quote:In every case, the sister can beat up the older brother. In every case, the brother is only slightly interested in defending himself.
Well, this may be because we socialize boys to believe that beating up girls is VERY WRONG, whereas it is considered okay for girls/women to hit boys/men. --------------------
quote:As far as I understand, other mammals go into heat, which means that the uterine lining is just absorbed back into the body.
Actually, other primates have menstrual cycles as well.
Also, I know from personal experience that when dogs go into estrus, they do bleed. The bleeding happens right before the fertile period, and serves as a sign to males that the female will soon be "ready." Before we had our dog Mishka spayed, she went into season twice a year, during which time she needed several maxi pads a day for about a week. (My husband was generally the person who had to change them for her.)
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the info Yozhik! I thought I heard something about dogs bleeding, but I wasn't sure. So primates and dogs just get all messy once a month? I think I speak for all of us when I say YUK!
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since I was the one being quoted, when I said an "isolated environment," I meant one isolated from what we define as "mainstream American culture."
Which means we would have to generate what we think is a "neutral" environment and see how the character develops. A controlled setting, much like the Jim Carrey movie.
And Bev - I know what you mean. I didn't grow up with sisters, nor do I have any experience with female children, so I always feel awkward and self-conscious when I'm interacting with my nieces and to a lesser extent other children.
Unfortunately, it's a default setting that I'm always peripherally aware of and I find it difficult to gauge what is and is not appropriate.
posted
Hey, Trevor! My hubby grew up in a family of all boys too. I always tell him he is warped because of it. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a little person I had the added bonus of having a not-that-much-older brother. The girliest thing I played with were playmobil (and this is before pink playmobil, this is the reds and greens and yellows and blues) and soft toys, which I rarely played with.
Lego was my best friend, as was a model railway, (both electric and the wooden kind), metal cars, the swingset in the garden, the garden itself, the road outside and my bike.
Toys for girlz (intentional) also make me nauseous. I owned a sylvia doll with a missing arm, and that was the closest I got to barbie. I wore many of my brothers clothes. It never occured to me to be "girly"- the pink isle is oppresive and ugly.
But then a lot of toys are now marketed for boys too, as if boys can't play with anything that isn't boy-ish. Lego comes, not in bricks, but in slabs for quick assemblage and a complete lack of imaginative building.
Children are at a loss when you give them blank wooden blocks and say "play"- they say they have nothing to play with. They're not colourful, they don't talk or move, they are not a recognisable entity. They are actually castles and temples and houses and mazes and countless other structures hidden in those blocks.
Heck, I have memories of building endless card houses on my carpets and letting my happt family card-people live in them.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*wants wooden blocks* When I was a kid I played with stuffed animals and diapered them. I also loved the Incredible Hulk and carried around a toy of him I got from my cousin. I stuffed tiny tea cups into cars and pushed them around. I had a plastic doll house I liked to play with as well. I also sort of thought I was a boy and hated to wear dresses and skirts. I liked to play in the dirt and to dump about 10 or 15 hand-me-down toys into the bathtub.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's kinda funny - I became the default nanny for the neighborhood kids during my cousin's neighborhood party.
Five little girls doing the choo-choo train from my niece's room to my cousin's office, at which point I was obligated to pick them up two at a time, run back to my niece's bedroom and throw them on afore-mentioned niece's bed.
Apparently it has been decreed I must show up to the neighborhood Halloween party because my presence has been requested by the children and the less-than-sober parents of the kids.
But that's the point of manufacturing one, or at least trying to. The scientists would have to evaluate everything that could possibly factor into the child's development and, to quote the phrase that has marked every scientific advancement in human history, "let's see what happens."
quote: I'm not comparing the women to the men, I'm comparing them to whatever they'd have to hunt.
But when the males are *so* much better adapted for the task, it makes sense in primitive societies to have them do it.
