When Asked To Sort ‘Girls’ And ‘Boys’ Gifts, Obama Destroys Toy Gender Stereotypes (VIDEO)

Ads by Adblade

‘Skinny’ Pill Takes Hong Kong By Storm…

10 ideas for a great first date

Funniest Vine Compilation of 2014

You Won’t Believe Who Tops the List as the Most Generous Celebrity!

December 23, 2014 ↔ no comments

Kerry-Anne

President and Michelle Obama were sorting toys into ‘girls’ and ‘boys’ bins for the Marine’s Toys for Tots program earlier this month when the President tackled toy-gender stereotypes in true Obama fashion.

First Lady Michelle Obama brought along a special helper to Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling in Washington, D.C. this year.

“I’m the big elf,” the President declared. “I’m like Will Ferrell.”

Between them, the pair delivered about 1,000 toys from the President’s staff to the U.S. Marine Corps’ Toys for Tots campaign, an annual holiday toy drive.

But then things got even more adorable. The President started putting the sports and the science toys into the ‘girls’ bin.  Placing a basketball into the bin, Obama says:

“I just wanna make sure some girls play some ball.”

A person from the crowd queries his decision to put legos in the girls, rather than the boys collection – because they might not like them.  The President responds:

“Girls don’t like toys?”

As he continues to sort, he comes across a T-Ball set.

“T-Ball? Girls like T-Ball” and nodding, puts the set in the girls’ bin.  The crowd is snapping photos, with some looking a little confused and he adds. “I’m just trying to break down these gender stereotypes.”

While this is the first time the President is participating, the First Lady is a veteran.

“This is the sixth year I’ve been involved with Toys for Tots,” the First Lady said, as she addressed the assembled program team. “And every year it’s just a tremendous privilege to be able to be a part of making Christmas just a little brighter for a few kids across the country.”

We still have a lot of time. And one of the things that I just want to remind the public is that there’s still time to donate. And we really want to urge folks out there do everything in their power to donate to Toys for Tots.

And if you need to find out where to go, all you have to go — do is go to the Toys for Tots website.  People can donate online. They can go by one of the drop-off centers.

 

(Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

The President, serving as Sorter-in-Chief for the day, thanked the Marine Corps for their“extraordinary work” in delivering decades of joy to children across the country.

“Since it started in the 1940s, Toys for Tots has distributed more than 469 million toys to more than 216 million children,” he noted. “That’s a lot dollhouses, that’s a lot of Ninja Turtles.”

Our men and women in uniform and our military families don’t just work to keep us safe; they’re also strengthening our country here at home. They’re volunteering at schools, congregations, our communities. With our combat mission coming to a close in Afghanistan, it means more of our extraordinary military members are going to be home for the holidays, back where they belong.  And that is the most important blessing of all.

Conservatives may argue this administration has launched a war on Christmas.  But with such programs, progressive attitudes and just plain human warmth on display, it seems to this writer that the Obamas have Christmas spirit in abundance.

Photo credits: Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

Help us get the word out!

Ads by Adblade

Trending Offers and Articles

‘Skinny’ Pill Takes Hong Kong By Storm…

The most expensive things you don’t need!

The worst things about Airline Travel

Revolting Facts About Fast Food Burgers. Did You Know?

Amazing facts you probably don’t want to know about!

You Won’t Believe Who Tops the List as the Most Generous Celebrity!

These are the Greatest Gifts that Give All Year Long!

Three simple solutions to finally shedding excess weight

Previous PostHe Gave A Homeless Man $100 Then Secretly Followed Him To See How He Would Spend It (VIDEO)

 

Back to top

MobileDesktop

© Addicting Info Copyright 2014 All Rights Reserved

讚賞孩子的8大技巧

https://hk.mobi.yahoo.com/story/?key=hk:data:story:a4b4b9ec-dfb0-3f0d-bca5-2de217fbfbd9&site=news&ctg=featured

