Friday, August 14, 2015
Matt Walsh on gender roles.
You’ve likely heard by now that Target will be ending the segregated, Apartheid-like conditions in their stores, getting rid of gender labels on toys, games, and most other products. They’ll also ban the colors pink and blue, and tear down the barbed wire fence that separated the two areas, which apparently made it previously impossible for a girl to enter the boy’s section or vice versa. For the time being, there will still be girl and boy aisles in the clothing department, but they assure us they’re keeping the labels because of “fitting and sizing differences,” not because they would presume to insinuate that only girls should wear dresses.You can’t blame Target. They’re simply progressing with the times. The only problem is that, in this progressive age, you don’t progress by moving forward from one place to a better one, but in a more clinical sense, like dementia.
Read the whole thing ... I like this part especially
I think this attitude was profoundly illustrated in one email I received yesterday:Matt, you haven’t ranted about Target going gender neutral. I assume you’re against it but I’m wondering if you can explain why? Everyone is making a big deal about this. But why should gender norms be hoisted on our children? Do you really want your daughter to conform to her gender or do you want her to be herself?The email above, and society in general, create the strangest false dichotomy. They suggest that you have to choose between being your gender or being yourself, as if your self exists separate from your gender. This is nonsense, obviously. Your gender is yourself and yourself is your gender. Asking if I want my son and daughter to conform to their genders or be themselves is like asking if I want them to be warm-blooded bipeds or human beings.I’ll take option C: both.