Of course, in the "enlightened" hunter-gatherer society, women can choose to hunt or not hunt. Who cares if they aren't as well equipped as the males? Their own personal happiness is more important. Don't tell them their place is in the hut! Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Of course, in the "enlightened" hunter-gatherer society, women can choose to hunt or not hunt. Who cares if they aren't as well equipped as the males? Their own personal happiness is more important. Don't tell them their place is in the hut!
I know you're kidding, but I also know this at least parallels your beliefs. And that's the thing: I don't believe this is still true. My argument was that a division of labor arose as a result of primitive realities. Those realities are no longer true, but we have ingrained these roles in our culture and in our collective psyche. Is anne kate playing at being an engineer because it adds to her "personal happiness"? When I left work to be the primary caregiver for my daughters, was I?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus, my statement above is an odd one because even I am not sure what I meant by it. It is pretty plain to anyone who is familiar with my posts that I favor the idea that motherhood complements womanhood. The other gender-roles arise out of that. While I believe in gender-roles, I also believe in flexibility. If a woman has the aptitude to be an engineer, more power to her.
But (there's always a but, isn't there?) I believe that if at some point she chooses to bear children, those children would be best served by her staying at home with them. I also dislike the way society favors women engineers to the extent that it will accept an inferior woman engineer over a superior male one. My husband graduated in mechanical engineering, and he and others were sickened at how easily women got the best opportunities even if they did not perform as well as the men. If they are getting opportunities because they are *good* I have no problem with that. If they are getting opportunities because they are *women*, that is discrimination.
As for stay-at-home fathers, I have seen many marriages where the woman was ambitious and career-minded and the husband was more nurturing. For their marriages it made more sense for the father to be a stay-at-home dad and the mother to be the breadwinner. It fit their situation. Certainly gender-roles should be flexible enough to allow for such situations!
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:For their marriages it made more sense for the father to be a stay-at-home dad and the mother to be the breadwinner. It fit their situation. Certainly gender-roles should be flexible enough to allow for such situations!
Yup. The best-suited person (often the mother, but sometimes not) should be the one staying with the kids, because the kids deserve the best possible nurturing.
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've read that studies in one-day old newborns reveal that boys' attention is more easily held by objects, and girls' attention by human faces, for whatever that's worth.
I have three little half-siblings, and I vividly remember having to play with and babysit the younger two when they were little. My sister usually wanted to play with Barbies, and my brother usually wanted to play Robin Hood or something. However, both willingly played whatever the other wanted--and when we'd play pretend, both enjoyed acting out domestic AND adventure situations. Or we'd create a play scenario, like Victim Saved From Tyrant By Noble Warrior, with all three of us taking turns as the victim (princess, husband, child), tyrant (or monster), and warrior (or wizard). Once my little sister became school-aged, everything immediately became "boys' games" and "girls' games" and most inclusive play ground to a halt. So, I have no doubts that society plays a major part in reinforcing/establshing gender roles, but I think there is an innate gender bias . . .
As a corollary, I'm constantly amused by my aunt and uncle's attempt to raise my 3-year-old (male) cousin. He's always playing with the trendiest, non-offensive, non-aggressive toys. As a liberal peacenik who grew up with GI Joes and fighter jets and Desert Storm trading cards, I find it hilarous that my cousin can only play with non-aggressive Rescue Heroes toys, where beefy fireman-looking guys have giant net cannons and use them to rescue injured birds from trees. I realize there's nothing wrong with glorifying firemen, or rescue, or anything like that--in fact, it's a good idea--but somehow the whole thing just seems sissified. The really funny thing is that he has a tool set, and it has a little air-powered socket wrench . . . that he holds like a gun and makes little laser gun noises with. I mean, the kid is three years old, and his parents are obsessed with not letting him play with any aggressive toys or watch aggressive programs, and here he is toddling around going "PEEEW! PEEEW!" and pointing the thing at people, expecting that they play dead. It really seems to me that boys have SOME hardwired programming to act aggressive and turn things into weapons.
