My Little Dinosaur

[antorbitalfenestrae]

a) just because something is "rooted in evolution" (which it's not, there is nothing to support the idea that men and women's brains are fundamentally different) doesn't mean that an entire cultural thing, that is deeply harmful to more than half the population, can or should come out of it.

But men and women's brains ARE different. There's plenty of research to indicate that.

Women have a larger corpus callosum for example. Men have overall bigger brains too.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28582-scans-prove-theres-no-such-thing-as-a-male-or-female-brain/

[Sim]

The names of all of these except for the two stegosaurs are hilarious!  I also find it funny how they start off with an adjective in their name, "Playful Patti", "Jumping Jenny", "Adventurous Ali", "Loveable Lisa" and then there's "Giggles".  "Marshmallow", "Shortbread", "Dawn".  It's like there were two opposite ideas for how to name them and both ended up being used.

Due to a combination of how they look and their name, Jumping Jenny, Giggles, and Shortbread make me laugh the most!

[Halichoeres]

I hope everyone will forgive an evolutionary biologist for jumping into the fray. There are differences in gross morphology of brains between the sexes, but the functional significance of that is not at all obvious, and brain development is extremely plastic in any case. Maybe more to the point, whether something is rooted in evolution should have precisely zero normative consequences. The assertion that it should is a fallacy termed the "appeal to nature." As an example, most ancient human remains bear signs of blunt trauma, stabbings, and other forms of violence. Hence, violence was very clearly an overweening force in the evolution of humanity. Nevertheless, we've drawn up social contracts that have reduced the per-individual probability of death by violence to its lowest level literally ever (See Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature for more on this). Likewise, both historical accounts and population genetics strongly suggest that everyone now alive is, somewhere down the line, the product of sexual violence. Such violence remains lamentably common, but is probably also at its lowest level in human history.

My point is, our evolutionary history cannot be invoked in support of norms, morals, or policies that favor one group over another. By the same token, we should by no means discourage a girl who wants to play with dolls, any more than we should discourage a girl who wants to play with action figures. But what we "should" do does not follow from what has been in the past. Our evolutionary history is in many ways irrelevant to society as we have constructed it, because we humans have achieved a level of self-awareness that lets us suppress our own evolutionary instincts (witness, for example, the many people who choose to adopt children rather than contribute to the gene pool). I would argue that our lives are better as a result of this suppression, because philosophy and ethics can furnish us with rules that engender well-being, whereas evolution doesn't care about well-being, only whether you manage to produce offspring (a moment's thought will reveal that these two things are not at all the same). In light of this, I believe that gender-specific marketing of toys is problematic because it normalizes traditions that have nothing to redeem them except that they've been around a long time.

PS @Silvanusaurus, whereas I agree with you nearly completely, I will object to the characterization of this as a problem particular to modern society. I would claim that modern society is actually better on this score than the great majority of ancient societies.

[Silvanusaurus]

It's a stereotype that is firmly rooted in human evolution. We know that boys and girls gravitate to certain kinds of toys. I don't have an issue with a little boy wanting to play with a girl's toy, but I think the marketing of gendered toys is perfectly acceptable. By the way, even monkeys show a preference for gendered toys.

I was just trying to make a joking comment upon how appalling the gender stereotyping seen in these toys actually is, I think it's a deeply upsetting aspect of modern culture, but you are right that this is not the place to discuss it.

Not so fast. If you didn't want to start a debate, you shouldn't have said anything. You don't get to start something then have the last word by closing the debate, that's not fair.

It's not an aspect of modern culture either, it's part of human evolution, as I mentioned above. Gender stereotypes exist because they are needed for human society to function.

Evolution has nothing to do whatsoever with human culture and it's progression, which has moved very far beyond anything that can be defined as 'natural'. I'd just like to say that when I said 'modern culture' I didnt mean to imply that I thought it was an exclusively 'modern' phenomenon, it's just that modernity is the context of the problem in it's current state. And for a society that is constantly trying to move away from the binding, deep rooted social divisions and accepted 'norms' of the past, it's the lingering wide-spread acceptance of things like this in 'modern' society, and the attitude of 'it's just the way things are and so they should not change', that is consistently detrimental to positive progression.
I realise that positivity is a matter of opinion, but like or not, this 'society' is one we created ourselves for the benefit of ourselves, not something defined by evolution (the example of the monkeys is ludicrous because it simply projects human ideas onto a species that doesnt actually comprehend them), and so I firmly believe we should work together to mould that society into one that is less divided and truly equal, for ourselves and for our children. You may think something is fine as it is, or is harmless, but there are a lot of people who feel truly oppressed by such divisions and 'rules', and the inability of lot of people to see past them, and I don't think that is fine in the slightest.
The reason all of this is quite relevant in this situation is because, normal and mundane as toys may seem, they have a large part to play in shaping the imagination of children, and as long as these stagnant stereotypes are reinforced by toys and the way they are presented to children, then they will remain ingrained within society.
And no I didnt want to debate, and I wasn't trying to goad anyone into one, I just saw a comment that I found upsetting, originally tried to undermine it in a flippant manner, and when questioned simply supported that flipancy with a serious point of view on it. The reason I suggested that this wasn't the right place to discuss the matter was because I knew that in this situation it would only lead to a pointless exchange of incompatible view points, ultimately leading to both sides becoming frustrated and upset, nobody would benefit from it and ultimately it wouldnt contribute much to the content of this forum. I apologise if I have exacerbated the situation.

