Fierce Patriots

Conservative Political News

  • Subscribe

<![CDATA[The Guardian]]>

LEGO Eliminates 'Boys' and 'Girls' Labels, Cancels Sexist Shopping Just in Time for Christmas

by Leave a Comment

It’s a mad, mad world. And in these trying times, perspective is key.

For those daily awaking to the societal harm caused by colored, interlocking plastic, I deliver relief at last.

LEGO will no longer offer “Girls” and “Boys” toys.

Per a statement dated October 11th, the company observes, “New research commissioned by the LEGO Group reveals that girls today feel increasingly confident to engage in all types of play and creative activities…”

Now the unnerving news:

[They] remain held back by society’s ingrained gender stereotypes as they grow older.

A probe’s been performed, courtesy of a group founded by fantastic Hollywood actress Geena Davis.

The study was carried out by the Geena Davis Institute in recognition of the UN’s International Day of the Girl and to mark the launch of a new LEGO® campaign, “Ready for Girls,” which celebrates girls who rebuild the world through creative problem solving.

The study took place domestically, as well as in China, Czech Republic, Japan, Poland, Russia, and the UK.

The research findings show that girls are ready for the world, but society isn’t quite ready to support their growth through play. Girls feel less restrained by and are less supportive of typical gender biases than boys when it comes to creative play (74% of boys vs. 62% of girls believe that some activities are just meant for girls, while others are meant for boys), and they are more open towards different types of creative play compared to what their parents and society typically encourage.

As an example, “82% of girls believe it’s okay for girls to play football and boys to practice ballet, compared to only 71% of boys.”

LEGO laments “girls are typically encouraged into activities that are more cognitive, artistic and related to performance compared to boys who are more likely to be pushed into physical and STEM-like activities (digital, science, building, tools).”

What’s a business that makes rectangles which click together to do? LEGO’s “calling on parents and children to champion inclusive play.”

To assist moms and dads, the company’s developed “a fun 10-step guide and [invites] parents to share photos of their child’s LEGO creations against a pre-defined…backdrop featuring the words ‘Get the World Ready for Me.’”

Perhaps more potently, the toy titan is sockin’ it to stereotypes by lifting labels.

Literally.

As relayed by The Guardian, LEGO’s chief product and marketing officer — Julia Goldin — ensures it’s “working hard to make LEGO more inclusive.”

Hence:

Goldin [says] Lego no longer labelled any of its products “for girls” or “for boys.” On LEGO.com, consumers cannot search for products by gender.

Surely time-constrained parents will appreciate the assist.

Instead, the website offers themes that it calls “passion points.”

If you’re still not convinced something must be done, the Geena Davis Institute “found that parents of both sexes rated men as ‘more creative,’ were six times as likely to think of scientists and athletes as being men rather than women, and more than eight times as likely to think of engineers as men.”

With each passing day, headlines make it clear: Our unwoke days are over.

Some might suggest a certain societal sect isn’t so much bothered by the sexes assuming different roles as they are intent upon forcing them into other ones.

Personally, I believe everyone should generally do what they wish — and we shouldn’t care what choices are made.

But culture’s new normal is one of colossal care.

There once was a savage system in which men and women were not the same. Therefore, they were inclined toward dissimilar things.

But that was (not) long ago.

These days, we’re building something new.

And now, we can construct it with LEGO.

To be clear, it’s not the building block behemoth’s first time to help:

For those unready for the revolution, there’s always Lincoln Logs.

On second thought, the wrecking ball of cancellation is likely dangling in the wings:

So get with the progressive program, load up on LEGO, and let’s Build Back Better.

-ALEX

See more pieces from me:

Pulitzer-Finalist Professor Gets Canceled for Showing Students a Film From 1965

Glimpse of the Future? A Vaccine Mandate Reaches the Epitome of Nonessential Services

Bill Maher Marvels Over His Right-Wing Crowd, but It’s Likely Due to His Increasing Conservatism

Find all my RedState work here.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below.

The Guardian Calls Increase In Gun Ownership “Disturbing”

by Leave a Comment

No one would ever mistake The Guardian for a pro-gun news outlet, but the paper’s new editorial on “rising gun violence” is still worth talking about, if for no other reason than to push back against some of the arguments. Take, for instance, The Guardian’s assertion that, while there’s no evidence that increased gun sales are in any way responsible for the surge in violent crime seen in many cities, there’s still something troubling about seeing millions of Americans embrace their Second Amendment rights for the first time in their lives.

Research so far does not suggest a direct correlation between the rises in gun sales and violence. Experts point instead to economic desperation, isolation and the loss of social structure with the closure of schools and community organisations by the pandemic, and the disruption to prevention initiatives – such as the work of violence interruptors, who help to mediate when conflict develops. But the increase in ownership is nonetheless disturbing, and one study – not yet peer-reviewed – suggests that states with lower levels of violent crime pre-Covid saw a stronger connection between additional gun purchases and more gun violence.

Yeah, that study The Guardian mentions comes from the anti-gun researchers at UC-Davis, so I’m gonna take their conclusions with some boulder-sized grains of salt. The bigger issue is that The Guardian’s editors are disturbed by an increase in gun ownership, which amounts to be disturbed over Americans exercising a civil right.

It’s also worth noting that the paper’s editors don’t seem to have much of an answer when it comes to fighting crime, other than to blame guns.

The president’s response includes predictable, if welcome, measures such as tightening regulations on the sale of “ghost guns” assembled from kits. The striking and overdue change was the $5bn earmarked in the infrastructure bill for prevention funding, though that may not survive congressional politicking. Community intervention programmes have been proven to work. The administration is to be applauded for recognising that while gun controls are essential, they cannot be sufficient in a country already awash with firearms. Nor will simply pouring more money into the police when those disproportionately hurt by gun violence – young black men – are also disproportionately targeted by law enforcement.

Come again? Gun controls are essential, but the enforcement of those laws leads to a disproportionate impact among young black men. Seems to me like those two positions are at odds with each other, but The Guardian’s editors don’t even attempt to reconcile their contradictory takes.

With gun violence costing America an estimated $280bn a year, a much bigger investment in prevention is both necessary and affordable. Other items on the administration’s list – such as bans on assault weapons and improved background checks – require congressional action that is unlikely. The National Rifle Association maintains significant political clout despite its disarray. It has also achieved what it wanted in exchange for its investment in Donald Trump: a strongly pro-gun supreme court, which is likely to hear a second amendment case soon, reviewing a New York law that strictly limits the carrying of guns outside the owner’s home. Legislative progress, however limited, could soon be unwound. In the face of such developments, and the fast-rising human toll, never have concerted efforts to tackle gun violence been more necessary.

Once again The Guardian conflates gun ownership with violent crime, which tells me that the “concerted efforts” they want to see would do far more to impact legal gun ownership than violent criminals. And that’s the real problem: whether the anti-gun editors like it or not, the United States is home to more than 100-million gun owners who have the constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear the estimated 400-million privately owned firearms in their collective possession. Any strategy to reduce violent crime that tries to do so by cracking down on gun ownership itself is bound to miss the target, and likely violate civil rights in the process. That might not matter much to the editors of the British paper, but here in the United States, there’s are 100-million reasons why their argument falls flat.