正確地讚賞孩子的優點可以打動他們的心。但假若運用了錯誤的方法，不僅不能鼓勵孩子，相反還可能讓他們變成為「港孩」呢！以下是8大表揚孩子的技巧：

1. 減少「很好」、「真厲害」這類判斷式的讚賞
這個類形的讚賞方式，經常會因為運用得過多而成為了敷衍小孩的用語，而且充其量它是只一種判斷式的讚賞。過於頻繁的話，家長自身一來會忽略了孩子的具體能力，二來更會讓孩子沉溺於「我做什麼事都做得很好，我太完美了！」的錯覺。久而久之，孩子就會依賴成人來告訴他對錯好壞，並習慣於取悅大人，迎合別人的期望。令他衡量自己的價值觀會變成「能不能讓別人高興」。

也就是說，判斷式的讚賞會讓孩子過分在意外在認可，但內心做事情的熱情就沒有得到激發，不懂得自我激勵。孩子必需要學習成為自己的判斷者、主導者。

2. 更具體的讚賞

仔細思考一下你想讚賞孩子的甚麼特點？通常表揚他們都是為了鼓勵更多的好行為，所以讚賞時也要具體指出他們做得好的地方，例如：「你一直都在幫媽媽搬東西，很辛苦哦！」、「這幅畫你很認真地畫了一個上午呢！」。

3. 強調努力的讚賞

最有效的讚賞就莫過於注重孩子做事的過程和為之付出的努力，而不是結果。有效地鼓勵孩子努力向前，他就能學會自我激勵，而不是為了你的肯定才去做什麼事情，例如：「哇！你把房子蓋得很高！你怎麼能把積木壘得這麼整齊？」

4. 以「你」開始的讚賞

這樣說可以幫助孩子審視自己，為自己的成績感到自豪。成就感能促使孩子不斷努力，以獲取成功。

5. 強調效果的讚賞
如果孩子幫助了別人，讚賞的重點就可以放在這個優點之上，例如「你把車子給同學玩，你看，他開心極了。」

6. 有預期的讚賞
「我要你來幫忙你便過來了，讓我節省了很多時間呢！」這樣的讚賞，會令孩子理解你的期望，不會在你叫他的時候沒有反應了。

7. 不添加主觀判斷的讚賞

「你畫的鳥像是要從紙上飛出來了！」比「我喜歡你畫的鳥。」更好。孩子需要的是通過讚賞，對自己所做的事情感覺良好，而不是對大人的稱讚感覺良好。

8. 問句式的讚賞
有時候，尊重他做的事情，以問句形式體現出來，對孩子來說是最大的獎賞。例如：「這座城堡的哪個部分是最難修建的？」或者：「你的畫裡面，你最喜歡的顏色是什麼？」

The 9 Types Of Men’s Collars, And When To Wear Them

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-9-types-of-mens-collars-and-when-to-wear-them-2014-12?utm_content=buffer822e2&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

The 9 Types Of Men’s Collars, And When To Wear Them
Articles Of Style
DAN TREPANIER, ARTICLES OF STYLE
DEC. 9, 2014, 5:18 PM 32,581
FACEBOOK
LINKEDIN
TWITTER
GOOGLE+
PRINT
EMAIL
Cover2
Alex Crawford/Articles of Style

A lot can be said about a man from his choice in collars.

Here are the most common styles in menswear, along with a little guidance.

THE FORWARD POINT COLLAR640 81
Alex Crawford/Articles of Style
Distinctive quality: the narrow space between the two collar points, which are often not covered by the jacket lapels.

Recommended for: traditionalists, minimalists, bowtie wearers, formal shirts, guys with round faces, narrow ties.

THE BUTTON-DOWN COLLAR640 31
Alex Crawford/Articles of Style
Distinctive quality: the buttons, of course.

Recommended for: casual settings, preppy guys, sportsmen, students, non-tie wearers.

THE SPREAD COLLAR640 61
Alex Crawford/Articles of Style
Distinctive quality: the roughly 45 degree angle of the collar points.

Recommended for: businessmen, rich guys, men with large necks, wider neckties.

THE CUTAWAY COLLARMenswearCutawayCollarDenimShirt
Alex Crawford/Articles of Style
Distinctive quality: the severe angle of the collar points and the visible “noose” ends of the necktie.

Recommended for: fashionistos, statement makers, guys who wear Italian suits, guys with narrow faces.