Of course, it's nothing but rambling and anecdotes, but there you go.
posted
See, the sad thing, Pollcy, is that I don't believe it is an inherent tendency for boys to shoot things and girls to make themselves beautiful. I think these things are marketed to children from the moment they are born and put into their pink or blue little caps. It is marketed in the catalogs and magazines you recieve, the stores you shop in, the television shows you (and especially your children) watch, and it is marketed to other people as well and so it is marketed back to you and your child in your interactions with them.
I had a wonderful post written out about this last night, but then my computer died and so now it is lost into the oblivion, but I was doing some reading on the commercialization of children and it said that children by the age of seven have a product recognition of over four hundred products. Children recognize by preschoool age that in order to "be cool" or "fit in" with their peers they have to have certain products and are jealous of the things other children have.
So, even if your cousin's family is trying hard not to let violence into their child's play, he is getting it from tv or from playmates and there is really no good way to prevent this -- *doomsday music* it is everywhere!!
Posts: 1777 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: There is no such thing as a "neutral" environment.
Not naturally occuring, no.
I mean that there is no such thing as a "neutral" envioronment, and there never can be.
Any environment that you create will reflect your biases and your belifs about what is correct.
By a neutral environment, I assume you mean one that isn't tainted by some XX factor in our environment.
But the only way to create an environment that isn't tainted in some way by XX is by having it built by people that also are not tained by XX. The only way to get people like that is if they grew up their whole lives in the neutral environment they are supposed to create. Bootstrap mania!
Concerning gender roles -- let's face it, no matter what the environment is like, there is going to be *some* difference between the sexes, even if it's nothing more than how they pee and reproduce. At the complete opposite end of the spectrum, one of the sexes could be virtual (or literal) slaves of the other.
But there is a line somewhere. If you created a "neutral" environment, all that would mean is that you placed the line where you wanted. This is not neutral. The line would be carefully placed by your opinion of what gender roles should be. And that has come about at least partially because of your experiences in this environment and the gender roles we have here.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Christy -- either those tendencies are inborn, or they are from society, but are so subtle that it is impossible to detect all of them and eliminate them.
Ockam's razor would say that the simpler answer, that it is simply inborn, is the true one.
Of course, I don't believe that Ockam's razor is a very useful tool in determining truth. I just wanted to share my observation. Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you can't say for sure what characteristics are inborn and what are learned, then it is better for both the individual and society to assume that everything is learned and let the individual discover for themselves what their own strengths and weaknesses are. Thus, no culture or group within society should exclude someone based on their sex for a task, as long as that person shows that they are qualified to do that task.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Ok, I admit it - I like Barbie. Operaetta likes Barbie too. We have about a million of them, along with a big Barbie castle, an airplane, a travel train, and a car. Some of my favorite memories from my childhood are playing with my Barbies, and I'm pretty sure that Operaetta will recall her Barbies fondly too. Operaetta's Barbies usually go on long involved quests that involve rescuing each other from her brother's Pokemon monsters. Often the Barbies are wounded by her brother's army tanks. I don't see the harm in it. Operaetta plays with legoes and cars as well. What's so evil about Barbie?
quote: Thus, no culture or group within society should exclude someone based on their sex for a task, as long as that person shows that they are qualified to do that task.
I totally agree with this. But remember, just because there might be traits that are inborn in association with one sex or the other doesn't mean that every human of that sex will have all of those traits, most of them, or even any of them. Especially considering there are humans born who's very *gender* is ambiguous. That is why I don't think sex-linked behavior being biological should have any sway on the above sentiment. There is variation in a spectrum. That doesn't mean there isn't a spectrum to begin with with the majority falling in the middle.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
First of all, the Barbies of today are not like the Barbies of yesterday.
