Has political correctness actually gone mad?

Yep, I guess I do
For all its faults you have limited chance of burning to death teaching.

Even on supply and demand it makes no sense. Paramedics and fire department jobs require training courses and these are massively oversubscribed in most developing countries. Why? Because they are well paid for the level of education you require to enter and they both have very high levels of job satisfaction.

You might have pictures of heroic muscled men burning to death to save a baby but this isn't a significant risk. Teachers lose a higher proportion of their occupation to job induced mental illness and suicide than fireys do from immolation.

Teachers are a far more important to society yet are paid worse than paramedics and fireys. They also have poor job satisfaction and pay.

Different countries have different standards of education and different issues but I wouldn't say wages are that big of an issue, if an issue at all in many places.
It's like the nurse argument, no one would really object to paying them more but their working conditions would still be utterly crap.

Teachers don't get in to teaching to get rich but being paid appropriately for your skills and level of education makes tough working conditions easier to tolerate. The first 5 years of teaching are the toughest as teaching is about the only profession where you are dropped in at the deep end straight after graduation, so combine this with shit wages and it is easy to see why so few new teachers last more than 2 or 3 years before moving on to better paid and less stressful jobs.

I don't agree that different sexes attraction to different occupations is exclusively taught or an issue in itself incidentally

Of course it is. From day one we dress the sexes in different colours. We promote different toys and forms of play to each sex and constantly tell them in both subtle and not so subtle ways what is appropriate for a woman and what is not. Cumulatively the effect is huge.
 
feminism is simple, equal rights and freedom of choice, let us not twist it by giving it new meanings and twists.
If a woman likes to stay at home, let her stay, if she wanna compete in corporate world, let her give fair chance, if she wants both of the world, let her have it.

I'm sure the women of the world are very grateful that you have defined feminism for them and kindly granted them permission to apply for the jobs they want.
 
Don't be silly. Most civilized people on this planet can recognize the fact that men & women are equal, whilst most intelligent people can see that men & women are different. Not just biologically, but in the way our respective wires are fixed. My wife & I have been happily married for 37 years & the foundation for that has been based on the acceptance that as a man & a woman both of us have relative strengths & weaknesses.

My wife and I have been together for 32 years and the foundation has been that such an archaic view is a steaming pile of fetid donkey kidneys.

My initial post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. However, there was a message in there which is to say that ever since we lived in caves the men have been responsible for feeding & protecting the women & children, & the biological fact that women have a womb & breasts means their role is to give birth & nurture the children. The male role still exists, hence the reason why it's predominantly men who do the dangerous jobs which quite often require a certain amount of strength & muscle. Consequently, women still have wombs & breasts which are still being used for giving birth & helping bring up & feed the baby. That is just the primeval fundamentals of the differences between the 2 sexes. Of course the human race has moved on quite a bit since we were cave-dwellers, but we shouldn't try brush under the carpet the real reasons why we are what we are. The rise of feminism at the outset was a good thing I reckon. But I can't help but feel the movement has been hi-jacked by bigoted lesbians with an agenda, men-haters, & women who've had a bad experience with men. One of the smartest people on this planet just happens to be a woman. She is also one of the first feminists to strive for equality for women way back in the late 60's. Her name is Camille Paglia, & needless to say she ain't very popular with a lot of today's feminists because of the criticism she fires at them. I've put below an extract of an interview she did she did for the Playboy magazine back in the mid 90's.




    • I'm absolutely a feminist. The reason other feminists don't like me is that I criticize the movement, explaining that it needs a correction. Feminism has betrayed women, alienated men and women, replaced dialogue with political correctness. PC feminism has boxed women in. The idea that feminism — that liberation from domestic prison — is going to bring happiness is just wrong. Women have advanced a great deal, but they are no happier. The happiest women I know are not those who are balancing their careers and families, like a lot of my friends are. The happiest people I know are the women — like my cousins — who have a high school education, got married immediately graduating and never went to college. They are very religious and they never question their Catholicism. They do not regard the house as a prison. … I look at my friends who are on the fast track. They are desperate, frenzied and frazzled, the most unhappy women who have ever existed. They work nights and weekends and have no lives. Some of them have children who are raised by nannies. … The entire feminist culture says that the most important woman is the woman with an attache case. I want to empower the woman who wants to say, "I'm tired of this and I want to go home." The far right is correct when it says the price of women's liberation is being paid by the children.