THE CLUB COLLAR640 41
Alex Crawford/Articles of Style
Distinctive quality: the rounded collar points (shown here with a collar pin).

Recommended for: club members, brainiacs, Ivy leaguers, guys who play by the rules, guys who appreciate exclusivity.

THE TAB COLLAR640 71
Alex Crawford/Articles of Style
Distinctive quality: the hidden button that fastens the two collar points together under the tie knot (causing the knot to lift and the collar to crease at its midpoint).

Recommended for: guys with strong attention to detail, guys who hate collar flares, guys who take pride in their tie dimples, guys who enjoy the art of dressing.

THE POWER COLLAR640 13
Alex Crawford/Articles of Style
Distinctive quality: a taller neckband that has two buttons on the collar.

Recommended for: large athletic guys, guys with long necks, confident guys, substantial neckties, guys with large personalities.

THE BAND COLLAR640 21
Alex Crawford/Articles of Style
Distinctive quality: the lack of a collar, really. It’s just a neckband.

Recommended for: artists, outdoorsmen, guys who work with their hands, guys who enjoy layering, guys who are nostalgic about old times.

——————-

What’s your go-to collar style?

Yours in style,

Dan Trepanier

Read more: http://articlesofstyle.com/55368/a-guide-to-shirt-collar-styles/#ixzz3LWAj7gN5

Toys Are More Divided by Gender Now Than They Were 50 Years Ago

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/toys-are-more-divided-by-gender-now-than-they-were-50-years-ago/383556/2/

Toys Are More Divided by Gender Now Than They Were 50 Years Ago
Even at times when discrimination was much more common, catalogs contained more neutral appeals than advertisements today.
ELIZABETH SWEETDEC 9 2014, 7:30 AM ET

Lucy Nicholson/Reuters
When it comes to buying gifts for children, everything is color-coded: Rigid boundaries segregate brawny blue action figures from pretty pink princesses, and most assume that this is how it’s always been. But in fact, the princess role that’s ubiquitous in girls’ toys today was exceedingly rare prior to the 1990s—and the marketing of toys is more gendered now than even 50 years ago, when gender discrimination and sexism were the norm.

In my research on toy advertisements, I found that even when gendered marketing was most pronounced in the 20th century, roughly half of toys were still being advertised in a gender-neutral manner. This is a stark difference from what we see today, as businesses categorize toys in a way that more narrowly forces kids into boxes. For example, a recent study by sociologists Carol Auster and Claire Mansbach found that all toys sold on the Disney Store’s website were explicitly categorized as being “for boys” or “for girls”—there was no “for boys and girls” option, even though a handful of toys could be found on both lists.

That is not to say that toys of the past weren’t deeply infused with gender stereotypes. Toys for girls from the 1920s to the 1960s focused heavily on domesticity and nurturing. For example, a 1925 Sears ad for a toy broom-and-mop set proclaimed: “Mothers! Here is a real practical toy for little girls. Every little girl likes to play house, to sweep, and to do mother’s work for her”:

An ad from a 1925 Sears catalog (Sears)
Such toys were clearly designed to prepare young girls to a life of homemaking, and domestic tasks were portrayed as innately enjoyable for women. Ads like this were still common, though less prevalent, into the 1960s—a budding housewife would have felt right at home with the toys to “delight the little homemaker” in the 1965 Sears Wishbook:

An ad from the 1965 Sears Wishbook (Sears)
While girls’ toys focused on domesticity, toys for boys from the ’20s through the ’60s emphasized preparation for working in the industrial economy. For example, a 1925 Sears ad for an Erector Set stated, “Every boy likes to tinker around and try to build things. With an Erector Set he can satisfy this inclination and gain mental development without apparent effort. … He will learn the fundamentals of engineering”:

An ad from a 1925 Sears catalog (Sears)
However, gender-coded toy advertisements like these declined markedly in the early 1970s. By then, there were many more women in the labor force and, after the Baby Boom, marriage and fertility rates had dropped. In the wake of those demographic shifts and at the height of feminism’s second-wave, playing upon gender stereotypes to sell toys had become a risky strategy. In the Sears catalog ads from 1975, less than 2 percent of toys were explicitly marketed to either boys or girls. More importantly, there were many ads in the ‘70s that actively challenged gender stereotypes—boys were shown playing with domestic toys and girls were shown building and enacting stereotypically masculine roles such as doctor, carpenter, and scientist:

