Trying to find what Psychologists say about “Cooties”, I came across this:
Actually pretty interesting read, but like a lot of things, it seems to be more of a model than a definitive answer. Still, there’s at least one logical explanation for “cooties” that doesn’t require subconscious patriarchal indoctrination.
Edit: The author appears to be on the spectrum of right-leaning cranks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Kanazawa
Yeah, I would parrot a bit of “girls are better” stuff I saw on tv but I always actually liked have male friends. And I usually has a crush on some boy or another starting in kindergarten. Later I would realize that some of my particularly strong attachments to some of my female friends were also probably crushes.
I never actually disliked boys or “boy stuff”.
Yeah, now they do, now that it’s going viral. I’d be more impressed if the lady who’d written in had gotten that kind of response in the first place, instead of “Boys think girls are yucky, ha ha.”
Glad to see the change of heart, but just simply saying you didn’t act in a sexist manner, doesn’t mean you didn’t.
Your license manager’s response highlighted the sexism very clearly. Doesn’t matter if she’s a “strong” woman (at least you didn’t say “fierce”), history if rife with people who bought into their own oppression.
That said, if you are sincerely making these changes, kudos and thanks for doing so quickly. Smart thinking on your part.
This is great news. People made noise, and Springs Creative did the right thing, and with a good attitude about it!
I don’t think it will cause the fall of our civilization
Who said it would?
Could you make a statement directly about the “yucky” comment? Because that was pretty terrible and blatantly sexist (yes, women can be sexist, and sexism isn’t always unintentional or from a place of malice – which is why it’s important to discuss these instances and be honest about them, rather than try to brush them aside and minimize them, thanks!).
[quote=“springscreative, post:17, topic:55309”]
Most importantly, Springs Creative does not condone sexism in any shape or form and does not design products to shine a negative light on females OR males.
[/quote]This sounds like MRA’s PR department. Beyond the complete reversal on you position, why emphasis the “or”?
Since this is geared toward boys
Fabric? Is that what’s hot with preteen boys these days?
It okay you can put away the torches.
Continuing to throw mud even after a problem has been dealt with what do anything.
Thanks, I have encountered the term in pulp fiction but never had a clue what the fuck it meant. Though I have heard people repeat it.
None of them had a clue what it meant either.
I assumed cold sores.
From the phrasing, you would almost think someone had complained about males being placed in a negative light…
Reading between the lines:
“We want to get out in front of this with our “valued [. . .] partner” Disney before they have the chance to kick us to the curb. Hopefully it helps to remind them that we’ve worked with/for them a long time, because they’re kind of more valuable to us than we are to them.”
We’re so gender blind we didn’t even realize that all four of the characters in our designs were male! We swear we thought two of them were female!
Jumped out of the page at me also! Partially because I suppose the “strong female character” thing has tended to send me into rant mode for years, many many years, so I was delighted to read that article the other day.
My daughters loved Big Hero 6, Hiro was a pretty flawed and in many ways weak person. He wasn’t as awesome as others may be. Kind of like How to tame your dragon (the boy hero is kind of sensitive and pro dialogue, the girl hero is an all action awesome action hero) I really enjoy it when my daughters get that kind of mix as gender role expectations are something we can have something of an influence on. Just a non-sequitur example of that (and because I was commenting on the upcoming marriage equality referendum in Ireland here the other day) my daughter asked (as a 3 or so year old) after some friends left the house after dinner why they weren’t married. She didn’t ask that question because she wondered why women couldn’t get married - she saw them as a couple like any of the other couples that may come around - but she asked the same question of two other couples, non same sex, that weren’t married. In other words it was lovely to see the lived experience of my previously held belief that homophobia had to be taught, that children in a state of innocence would see same sex couples as equal to heterosex couples.
Fair call, except that, generally, supporting characters don’t get much development. That’s reserved for central characters.
That company really likes to point out how strong they are. I picture a bunch of bodybuilders sitting around in a fabric factory.
True. It’s just that I recall this particular supporting character making a strong entrance, and being disappointed that there wasn’t anything more.
I’m a “cisgendered” hetero white male, but my childhood heroes were Alice and Dorothy. Especially Alice. I admit I didn’t have her on my sheets or other fabrics… probably because I loathed and despised Disney’s Alice, which always struck me as a bloated, corrupt distortion of Tenniel’s original.
[I have mixed feelings about the word “cisgendered” - on the plus side, how often do you see the prefix cis-? The only other place I’ve ever seen it was in Geography class, as in cisalpine vs. transalpine]
What, both of them? 
The change is awesome!
This is part of what marketing niches do, o’course - when you’re targeting “boys 6-12”, you ignore female characters because the received wisdom is that boys 6-12 don’t care about female characters, because they haven’t been exposed to them by marketing teams…vicious little cycle.
One assumes they also have fabric with all female characters on it for movies that had male characters too and are trying to cover their bases in case someone complains about that too.
