WestCoastRunner

What exactly does she represent. Whatever it is, I assure you, it does not threaten canadians.

She has no serious political commentary that anyone could subscribe to (IMHO).

Sarah Palin draws realty television viewers: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/18/wild-for-america-palins-new-tv-series-is-her-next-/ “People who love the outdoors and support the Second Amendment will find this show and its focus on Sarah to their liking,” Mr. McCall said. “I am quite certain that Sarah’s show will be a ratings winner for this channel and her high profile will draw people to the channel who previously had not tried it.” The Sportsman Channel provides 24/7 programming about hunting, fishing and shooting to more than 32 million households. “Obviously, what you want from a host is someone true to the brand and the lifestyle. She certainly checks that box,” said Marc Fein, executive vice president of programming and production for the Sportsman Channel. Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/18/wild-for-america-palins-new-tv-series-is-her-next-/#ixzz2wqEFZ9kb Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter We are talking the sports channel folks!!!

Because if it is....

Is this thread about abortions?

There is much research on socialized behaviours. Do we need to cite research studies? Seriously?

I agree that there is confusion about the article and what the message is. What I believe she is trying to communicate is that books should not be marketed specifically at boys or girls. Children don't fit neatly into these boy/girl boxes. This whole campaign is about letting the books speak for themselves and not labelling which gender should read them. We don't need books with pink covers and blue covers and book sellers having girls and boys sections.

We can take it one step further and point to research about gender-type toys for example: Professor Blakemore: If you want to develop children's physical, cognitive, academic, musical, and artistic skills, toys that are not strongly gender-typed are more likely to do this. What message about toys do you think families of young children could take from your research? Professor Blakemore: For parents, it’s the same message as for teachers: Strongly gender-typed toys might encourage attributes that aren’t ones you actually want to foster. For girls, this would include a focus on attractiveness and appearance, perhaps leading to a message that this is the most important thing—to look pretty. For boys, the emphasis on violence and aggression (weapons, fighting, and aggression) might be less than desirable in the long run. Also, moderately masculine toys have many positive qualities (spatial skills, science, building things, etc.) that parents might want to encourage in both boys and girls. Perhaps, to some extent, it is the same for some moderately feminine toys (nurturance, care for infants, developing skills in cooking and housework). What's the most surprising thing you think your research tells us about children, toys, and play? Professor Blakemore: I am not sure how surprising this is to me but it might be to parents: Moderately masculine toys encourage children's physical, cognitive, academic, musical, and artistic skills more so than moderately feminine ones. I realize these are referring to toys but I think the same can be said for books. Children should have a choice what they want to read and they shouldn't be marketed towards one gender and not the other. http://www.naeyc.org/content/what-research-says-gender-typed-toys

You don't get to become a literary editor of The Independent On Sunday by making up crap.

No one is saying there should no books about football players, cowboys, firefighters and spaceships. Last I looked, there were females participating in all of these activities. Girls like romance? You make it sound like girls only like romance. Don't girls also like sports and adventure and I'm sure there are some boys/men who like to romance their girlfriends/wives/partners. When my daughters were growing up, I refused to buy them those magazines that focus on their looks, weight, makeup, how to get a man etc. And I believe they are the better for it and so are their husbands/boyfriends. As a man, would you not want your partner to be more enlightened about the world instead of just looking better? To say that this is being politically correct is just wrong. This has more to do with raising children to rise to their highest potential. We owe that to our children.

On guard, I love those words "No one asked the Daughter" . Those are amazing words.

The daughter would have no such choice to begin with. The moment she became pregnant, her life was made up. It had nothing to do with her choice or what she wanted in her life. However, it had everything to do with the church her parents belonged to. No one asked the daughter.

Your tolerance of people is disguisting.

that is exactly what I am talking about. Your opinions about dumbass natives are truly insulting. That is your opinion about a group of people. I would like to hear your opinion about native canadians, but i don't want to hear about dumbass native canadians. Do you comprehend this at all?

And you test us well. don't you bush. And how dare you quote PE Trudea.

Obviously this thread isn't the right one for discussing what you bring up. When you can start a thread about dumbass natives, i will respond.

Is this directed at me?

I don't understand how stating that 'dumbass local natives' can be beneficial to any conversation. I don't believe that this is a politically incorrect remark. I believe that this is truly an insulting remark. Can you for an instant, put yourself in the boots of a canadian native. Do you understand what they have been through, what they fight for, the grievances they have had to endure and continue to fight for the rights of their people. When you can say 'yes', then I will give consider you calling them what you did.

Stay on topic.

Well, they were sexist remarks and I will stand by my accusation but it really doesn't matter. Sexist remarks are very subtle and hard to pinpoint.

Thank you Argus for not letting me hang out to dry. I thought that is what you said and I had no intention of putting words in your mouth. I thought that I had comprehended what you said was correct. And the end result was that someone took to task that I was sensitive to sexist remarks. Let's all be aware of how powerful words can be misconstrued.

So now I am being hung to dry for something that someone else said????

Ok, so this is where I get confused. You are saying that it should be ok to call them 'dumbass local natives' in this forum. Is that what you are saying? I just want to be clear here. This has nothing to do with me being new here.

I am sorry but I am truly confused. One poster tells me that you did not say those disparaging remarks and now you tell me that you did say those remarks. You started this thread. If you can't take it, think twice before starting a thread about you being suspended.

You are kidding, right? Can you get a little bit more mature. I think I can handle sexists remarks. I'm used to it and I don't expect folks to be suspended for being idiotic.