In the 1970s, Sears catalogues had a higher proportion of gender-neutral advertisements. (Sears)
Although gender inequality in the adult world continued to diminish between the 1970s and 1990s, the de-gendering trend in toys was short-lived. In 1984, the deregulation of children’s television programming suddenly freed toy companies to create program-length advertisements for their products, and gender became an increasingly important differentiator of these shows and the toys advertised alongside them. During the 1980s, gender-neutral advertising receded, and by 1995, gendered toys made up roughly half of the Sears catalog’s offerings—the same proportion as during the interwar years.

However, late-century marketing relied less on explicit sexism and more on implicit gender cues, such as color, and new fantasy-based gender roles like the beautiful princess or the muscle-bound action hero. These roles were still built upon regressive gender stereotypes—they portrayed a powerful, skill-oriented masculinity and a passive, relational femininity—that were obscured with bright new packaging. In essence, the “little homemaker” of the 1950s had become the “little princess” we see today.

It doesn’t have to be this way. While gender is what’s traditionally used to sort target markets, the toy industry (which is largely run by men) could categorize its customers in a number of other ways—in terms of age and interest, for example. (This could arguably broaden the consumer base.) However, the reliance on gender categorization comes from the top: I found no evidence that the trends of the past 40 years are the result of consumer demand. That said, the late-20th-century increase in the percentage of Americans who believe in gender differences suggests that the public wasn’t exactly rejecting gendered toys, either.

In the Sears catalog ads from 1975, less than 2 percent of toys were explicitly marketed to either boys or girls.
While the second-wave feminist movement challenged the tenets of gender difference, the social policies to create a level playing field were never realized and a cultural backlash towards feminism began to gain momentum in the 1980s. In this context, the model outlined in Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus—which implied that women gravitated toward certain roles not because of oppression but because of some innate preference—took hold. This new tale of gender difference, which emphasizes freedom and choice, has been woven deeply into the fabric of contemporary childhood. The reformulated story does not fundamentally challenge gender stereotypes; it merely repackages them to make them more palatable in a “post-feminist” era. Girls can be anything—as long as it’s passive and beauty-focused.

Many who embrace the new status quo in toys claim that gender-neutrality would be synonymous with taking away choice, in essence forcing children to become androgynous automatons who can only play with boring tan objects. However, as the bright palette and diverse themes found among toys from the ‘70s demonstrates, decoupling them from gender actually widens the range of options available. It opens up the possibility that children can explore and develop their diverse interests and skills, unconstrained by the dictates of gender stereotypes. And ultimately, isn’t that what we want for them?

Why Are Some Cultures More Individualistic Than Others?–NYTimes

CONTRIBUTING OP-ED WRITER
Wheat People vs. Rice People

The Opinion Pages | CONTRIBUTING OP-ED WRITER

Wheat People vs. Rice People

Why Are Some Cultures More Individualistic Than Others?
DEC. 3, 2014
Photo

AMERICANS and Europeans stand out from the rest of the world for our sense of ourselves as individuals. We like to think of ourselves as unique, autonomous, self-motivated, self-made. As the anthropologist Clifford Geertz observed, this is a peculiar idea.

People in the rest of the world are more likely to understand themselves as interwoven with other people — as interdependent, not independent. In such social worlds, your goal is to fit in and adjust yourself to others, not to stand out. People imagine themselves as part of a larger whole — threads in a web, not lone horsemen on the frontier. In America, we say that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. In Japan, people say that the nail that stands up gets hammered down.

These are broad brush strokes, but the research demonstrating the differences is remarkably robust and it shows that they have far-reaching consequences. The social psychologist Richard E. Nisbett and his colleagues found that these different orientations toward independence and interdependence affected cognitive processing. For example, Americans are more likely to ignore the context, and Asians to attend to it. Show an image of a large fish swimming among other fish and seaweed fronds, and the Americans will remember the single central fish first. That’s what sticks in their minds. Japanese viewers will begin their recall with the background. They’ll also remember more about the seaweed and other objects in the scene.