[Nanuqsaurus]

Well this thread escalated quickly.

Let's get back to discussing the toys, I'd like to talk about the scientific accuracy of these. Playful Patti, for example, has pronated hands, which should not be possible. The sauropods have an incorrect number of claws, and the feet of Giggles and Shortbread are too elephantine. The vibrant colors are a nice change from the browns and greys often used in dinosaur toys (Papo does this a lot, for example). I also do like the hairlike protofeathers, altough I'm not sure if that's accurate for sauropods and stegosaurs. Unlike REBOR's models, these dinosaurs are not shrink-wrapped at all, which is a plus. They're not only great desktop models but also have a lot of playability for kids. 
So I'd say 4/5 stars, definitely better than most popular brands! If you come across these in a store, you should pick one up. They're worth the money.

[CityRaptor]

I don't think that the Patti-mold is meant to represent a theropod. I think it is an Ornithopod, likely Hadrosaur of some sort.

Hasbro's Cutesaurus is also clearly a more elegant Sauropod than the ones in this line:

[Nanuqsaurus]

I don't think that the Patti-mold is meant to represent a theropod. I think it is an Ornithopod, likely Hadrosaur of some sort.

Ah, now that you say it, I can see it... But to be honest, it's kinda difficult to recognize any form of dinosaur in these things.
And that sauropod looks like a horse.

[tyrantqueen]

Evolution has nothing to do whatsoever with human culture and it's progression, which has moved very far beyond anything that can be defined as 'natural'.

What an absolutely ridiculous statement. Why do you think men are physically stronger than women? Why are women physically weaker than men, and have greater tendencies towards empathy? Why is it that in nearly every culture across the globe, men are the heads of the house and the providers? A coincidence, is it?

The reason why the vast majority of supermarkets sell gendered products is because parents find it helpful. If a little boy wants to play with a Barbie, that's fine. I really don't have a problem with that. But the vast majority of them don't.

[Flaffy]

How did this thread turn from cute-ish happy-go-lucky MyLittleDino line to a debate on male and female stereotypes, human phycology and evolution? If there is a flame war going on, please resolve it ASAP. Thanks 

[stargatedalek]

Men are the "heads of houses" in cultures around the world because once upon a time the people in power were sexist bigots (which eventually derived into chivalry, which many people still find sexist). Just because that follows a general trend throughout mammals does not in any way justify it. And actually I need to correct you on that point since many native North American cultures are/were matriarchal societies.

Women are often weaker than men because culture discourages them from honing their strength but encourages it of men. It isn't evolution, it's unconscious sexism.

Decades ago sure gender marketing toys was working, but now it only takes a quick glance down the "girls section" in a toy store to realize the "girls section" is mostly just an extension of the toddler section. The majority of "girl oriented products" are just preschooler aged products in fluorescent colours. This only further enforces cultural stereotypes (both of girls who look at the toys in and out of said section) and so furthers its own downward spiral. "Girls toys" are getting worse and worse in quality whereas "boys toys" are (in general) getting better, presumably to try and appeal to collectors as a secondary market.

[tyrantqueen]

Women are often weaker than men because culture discourages them from honing their strength but encourages it of men. It isn't evolution, it's unconscious sexism.

No. Women have physically around 40% less upper body strength than man. Even if a woman trains herself, she can never be as strong as a man because she doesn't have the testosterone needed for muscle growth.

[stargatedalek]

Women are often weaker than men because culture discourages them from honing their strength but encourages it of men. It isn't evolution, it's unconscious sexism.

No. Women have physically around 40% less upper body strength than man. Even if a woman trains herself, she can never be as strong as a man because she doesn't have the testosterone needed for muscle growth.

I suppose I just wasn't taking that literally enough. But brute force isn't everything, we simply don't need the level of brute force a "maxed out" human is capable of to survive anymore.