Secondly, I don't personally object to the Barbies themselves. I HATE the marketing involved, and I hate how Barbie has deteriorated. She used to be a liberated woman that could do whatever she wanted. Stay at home, work outside, drive a car, whatever. She can still do whatever she wants, but all she wants to do is spend money and hang out at the beach.
That said, I had Barbies and I spent hours making clothes and dressing them in different outfits.
But why does she have to be so skanky now?
edit to add: Far more interesting than my Barbies were my Princess of Power dolls. I had almost all of them, along with some MOTU guys. Those were some hardcore chicks, let me tell you. (Except Perfuma. What was her deal?)
Porter made an interesting point the other day. How is Barbie any more harmful to girls than ultra-muscled action figures are to boys? They both reflect unrealistic body ideals that simply cannot be.
My response was that Barbie would not be "evil" at all were it not for the pressures already existing in the society. The pressure is emphasis on girls looking a certain way. So toys that emphasize that are adding to the problem only because the problem already exists.
If we lived in a society where men's very value was placed on how muscled his body was, we might think those ultra-muscled action figures "evil" too.
Look at Hollywood. If you are male and you are ugly, you can still have a career in film/TV. You might be locked into certain roles, but you can make money. If you are a girl and you are ugly, you haven't a prayer of a career in film/TV. It doesn't matter how talented or brilliant you are. There has been so many times that Porter and I will discuss a certain man on TV and I would say, man, a woman that ugly would never make it. He agrees with me. It just isn't fair. That is the society we live in.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we basically agree and are saying the same things, Beverly. The problem is that I think many people in society are not nuanced enough in how they handle facts to not make unwarranted assumptions about someone. Sexism is quite strong in society as it is.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm in a dark mood, today, so bear with me.
But, but...who wants to play with an ugly Barbie? And what little boy would want to play with a scrawny action figure? Isn't it just natural that we seek out attractive objects to surround ourselves with? I agree that a double standard exists as far as men and women's attractiveness. But when Operaetta wants to play with a doll, she wants it to be pretty. We have a wide range of Barbies with different skin colors and hair colors, so we have been careful about that. But seriously, if Barbie had buck teeth and a mullet who would play with her?
space opera
edit: spelling
[ September 13, 2004, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: Space Opera ]
Posts: 2578 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, eating disorders are on the rise among young men.
The super-muscled characters of fiction didn't seem to impact the subject one way or the other, although with more men's magazines trying to address the narrowing gender gap in appearance and physical appeal, the subject of male appearance is becoming more of an issue than it has previously.
According to this link, men suffer from a distorted image of their own bodies rather than trying to reach an unrealistic ideal.
posted
SO, I understand. I am an artist. I love human beauty. If I draw a human, I am going to make it as beautiful and idealistic as possible.
As I said, the problem is not really with Barbie--it is with society.
Of course, there is the point PSI made about the skankiness. Barbie can be beautiful without being skanky. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Porter made an interesting point the other day. How is Barbie any more harmful to girls than ultra-muscled action figures are to boys? They both reflect unrealistic body ideals that simply cannot be.
They both exhibit the same amount of evilness. Boys warp and kill themselves every year through steroids and over-exercise trying to fit an unrealistic ideal.
quote: My response was that Barbie would not be "evil" at all were it not for the pressures already existing in the society. The pressure is emphasis on girls looking a certain way. So toys that emphasize that are adding to the problem only because the problem already exists.
I've written tons of posts on this issue. My responses can be taken to include both the barbie and the he-man stuff for boys. I don't know that I want to write something right now about this.
quote: If we lived in a society where men's very value was placed on how muscled his body was, we might think those ultra-muscled action figures "evil" too.
Look at Hollywood. If you are male and you are ugly, you can still have a career in film/TV. You might be locked into certain roles, but you can make money. If you are a girl and you are ugly, you haven't a prayer of a career in film/TV. It doesn't matter how talented or brilliant you are. There has been so many times that Porter and I will discuss a certain man on TV and I would say, man, a woman that ugly would never make it. He agrees with me. It just isn't fair. That is the society we live in.
