#晓辉性元谈# 应约转发【女权学者Christina Hoff Sommers创立的事实派女权者系列讲座-洋娃娃羞辱】视频中的讲课者是Caroline Kitchens。是解放女孩，还是洋娃娃羞辱？洋娃娃塑造论开始被提出的时候，我们还没有多少研究可以证明它的真伪。现在研究渐渐多起来了，在使用旧理论来解释问题之前，check the facts first。    

解说词如下：
Are fashion dolls and pretty princesses harmful to girls? Do we need to dismantle the pink aisle in our toy stores? That’s coming up next on the Factual Feminist. I’m Caroline Kitchens, in for Christina Hoff Sommers. You may have heard of GoldieBlox, a toy company which aims to replace toys like Hello Kitty and Barbie with vocationally responsible toys that will supposedly inspire girls to become engineers. Gender activists & journalists are thrilled by their aggressive, girl-power commercials. For them, rescuing girls from a toxic “princess culture” is an urgent priority.
GoldieBlox’s latest commercial shows a spunky girl with a hammer and overalls rebelling against an Orwellian “Big Sister.” GoldieBlox says that its new toy will “break the mold”--it is a figurine of a pretty, blonde-haired girl with pink sneakers and a hammer. Not exactly paradigm shifting. But let’s take a look at the message and facts behind GoldieBlox’s campaign. GoldieBlox’s website notes that only 14% of engineers are female. It’s true that girls have far outpaced boys academically—including in many of the sciences—but engineering is one field that continues to be dominated by men (show graph w/ percent of US women earning bachelor’s, master’s, PHDs in engineering.
But let’s take a look at the message and facts behind GoldieBlox’s campaign.) We can’t know for sure what explains the gap, but GoldieBlox insists that it has something to do with the all those pink girly toys. According to the commercial, “fashion dolls teach girls to value beauty over brains.” Is that really true? Industry researchers agree that toy store aisles have become more segregated by gender over the past few decades. But during the same time period, girls have made huge gains in education. Women now earn a majority of all degrees—bachelors, Masters, and doctorates. As for STEM fields, women now earn 44% of college math degrees, 48% of chemistry degrees, and 61% of biology degrees. Does Goldiebox have a shred of evidence that fashion dolls are holding girls back?
The GoldieBlox executives cite one study which claims to show that girls who play with Barbie see fewer career options for themselves than girls who play with Mr. Potato Head. But the study had a small sample size—only 37 girls—and the researchers asked girls about career expectations immediately after they played with the toys for only 5 minutes. There’s no way to know the long-term effects of playing with fashion dolls. The GoldieBlox creators don’t mention that the same study also asked the girls how many Barbies they own and how frequently they play with them. Researchers found that these variables did not substantially change the girls’ career expectations.
I applaud efforts to get more girls interested in engineering. Girls should know that they can become anything they want to be. But the problem with GoldieBlox’s ad is that it does not merely encourage girls to be engineers; it shames millions of girls who like fashion dolls and pretty shoes. It teaches them that they have to make a choice between beauty and brains. That’s a false dichotomy, and it sends a destructive message. Girls who like pink, sparkly toys can also aspire to be brilliant engineers someday.
There’s also something ironic about the 1984 theme of the ad. Toy stores have a pink aisle because little girls like it. And when you give customers what they want, you make a profit. They are not on a fanatical Orwellian mission to re-engineer gender preferences. On the other hand, the GoldieBlox creators are the ones who want to resocialize little girls according to some hardline feminist gender-correct blueprint.
The creators of GoldieBlox will reply that girls only like dolls because of cultural norms. They’ll say that they aren’t out to re-socialize girls, but to liberate them from arbitrary and damaging stereotypes of femininity. But what if a little girl does not want to be liberated from her preferences?

我的观后感：
女权理论一直告诉人们，女孩从小被给予洋娃娃做玩具，这至少部分塑造了她们未来的志向方向。女权理论暗示我们，在统计学上，不存在女孩天生比男孩喜欢洋娃娃的规律，女孩喜欢什么都是后天的灌输。但这种理论并不被可信的研究所支持。连幼小的猴子都是母的比公的更爱玩娃娃。而且，孩子喜欢玩什么玩具，真的那么容易被大人塑造吗？多少人有这样的经历，你给你的猫买了老鼠形，鱼形的高级玩具，但是你的猫拒绝玩，转而兴奋的撕扯起包装纸，钻进包装盒？拿走了纸盒，他宁愿什么都不玩，也不玩你买给他的玩具？连猫都不会因为一种玩具被提供给它们，它们就喜欢上，小孩子还没有猫有主见吗？
视频中说到，一家玩具公司为了推销“促进女孩对工科感兴趣的玩具”，除了做了极不严谨的37人调查试图支持他们的论调，还制作了“洋娃娃羞辱”的广告片。广告里的女孩子穿着一样的毛茸茸的衣服，粉色水晶鞋，目光呆滞步履沉重的排队走过来。广告的意思是，喜欢那些“女孩子的东西”的女孩都是没有思想，不会有出息的，要等着他们的玩具来拯救。这本身就是对大量的，喜欢那些粉色亮闪闪的东西和洋娃娃的女孩子们的羞辱。人是多面的，她们既可以从小自发的喜欢洋娃娃，也可以长大成为工程师。
否定女孩子整体上对玩具的偏好是天性，坚持说是后天塑造，本来是就是对她们的矮化：你连自己喜欢什么都不知道，你喜欢什么都是从小别人灌输给你的，你生来就是一块白板。其实我们都是基因里带着大量的先天性格爱好信息出生的，小孩子没有大人想象的那么傻，各个方面都那么容易被灌输东西，他们其实有着相当强的抗性。
现在的美国商店，儿童玩具区，面向不同性别孩子的玩具货架是空前的分离的，面向女孩的货架一眼望去全是粉色。性别区域比以前分离的要厉害。但是现在美国女生读理工科的比以前多了。根本没有证据说明粉色的和洋娃娃玩具被给予女孩子导致了女孩读理工科的少了。商家是看女孩子普遍喜欢那些才摆在一起，而不是有什么阴谋要洗脑女孩。
扩展来想，西方主流国家的化妆品产业越来越蓬勃，整容整形的顾客越来越多，而且90%仍为女性，但是女性并没有因此而玩物丧志，玩弄自己的身体而丧志，她们没有因而走向只重视脸蛋不重视大脑不重视独立的深渊。这是否说明，粉水晶鞋和洋娃娃从来不是向负面塑造女孩的罪魁，它们只是女孩们天然的，普遍的喜好。
洋娃娃塑造论开始被提出的时候，我们还没有多少研究可以证明它的真伪。现在研究渐渐多起来了，在使用旧理论来解释问题之前，check the facts first。