
If I'm talking about the meaning behind the words that I'm saying, it's literally only because you've misinterpreted the meaning behind the words that I'm saying

>>94865027
>Kate Micucci
She's a cutie.

>>94864965
Fucking hell, all they've said this entire time is that the media shouldn't make girls feel like they should ONLY be allowed to play with girl-targeted toys. That's it. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with them, but they've been consistent on that one point.

>>94864923
Well, now I feel stupid.

I mean, it's almost kinda fitting considering the circumstances, but I still feel stupid getting Dewford's name wrong.

>>94864998
>You already showed a commercial that showcased advertising to both girls and boys while girl and boy-centric products exist, so what's the problem here?
Yes, exactly, I've shown an example of decent advertising that both includes girls and doesn't exclude boys
That is the kind of advertising that should exist more readily and prominently

>You are again trying to suggest an unrealistic solution to a problem and thinking you're smarter for it.
How is the solution I propose unrealistic when a real life example of it exists?

>Make-up is never advertised to men
https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/covergirl-introduces-its-first-ever-cover-boy-161210946.html

Just because something doesn't exist isn't an argument as to why it shouldn't exist

>>94865088
>Dewford
I forgot about that. I kinda feel the same as you, like the color thing was a little obvious now too.

>>94865025
That is what my argument has been about
I'm not sure what your point is, but, but no I don't want to silence every dissenting voice, just the one that enforces gender roles in children

>>94865031
Well then, why don't you refute one of my points?
>Good parenting and positive influences are better than media capitalism.
Don't just demand proof, actually discuss this with me.
>The media has no agenda, it's just trying to sell stuff
Stop saying this is wrong, there's no agenda here, it's just commercialism.
>There are other options available and equally advertised.
This is the crux of it, the one point you've refused to comment on.

File: 1455775540195.png (42KB, 314x341px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 314x341px

>>94862327
If women and girls don't like sets about exploring space, caverns, the ocean, knights, dragons, race cars, police, firefighting, etc... Then it's really their own fault since there is absolutely nothing barring women from buying or playing with those lego sets except their own inherent self-hatred.

Take MLP for example, it's obstinately for preteen girls, yet plenty of 25 year old male autistic didn't have a problem with watching it or buying the merchandise.

>>94858390
I expected to hate her and her early scenes made her come off as Boom Amy Rose.

However, her total social retardation and inability to lie properly made her kind of endearing. Nowhere near the blatant show-up character I was expecting.

>>94865116
This is where all of your argument falls the fuck apart. You showcase ONE example of make-up being advertised to men, an example that still falls into the minority, and use it as a "good example" of how things should be done.

Meanwhile, you then contradict yourself by saying, "Yes, gender neutral commercials exist, but they should be more prominent!" showcasing you literally don't give a shit if they exist side-by-side but if they get the same share of recognition. In which case, your make-up example is moot if you side with that point, which again goes into, "You can't change marketing, you can only add on to it". And they did add on to it. Now gender-neutral and girl-centric stuff exist side by side. Even in the original tweet, you can literally see regular LEGO boxes right underneath the princess ones.

But the problem is not that you want them to co-exist but you want the world to change and for non-demographic specific stuff to exist with equal or higher percentage as things that cater to a certain group. And that's unrealistic.

And if you still can't get that after this post, then talking to you is hopeless.

>>94864978
>Having a girl version of a toy directly implies that all other versions are not for girls
I... Dont really see how that implies that? I just see it more as having a more girly option for those who are more girly. No one is saying girls can't play with the other versions?
It seems your issue is more with marketing than the toys themselves. So would it be fine for their to be princess legos if it was more marketed to both genders?

I mean if you have an issue with the toy itself than I guess barbie shouldnt exist either right? Since thats marketed toward only girls and is just basically a girl version of an action figure?

>>94865144
Wow, the irony is really lost on you isn't it. Are you American? Isn't freedom of speech a big deal for you guys?

Let me put it this way, you want to silence this one agenda, what if I want to silence a different agenda, what if some other anon wants to silence you? If you start restricting views you don't agree with it will never end.

>>94858558
Wanna bet?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzKj4jYuG-I

>>94865146
>Don't just demand proof, actually discuss this with me.
What is there to discuss if you can't actually prove it?

>Stop saying this is wrong, there's no agenda here, it's just commercialism.
Hypocrite that you are to say that I'm ignoring your points when you've ignored mine so heavily
The media doesn't have to have a specific agenda to enforce gender roles. Just because they aren't trying to do something doesn't mean that they aren't doing it. Just because I'm trying to park my car doesn't mean I won't scratch anyone else's as I do it.

>This is the crux of it, the one point you've refused to comment on.
I think I addressed that when I pointed out that the type of advertising I accept exists. The problem isn't that there are no other options available, the problem is that it's possible that the way things are advertised, children might think that there actually are no other options available.
It's not about what is being advertised, but how

File: 1501735454974.jpg (155KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 540x540px

>>94862630
>little girls shouldn't want to play with pink things or dolls. Why don't those little fucking shits understand they're perpetuating gender stereotypes? UGH!