I don't agree. I think if you do look at TV, most men on TV are of a certain musculature. So, I think there is a certain body image ideal that both men and women follow on television.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Trevor, you are correct. It was not until I came on to Hatrack and I discussed it that I realized that this is a growing trend in society.
I don't like it.
I see this happening for both girls and guys in the "equality" issue. In the effort of each gender to embrace the ways of the other, they quite often pick up the negatives. e.g.: Women becoming more permiscuous and crass and men becoming more concerned about their physical appearance.
Why not have men becoming less permiscuous and crass and women less concerned about heir physical appearance?
Or is that happening too simultaneously?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ugly and beauty are supremely relative concepts - and while we may have certain underlying themes in most universally held concepts of beauty, the details will vary depending on the audience, professional and non.
posted
BTW, I had to do an internet search to find out who Star Jones is.
Hmmm, do you really think she is the female equivalent of Woody Allen? I think that just proves my point right there. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I have never held a He-man figure and wondered why I don't look more like him.
Granted, I have become more pre-occupied with my fitness level of late and to a certain my figure (as such), but I chalk that up mostly to a dissatisfaction with the rest of my life.
Bev, as to the increase in negative traits, I suspect an increase in the balancing of good traits is also present but just not as likely to be commented on. You can argue shows like "Queer Eye" is a guy's way of realizing he should be more than belches & beer and he is trying to figure out what that is, could be or even should be.
It's very confusing. The whole "being more sensitive to her needs" idea is still a little murky to most of us.
posted
Er...maybe? I honestly am the wrong person to ask about this. For instance, I consider Pamela Anderson much more ugly than either Star Jones or Woody Allen.
I will grant you that there are probably a few more ugly men than women on TV, but I think that is because you have so few women calling the shots in the entertainment industry, which is a result of male and female sexism.
In any case, wouldn't you agree that there is definitely a dominant body type for men on television and in the movies?
From a financial standpoint, everything is driven by getting people in to see a movie. Wanting to see beautiful people is both somethign men and women want to do. So, you have a kind of positive feedback mechanism at work where people want to see beautiful people, hollywood often puts the most beautiful people on the screen to fullfil this desire, people want to be the 'most' beautiful they can be.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Going off of Trevor's post, I honestly consider shows like Queer Eye and the like to also feed into a shallow ideal. Men used to be satisfied with a shower, a clean shirt and pants, and a working pair of shoes. Now they're getting to be as bad as women.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: It is marketed in the catalogs and magazines you recieve, the stores you shop in, the television shows you (and especially your children) watch, and it is marketed to other people as well and so it is marketed back to you and your child in your interactions with them.
I think a wonderful thing parents can do is limit their children's TV veiwing to PBS, or even none at all. It's such a simple thing, yet how many American parents would do it? Although Even PBS Kids is sponsored by some companies I don't agree with so I have been sure to talk about discernment and junk food ads too.
quote: I will grant you that there are probably a few more ugly men than women on TV, but I think that is because you have so few women calling the shots in the entertainment industry, which is a result of male and female sexism.
You know, I think this may very well be an important part of it. It is still very much a man's world out there. That makes me sad.
quote: In any case, wouldn't you agree that there is definitely a dominant body type for men on television and in the movies?
Oh, definitely! (See my post above. )
quote: From a financial standpoint, everything is driven by getting people in to see a movie. Wanting to see beautiful people is both somethign men and women want to do. So, you have a kind of positive feedback mechanism at work where people want to see beautiful people, hollywood often puts the most beautiful people on the screen to fullfil this desire, people want to be the 'most' beautiful they can be.
Yes, yes, but this doesn't justify the double standard. There can be the "beautiful women" who bring in the crowds. But there should also be the "talented but not beautiful women" who have careers and are valued for their talent.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
And what exactly do you mean by both male and female sexism? I didn't really understand what you meant.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are examples of 'non-beautiful' women in the movies and entertainment. I don't agree that there is a significant double standard.