Another social psychologist, Hazel Rose Markus, asked people arriving at San Francisco International Airport to fill out a survey and offered them a handful of pens to use, for example four orange and one green; those of European descent more often chose the one pen that stood out, while the Asians chose the one more like the others.

Dr. Markus and her colleagues found that these differences could affect health. Negative affect — feeling bad about yourself — has big, persistent consequences for your body if you are a Westerner. Those effects are less powerful if you are Japanese, possibly because the Japanese are more likely to attribute the feelings to their larger situation and not to blame themselves.

There’s some truth to the modernization hypothesis — that as social worlds become wealthier, they also become more individualistic — but it does not explain the persistent interdependent style of Japan, South Korea and Hong Kong.

In May, the journal Science published a study, led by a young University of Virginia psychologist, Thomas Talhelm, that ascribed these different orientations to the social worlds created by wheat farming and rice farming. Rice is a finicky crop. Because rice paddies need standing water, they require complex irrigation systems that have to be built and drained each year. One farmer’s water use affects his neighbor’s yield. A community of rice farmers needs to work together in tightly integrated ways.

Not wheat farmers. Wheat needs only rainfall, not irrigation. To plant and harvest it takes half as much work as rice does, and substantially less coordination and cooperation. And historically, Europeans have been wheat farmers and Asians have grown rice.

The authors of the study in Science argue that over thousands of years, rice- and wheat-growing societies developed distinctive cultures: “You do not need to farm rice yourself to inherit rice culture.”

Continue reading the main story
RECENT COMMENTS

N B 8 minutes ago
Malcolm Gladwell writes of other valuable personal traits from the rice culture in Outliers, patience, the ability to work very hard. Has…
Siobhan 19 minutes ago
Clearly no one has spent much time in Holland. They also have sayings about not sticking out, getting hammered down, etc.This probably has…
poslug 1 hour ago
The Netherlands needed cooperative efforts to build and maintain the dikes. Norwich England needed collective expertise to drain the swamps….
SEE ALL COMMENTS WRITE A COMMENT
Their test case was China, where the Yangtze River divides northern wheat growers from southern rice growers. The researchers gave Han Chinese from these different regions a series of tasks. They asked, for example, which two of these three belonged together: a bus, a train and train tracks? More analytical, context-insensitive thinkers (the wheat growers) paired the bus and train, because they belong to the same abstract category. More holistic, context-sensitive thinkers (the rice growers) paired the train and train tracks, because they work together.

Asked to draw their social networks, wheat-region subjects drew themselves larger than they drew their friends; subjects from rice-growing regions drew their friends larger than themselves. Asked to describe how they’d behave if a friend caused them to lose money in a business, subjects from the rice region punished their friends less than subjects from the wheat region did. Those in the wheat provinces held more patents; those in the rice provinces had a lower rate of divorce.

CONTINUE READING THE MAIN STORY
110
COMMENTS
I write this from Silicon Valley, where there is little rice. The local wisdom is that all you need is a garage, a good idea and energy, and you can found a company that will change the world. The bold visions presented by entrepreneurs are breathtaking in their optimism, but they hold little space for elders, for longstanding institutions, and for the deep roots of community and interconnection.

Nor is there much rice within the Tea Party. Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, declared recently that all a man needed was a horse, a gun and the open land, and he could conquer the world.

Wheat doesn’t grow everywhere. Start-ups won’t solve all our problems. A lone cowboy isn’t much good in the aftermath of a Hurricane Katrina. As we enter a season in which the values of do-it-yourself individualism are likely to dominate our Congress, it is worth remembering that this way of thinking might just be the product of the way our forefathers grew their food and not a fundamental truth about the way that all humans flourish.

T.M. Luhrmann is a professor of anthropology at Stanford and a contributing opinion writer.

A version of this op-ed appears in print on December 4, 2014, on page A31 of the New York edition with the headline: Wheat People vs. Rice People. Order Reprints| Today’s Paper|Subscribe