4 ms·

So what you're saying is that parents (e.g.) punishing their children for playing with the wrong toys ("Boys can't play with Barbies") is something that is desi

by pyre 11y ago

So what you're saying is that parents (e.g.) punishing their children for playing with the wrong toys ("Boys can't play with Barbies") is something that is desirable in a society because the only other option would be "let anarchy reign?" Seems like a fragile argument to make. I'm not saying that we need to force people into some sort of agender roles, but the way we run society now with these ideas that there are "proper" toys for a child to play with, re-enforces the ideas that lead to people beating up their kids because "I'm not gonna raise no fag." What you seem to be saying is that we as a society throw those kids under the bus as part of some sort of "plan for stability" and because you benefit from that stability you support the plan. Am I reading that right?

unimpressive 11y ago
>So what you're saying is that parents (e.g.) punishing their children for playing with the wrong toys ("Boys can't play with Barbies") is something that is desirable in a society because the only other option would be "let anarchy reign?" No, and that's a strawman. (I never said the only option was to 'let anarchy reign'. I said that our options for remedy were not particularly spacious.) My understanding is that direct single-person targeted interventions like that don't seem to work particularly well. (And to the extent that they 'work' they often do so by breaking people. Broken people are not desirable.) I'm not a child psychologist, but I doubt that children need to be micromanaged in their play or that such micromanagement would avoid 'raising fags'. I don't really feel qualified to comment beyond that. EDIT: You keep silently editing your post, perhaps you should write a reply instead?