Female sexism causes women to not be directors/producers/etc. because it tells women they should be mothers, then producers, etc., or that they should be mothers instead of working. The result is that the number of women trying to break into film and television in director or producer roles is less than men.
It's not just men keeping women out of certain fields.
On rereading your post, I think I went off into a tangent, responding to an argument you hadn't made yet. That is, the double standard exists primarily because of men being in positions of authority in Hollywood.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The really funny thing is that he has a tool set, and it has a little air-powered socket wrench . . . that he holds like a gun and makes little laser gun noises with. I mean, the kid is three years old, and his parents are obsessed with not letting him play with any aggressive toys or watch aggressive programs, and here he is toddling around going "PEEEW! PEEEW!" and pointing the thing at people, expecting that they play dead. It really seems to me that boys have SOME hardwired programming to act aggressive and turn things into weapons.
But don't you see? This is evidence for my position!
Do you seriously want to argue that boys instinctively know what a gun is? Before guns were invented did little Roman boys point rolls of papyrus at each other and go "PEEW! PEEEW!"? Did little Native American boys do this? Obviously this boy got the idea of guns from somewhere despite his parents' best efforts to prevent it. It's not unreasonable to presume that he also learned who was supposed to play with guns in the same way. All you have shown is how pervasive our culture and our gender definitions are.
-o-
quote: Christy -- either those tendencies are inborn, or they are from society, but are so subtle that it is impossible to detect all of them and eliminate them.
Ockam's razor would say that the simpler answer, that it is simply inborn, is the true one.
I don't think Occam's Razor says any such thing. I don't see any reason to believe that inborn gender definitions are the simpler answer. As to this presumably unrealistic subtlety of cultural influences? The post I quoted above is evidence of it. The boy's behavior is so obviously culturally trained, and the parents fail to see this! It is completely reasonable to presume that the effect of culture would be pervasive and subtle, given how thoroughly immersed we are in it. You notice your culture no more than you notice the air you breathe. It's just there.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think if you do look at TV, most men on TV are of a certain musculature. So, I think there is a certain body image ideal that both men and women follow on television.
Yeah, I'll have to agree with you there. I was watching Stargate one night, and realized that Daniel Jackson, civilian archaeologist and geek extraordinaire, is probably more muscular than most of the males I know personally, including the athletic ones. He really ought to be scrawnier.
It's unfortunate that television and movies put so much emphasis on physical appearance. And yeah, I think that it's much harder for women in the media. It's not just ugliness--there are plenty of old men on TV, but you don't see a lot of old women. Fat men also get more of a break than fat women, I think.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: There are examples of 'non-beautiful' women in the movies and entertainment. I don't agree that there is a significant double standard.
Hmmmm, I remain unconvinced.
quote: Female sexism causes women to not be directors/producers/etc. because it tells women they should be mothers, then producers, etc., or that they should be mothers instead of working. The result is that the number of women trying to break into film and television in director or producer roles is less than men.
I dunno.... If there is anyplace where the "women should be mothers" philosophy is dead, it's in Hollywood. In Hollywood, women should be sex symbols first. If they have a child, their career comes first. If the woman gets old and ugly, she is forgotten. If she gets plastic surgery, she may be remembered and revered--slightly. Men age and they become "dignified". Women age, and their career in Hollywood is over. If there are exceptions, they are few.
I may be exaggerating--slightly. But I think there *definitely* is a double standard.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
It is pretty plain to anyone who is familiar with my posts that I favor the idea that motherhood complements womanhood. The other gender-roles arise out of that. While I believe in gender-roles, I also believe in flexibility. If a woman has the aptitude to be an engineer, more power to her. ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
I don't see the harm in it. Operaetta plays with legoes and cars as well. What's so evil about Barbie?![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