Anyway, I made a new topic.
http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=4697.0

[Simon]

Evolution has nothing to do whatsoever with human culture and it's progression, which has moved very far beyond anything that can be defined as 'natural'.

What an absolutely ridiculous statement. Why do you think men are physically stronger than women? Why are women physically weaker than men, and have greater tendencies towards empathy? Why is it that in nearly every culture across the globe, men are the heads of the house and the providers? A coincidence, is it?

The reason why the vast majority of supermarkets sell gendered products is because parents find it helpful. If a little boy wants to play with a Barbie, that's fine. I really don't have a problem with that. But the vast majority of them don't.

Amazingly, even monkeys display gender-preferences when offered human toys to play with;  male monkeys prefer to play with boys' toys, while female monkeys prefer to play with both boys' and girls' toys. 

Here is the link: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13596-male-monkeys-prefer-boys-toys/

[stargatedalek]

That's hardly conclusive. For one they were comparing "plush" toys and "wheeled" toys, which are not normally gender based. A lot of plush toys are marketed to boys and a lot of wheeled toys are marketed to girls. I agree with the researches skepticism that it could be just some are more suited to the aggressive/active behavior of the male monkeys. It borders dangerously on sexism to imply that girls are genetically predisposed to like the fluorescent cheaply produced toys more often marketed to them.

[Kayakasaurus]

Fascinating discussion! But debating whether or not there is a male female brain (and the origin of gender) can be considered "hate speech" if it offends anyone. There also seems to be an assumption of two genders, when clearly there are over 50 different ones. Please check your privilege before typing about biology.

[tyrantqueen]

Fascinating discussion! But debating whether or not there is a male female brain (and the origin of gender) can be considered "hate speech" if it offends anyone. There also seems to be an assumption of two genders, when clearly there are over 50 different ones. Please check your privilege before typing about biology.

Phew, I thought you were being serious for a second there

[Rain]

DinoToyTumblr

Anyways, they'd probably look pretty cute if they weren't so anthropomorphic

[Silvanusaurus]

Evolution has nothing to do whatsoever with human culture and it's progression, which has moved very far beyond anything that can be defined as 'natural'.

What an absolutely ridiculous statement. Why do you think men are physically stronger than women? Why are women physically weaker than men, and have greater tendencies towards empathy? Why is it that in nearly every culture across the globe, men are the heads of the house and the providers? A coincidence, is it?

I'm done. Your comment does nothing to call my point into question, it simply aggressively demonstrates a world-view which I think is fundamentally wrong and regressive, and if you are truly sincere in this view, then I honestly do not wish to argue with you, as I'm finding those views offensive and troubling, and I don't want to start being aggressive myself, as I hate the thought of upsetting anyone. Needless to say, I do hope you are in the minority on this forum and am glad to say most people who I might discuss this with would also utterly disagree with what you are saying. Rather than responding to what you've said specifically I just want to let you know in a civilized manner that there are many people who will find both your tone and your outlook upsetting, and I would advise that you be considerate in future about the feelings of other people, and the impact of the kind of society you are supporting upon those you do not know, who have experienced things very differently from yourself. I'm just advocating that in spite of both history and evolution, living in a society that is fair and equal is a fundamentally good thing, and if you disagree with this, then I don't know what else to say.

[PaleoMatt]

Put your eyes under the tap.... now....

[tyrantqueen]

Evolution has nothing to do whatsoever with human culture and it's progression, which has moved very far beyond anything that can be defined as 'natural'.

What an absolutely ridiculous statement. Why do you think men are physically stronger than women? Why are women physically weaker than men, and have greater tendencies towards empathy? Why is it that in nearly every culture across the globe, men are the heads of the house and the providers? A coincidence, is it?

I'm done. Your comment does nothing to call my point into question, it simply aggressively demonstrates a world-view which I think is fundamentally wrong and regressive, and if you are truly sincere in this view, then I honestly do not wish to argue with you, as I'm finding those views offensive and troubling, and I don't want to start being aggressive myself, as I hate the thought of upsetting anyone. Needless to say, I do hope you are in the minority on this forum and am glad to say most people who I might discuss this with would also utterly disagree with what you are saying. Rather than responding to what you've said specifically I just want to let you know in a civilized manner that there are many people who will find both your tone and your outlook upsetting, and I would advise that you be considerate in future about the feelings of other people, and the impact of the kind of society you are supporting upon those you do not know, who have experienced things very differently from yourself. I'm just advocating that in spite of both history and evolution, living in a society that is fair and equal is a fundamentally good thing, and if you disagree with this, then I don't know what else to say.

You must have a problem with human biology, then. It's all true. Men and women are different, we have different strengths and weaknesses. But we are equal in rights and dignity.