Pollitt is an award-winning poet.
Looking to decide ‘why boys do not play with dolls?’ it appears sensible to dispute that despite the proceedings that have been made in contemporary society, sex typecasts, which serve up as the foundation for determining actions of adults, continue to be an essential element of communal dialogue.
Pollitt is an award-winning poet. She also writes essays for The Nation. She believes that her writings are mostly coveted towards the entitlement of entire human rights to women. This thesis also prevails in her “Why Boys Don’t Play with Dolls”. She is well known for her ability to tear apart falsified arguments given by modern critics.
This essay was first printed in the New York Times Magazine. It is a short piece of writing if compared to Pollitt’s usual way of detailing logic and evidence together. Neither does she want her audience to think differently based on the reasons presented in this essay. But she does anticipate readers to be familiar with what is perceived as a common approach in this case; the conviction that there are native dissimilarities among the genders may be preposterous. The role of genders/sex is developed by society. This essay, like many of her other articles, battle the repercussions against feminism.
A practice that has been dominating the contemporary culture for a long time
What this efficiently proposes is that the truth that “boys do not play with dolls” is a practice that has been dominating the contemporary culture for a long time. In short mature individuals sight the boys playing with dolls as incorrect and forbid or bound the revelation that boys cannot possess dolls and other feminine toys such as Barbie dolls, tea sets, or pink dresses (Dressler & Kreuz., 2000).
When examined through this viewpoint, it turns out to be apparent that males do not engage in recreation with dolls since the heritage and gender labels that they are affiliated with do not allow this. Society has arrived at foretaste men as the superior type, unable to stoop to the identical grade as a female. This mindset is what assisted as the cornerstone for young men to reprimand dolls in the earlier periods. Male stereotypes dominating the community have assisted as the cornerstone for the mature individual male function to formulate the demeanor of young males and heighten them not to have fun with dolls. Even though this performance has preceded, the growth of feminism in the late 1900s started to move this model to some extent (Pollitt, 2002).
Why Boys Don’t Play with Dolls is concentrated on the stereotypes of males and females. She converses about associations such as NOW who have practically proved to have made a change in the idea of stereotyping; they are still very powerfully rampant. She interprets why young men still like indulging in motor trucks and why young women still like to play with dolls. She furthermore states how both males and females are endeavoring to shatter the typecast, but at the identical instance how convinced uniqueness of men and women haven’t altered and likely not ever will.
Genetically, men and women are bodily distinct; but the question arises are their functions currently put out in place for them? How did it originate? Boys are presumed to participate with activity numbers, and young women are presumed to take part in playing with dolls. I accept as a fact that it’s humankind that enforces or places what men and women can or cannot do. Equally and pleasantly, in Katha Pollitt’s (2002) essay, she makes an assertion that
“Instead of looking at kids to “prove” that differences in behavior by sex are innate, we can look at the ways we raise kids as an index to how unfinished the feminist revolution is, and how tentatively it is embraced even by adults who fully expect their daughters to enter previously male-dominated professions and their sons to change diapers.” (p. 186)
I agree with Pollitt’s thesis
I agree with Pollitt’s thesis underlined in “Why Boys Don’t Play with Dolls”. She talks about the origin and consequence of why young men take the function of powerful members of society and the young women to play the function of attractiveness and tenderness. Pollitt practically asserts that men’s and women’s qualities and behaviors are drawn from their taming in society, and to aid there is no need to do investigations on mind body chemistry or actions. By observing the way we lift children, we can simply identify how unfinished the feminist conversion is.
Even though it may be factual, Pollitt states that it’s “the ideology of flexible and converging sex functions aligns our children’s future,” (p. 190) but she has not rather sustained or clarified this assertion very well. What Pollitt needs to clarify is precisely how and why supple and united sex functions are to fit our children’s future.
Before males took the function of being overridden because of hereditary personal power over women, but in the present scenario equality stands above the rest (Arundale, 1998). Nonetheless, men are still known to be the ones who are more suited to combatant or unsafe tasks. On the other hand, women are more expected to be renowned for their attractiveness because of their god-gifted physical formation. Most females are recognized as being looked at by men as a personage of attractiveness, for they would favor achieving men’s notice. This is communal recognition.
Conclusion
Women’s perception about sports was estimated by Pollitt in her statement “but they would not think of discouraging their sons from participating in this activity they find so foolish” (p.187). As for the husbands, Pollitt states that are games followers, yet the wives agree to it and still feel affection for them. Today’s children will possibly instill leading their children the sense of suppleness and the need for a better-rounded culture. A society where the masculinity-based roles of the present era will equally be performed by everyone tomorrow.
References
Arundale, R. B. (1998). An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative politeness theory. Pragmatics , 9, 119-154.
Dressler, R. A., & Kreuz., R. J. (2000). Transcribing oral discourse: A survey and model system. Discourse Processes , 29, 25-36.
Pollitt, K. (2002). Why Boys Don’t Play With Dolls. (J. Kelly, Ed.) The Seagull Reader: Essays , 186-190.