>>94865162
self hatred that may have arose from a life time of the media pushing girly princess sets instead of space caverns, ocean knights, race car dragons, or fire fighting policemen

That's not my point
My point is that it's possible that children can assume that they should or shouldn't play with specific toys based on what they see in the media

File: Ducktales - sad webby.jpg (335KB, 1440x900px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 1440x900px

>>94865178
She's pretty cute, just hope it stays that way.

>>94865210
>What is there to discuss if you can't actually prove it?
So you won't discuss it.
>The media doesn't have to have a specific agenda to enforce gender roles
It's not. I can't make this any clearer: THE MEDIA IS NOT ENFORCING GENDER ROLES. But again, you refuse to debate this with me. You accept that there are all types of demographic targeting but continuously pick on one as being bad and wrong with no real justification for this opinion.
>the type of advertising I accept exists
But the fact that advertising you don't like also exists is what really matters to you. The truth is anon, you don't really believe what you're arguing. You've accepted that the media is advertising to the groups you approve of, but your own prejudices won't let you see it.

>>94865066

she looks like a baby bird, which is cute indeed

>>94865323
How often do you think they've been forced to wear those things?

>>94865180
>that still falls into the minority
Just because something isn't done often is not an excuse to do it less often

>Yes, gender neutral commercials exist, but they should be more prominent!"
Gender inclusive, not gender neutral
I don't want commercials that say "this is for boys" I want commercials that say, you can enjoy this regardless of your gender. Princess play sets aren't a gender neutral toy, but that doesn't mean you have to show only girls playing with that toy.

>you literally don't give a shit if they exist side-by-side but if they get the same share of recognition
Doesn't side by side MEAN and equal share of recognition

>Even in the original tweet, you can literally see regular LEGO boxes right underneath the princess ones
So, not side by side?
Does the height of the shelf matter in your argument because those princess sets are literally higher up than the LEGO MOVIE play sets
Yes, that is an example of the sets being showcased side by side, but maybe I'm talking about some other advertisement or marketing showcase

>You can't change marketing, you can only add on to it". And they did add on to it.
You can definitely change how you market. It's not about what you market, it's how.
I would wager to say that is a poor argument. There was a time when women had no disposable income, so there would companies that didn't market towards them. But then they realized just because the wives didn't have disposable income didn't mean they could buy things, so they started marketing towards them. It's a poor example in terms of progressiveness, but a decent example in terms of proving the point it's not about what you market but how
>And that's unrealistic
It's not unrealistic just because it hasn't been done before

>>94865386
The crazy is strong with this one.

File: confused anime girl.jpg (39KB, 374x347px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 374x347px

>>94865240
No. There is absolutely nothing stopping a 12 year old girl from spending her allowance of a lego set. The Walmart employee isn't going to slap it out of her hands, her friends aren't going to disown her for wanting to build an Indiana Jones themed Pyramid, and her father isn't going to rape her to death for asking him for a bionicle. They have free will and no one honestly gives a shit.
>My point is that it's possible that children can assume that they should or shouldn't play with specific toys based on what they see in the media
You mean that social norms exist? That different genders might be predisposed to liking different things and thus different things are marketed to each one? That maybe, just maybe there might be a reason why women want to play with dolls, the sex that is specifically designed to have and take care of babies?

>>94865359
Every time Donald has to leave probably.

File: 1484877644252.png (407KB, 579x694px) Image search: [Google]

407KB, 579x694px

>>94865386
>Just because something isn't done often is not an excuse to do it less often
In that case there's no fucking problem because you've linked us commercials were what you want is already done. And it's not a problem even if it's not done often.

>So, not side by side?
Jesus Christ.

Considering everyone in this thread has already accepted that you're spouting crazy shit, there's no real point in arguing with you since it's apparent you'll never ever change your mind and everyone else has moved on. Enjoy bitching about girl toys on Twitter, Dana.

I watched this and I liked everyone but the kids. I know it's a kids show, but holy shit they are annoying.

Launchpad, Donald, and Scrooge were my favorites. I did not watch the original show.

>>94865308
>So you won't discuss it.
No I'm asking you to engage me on this topic instead of just saying "talk about this"
Make an argument, back it up, and I'll talk to you
See you're asking me to prove you wrong, when you haven't even tried to prove yourself right. It's far easier to pick apart someone else's argument than to construct your own. I have no interest in arguing a point where someone is just going to disagree instead of bring their own ideas.

>THE MEDIA IS NOT ENFORCING GENDER ROLES
How would you like to prove my point?

