5 ms·
I agree with you that this article is a tiresome attempt to spot-weld an archaeological subject interesting in itself to the gender-and-power fad. However, with
by Mediterraneo10 6y ago
I agree with you that this article is a tiresome attempt to spot-weld an archaeological subject interesting in itself to the gender-and-power fad. However, with regard to this:
> If you can look at a toy a child loves so much that they were buried with it and see a ploy by society to control them
many toys sold in North America over the last several decades have been closely tied to media franchises, and there has been plenty of criticism of those media franchises for accepting strings-attached help from the US military to bolster its image, e.g. the Transformers movies [0].
[0] https://www.wired.com/2008/12/pentagon-holl-1/ https://www.wired.com/2008/12/pentagon-holl-1/
- seneca 6y agoYes, that's a very fair point. I do think hijacking childrens' toys and entertainment as a means of social engineering is an avenue of influence. I suppose what I mean to say is that the default case is not that, and to act as if it is is perverse. A weak simile: the fact that a relationship can be abusive does not mean that all relationships are.