https://www.artofplay.com/products/ace- ... -fatale-ed" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
![Image](https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0200/7616/products/1_grande.png?v=1569540581)
![Image](https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0200/7616/products/5_grande.png?v=1569540581)
![Image](https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0200/7616/products/7_grande.png?v=1569540581)
![Image](https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0200/7616/products/3_grande.png?v=1569540581)
Pink has obviously never been exclusive to one gender in clothing, but it is still almost exclusively associated with and used for items marketed toward females.ThatGuyDave77 wrote:If you grew up in the 80’s
They began marketing it that way in the 40's, opposite to established ideas in fact as pink was considered masculine throughout history up until then, it's not a new issue.ThatGuyDave77 wrote:until companies began marketing it that way
The youth and young adults today are fighting against the toxic norms perpetuated by the previous generations, so I doubt their parents taught them to do that. They're just using their heads. Besides, I didn't see any knee-jerk reaction here, just a quick mention, which wasn't even the main point of the comment. It may not have been intentional, but that's kind of the point, when it's ingrained in you by culture, society and marketing from the beginning you don't think about it, which is why it's a problem.ThatGuyDave77 wrote:we weren’t raised with this type of knee jerk reaction to gender issues
You are certainly free to do so, considering you are the only one bringing any. There's nothing controversial about this to anyone of reason, and addressing it is only done with positivity in mind as it can only bring about positive change.ThatGuyDave77 wrote:leave the controversial rhetoric and negativity out of it?
I don't see where you got that idea, just politely addressing what you've said because I saw flaws in it.ThatGuyDave77 wrote:Looks like I hit a nerve there.
Again, I seem to be the only one who is lightened up out of the two of us because I clearly only have positive intent. So for you to imply any negativity on my part in your previous comment, what did that say about yours in comparison which included a lot of negative language? That's why it seems you're the only one bringing any, even if you don't intend to.ThatGuyDave77 wrote:If you think anything I said in my previous comment was negative, you really should consider lightening up a bit.
And those people would be wrong. The time when somebody happens to see something is chance and nothing more, could be sooner or later, either way is irrelevant.ThatGuyDave77 wrote:That, imo anyway, is what some refer to as a knee jerk reaction.
That is exactly what we are addressing, and I feel sorry for you and your small perspective if you can't see why, it's just a small piece of a bigger much more important picture. You've already made it quite clear in another thread that you don't give two shits about 'real world issues that really should be addressed'. At this point I hate to imagine what you do think is important, clearly not our species future, the future of the planet, the progression of our society or human rights and equality. Maybe just money? How sad if that's the case.Harvonsgard wrote:Just gimme a call when we are back at playing cards and/or real world issues that really should be addressed. Thanks in advance.
rousselle wrote:You are a fussy, picky guy.
Lotrek wrote:Given the number of morons produced in the world every day, a pessimist is actually a well informed realist.
Räpylätassu wrote:"Tyhmyydestä sakotetaan." You get fined for being stupid.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], CourtCurator, Evilgamer, JazzBaloo, Magisterrene and 11 guests