>But the fact that advertising you don't like also exists is what really matters to you
Yes, exactly.
>>The truth is anon, you don't really believe what you're arguing
How is this an argument disproving the notion that media effects children, the argument that the media is effecting children negatively by enforcing gender roles, or in relation to literally anything I've been arguing

>>94865436
>and her father isn't going to rape her to death for asking him for a bionicle
Because bonkle is dead, again. F

>>94865066
She finally got naked on camera, which was a huge bonus for me

>>94865463
You should watch the original sometime.

>>94865359
I'd wager often enough. Huey and Louie seem to know the drill.

File: tumblr_ounl6dmrD51uwb389o4_raw.png (679KB, 1802x930px) Image search: [Google]

679KB, 1802x930px

>>94865162
That's a really poor example when Lauren's Faust's biggest thing about making that specific MLP series that lead to the "25 year old male autistics that don't have problems with watching it or buying the merchandise" was changing it from being the girl-targeted, "corporate" rehash to something that was more universal or at least had heart.
It's not about the subject matter, the perceived problem isn't that they're not those things cause fucking Barbie does all of that shit, it's the people behind that specific series of LEGOs thinking they needed to make some girl side series, and doing so in the most abashed way.

but hey, ducktales and a tumblr filename.

>>94865486
Ahem... where might I find this?

>>94865469
It's so sad that you can't see it anon. What really gets to you, what you can't stomach is the simple fact that girly girls and boyish boys exist. You hate these children and want them to stop existing. You're a bigot of the worst kind.

>>94865487
But I love Donald, and I heard he's not in the original. I don't think I was alive when the original aired.

File: Ducktales - grumpy webby.jpg (346KB, 1440x900px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 1440x900px

>>94865527
btw, Webby doesn't approve of my lewdness.

>>94865454
I don't understand how you can just not reply to half of my post, call me crazy, and then tell me that there's no real point in arguing with you
What argument?
You didn't respond to at least half of the stuff I said
And the stuff you did respond to you neglected by bring up alternate points that don't really even disprove my points, just distract from it.
Like I said, just because something isn't done often isn't an excuse to do it less often.
Saying, it's not a problem if it's not done often, doesn't refute that, it just points out the current state of things.
That's a direct example of something that's been happening all through out this thread

I'm not crazy
I'm not Dana
And you saying those things doesn't make me those things
It'd be nice if you tried to stop enforcing those roles upon me, because like I said, so many time through out the thread, just because you aren't affected by something, doesn't mean you should have to go through something

>>94865569
>It'd be nice if you tried to stop enforcing those roles upon me
Oh god wow. Just. Wow.

>>94865536
I've said multiple times that girls can buy dolls
If they like dolls, there's no problem with that
but girls shouldn't be told that it's the only toy they can like or that only girls can like dolls

>>94865520
>It's not about the subject matter, the perceived problem isn't that they're not those things cause fucking Barbie does all of that shit, it's the people behind that specific series of LEGOs thinking they needed to make some girl side series, and doing so in the most abashed way.
Because little girls like Barbie more than they like Lego. That's why they licensed Barbie for their plastic blocks. Lego is something called a "business" those are things that typically try to make money. They more than likely did market research to determine how well it would sell.

You're getting mad at a company for making money and at little girls for liking dolls/the color pink.

>>94865454
The more I see of this Dana the more I dislike her

>>94865599
>You're getting mad at a company for making money and at little girls for liking dolls/the color pink.
*Getting mad at a company that makes money while telling girls they can only like dolls and the color pink

>>94865587
No anon. That isn't what you've said at all: >>94865469
>>But the fact that advertising you don't like also exists is what really matters to you
>Yes, exactly.
You cannot refute this, you hate, absolutely hate that advertisers are targeting a group you don't approve of. You hate children that don't conform to your gender neutral views. It's thoroughly disgusting.

File: Ducktales - scared kids.jpg (505KB, 1440x900px) Image search: [Google]

505KB, 1440x900px

>>94865549
You can find it online in a few places. watchcartoon has it.

>>94865635
>you hate, absolutely hate that advertisers are targeting a group you don't approve of
No
I hate "advertising [I] don't like"
which is specifically
advertising that enforces gender roles
Never did I say that I hate that advertisers target girls who like girly stuff nor did I say that I hate ads about gender specific toys
I hate ads that enforce gender roles

>>94865536
You're intellectually lazy and an awful debater. Enough with the strawmen.

>>94865599
>the color pink.
It's funny that you bring this up, when it used to be the opposite -
blue for girls and pink for boys. Children don't come out of the womb preferring a certain colour.

>>94865700
It's too late anon, we've peeled back the layers and revealed you for what you really are. It's not the advertising that you hate, it's the group the advertisements are for. You are bigoted, prejudiced, oppressive, and you want to enforce your hatred on children by removing all alternatives to your view.

People whine about her being the "gurl power" character, but......really, she's just as well-rounded as the rest of the characters. She shows strengths and weaknesses. She's not just a spastic genki-girl.

At least she actually has character, unlike the original where she was blander than plain grits

>>94865782
I don't remember original Webby. Was she in Ducktales or Quackpack? I never saw Quackpack.