    • We have allowed the sexual debate to be defined by women, and that's not right. Men must speak, and speak in their own voices, not voices coerced by feminist moralists.



    • The women's movement is rooted in the belief that we don't even need men. All it will take is one natural disaster to prove how wrong that is. Then, the only thing holding this culture together will be masculine men of the working class. The cultural elite — women and men — will be pleading for the plumbers and the construction workers. We are such a parasitic class.



    • At Bennington, I would go to a faculty meeting and be aware that everyone hated me. The men were appalled by a strong, loud woman. But I went to this auto shop and the men there thought I was cute. "Oh, there's that Professor Paglia from the college." The real men, men who work on cars, find me cute. They are not frightened by me, no matter how loud I am. But the men at the college were terrified because they are eunuchs, and I threatened every goddamned one of them.



    • The problem with America is that there's too little sex, not too much. The more our instincts are repressed, the more we need sex, pornography and all that. The problem is that feminists have taken over with their attempts to inhibit sex. We have a serious testosterone problem in this country. … It's a mess out there. Men are suspicious of women's intentions. Feminism has crippled them. They don't know when to make a pass. If they do make a pass, they don't know if they're going to end up in court.



    • I believe in moderate sexual harassment guidelines. But you can't the Stalinist situation we have in America right now, where any neurotic woman can make any stupid charge and destroy a man's reputation. If there is evidence of false accusation, the accuser should be expelled. Similarly, a woman who falsely accuses a man of rape should be sent to jail. My definition of sexual harassment is specific. It is only sexual harassment — by a man or a woman — if it is quid pro quo. That is, if someone says, "You must do this or I'm going to do that" — for instance, fire you. And whereas touching is sexual harassment, speech is not. I am militant on this. Words must remain free. The solution to speech is that women must signal the level of their tolerance — women are all different. Some are very bawdy. … You must develop the verbal tools to counter offensive language. That s life. Feminism has created a privileged, white middle class of girls who claim they're victims because they want to preserve their bourgeois decorum and passivity.



    • We must examine the degree to which we coddle middle-class girls. There is something sick about it. The girls I see on campuses are often innocuous, with completely homogenized personalities, miserable, anorexic and bulimic. The feminist movement teaches them that it's men's fault, but it isn't. These girls go out into the world as heiresses of all the affluence in the universe. They are the most pampered and most affluent girls on the globe. So stop complaining about men. You're getting all the rewards that come with the nice-girl persona you've chosen. When you get into trouble and you're batting your eyes and someone is offending you and you are too nice to deal with it, that's a choice. Assess your persona. Realize the degree to which your niceness may invoke people to say lewd and pornographic things to you — sometimes to violate your niceness. The more you blush, the more people want to do it. Understand your part of it and learn to parry. Sex talk is a game. The girls in the Sixties loved it. If you don't want some professor to call you honey, tell him.
As someone who's lived through the decades of the feminist movement I'd agree fully with what Paglia says above. Anyone would think that prior to females burning their bra's that women were meek, oppressed, & marginalized individuals. There were obviously many aspects of life that needed addressing on the part of women, but I'd say that the women of then were far stronger than those of today. All I see now is anger, contempt, & screams of self-entitlement, & yet again the finger pointing at males for all their woes.

Colour me controversial but a "feminist" who chooses Playboy to say that men don't have a big enough say in feminism and that feminism is damaging children might just have a slight credibility problem. Oh yes, and blames women for men talking pornographically to them. Right on sister.
 
Whether firefighters should get paid more than teachers has nothing to do with all-male boards of companies that have men and women in them. The "firefighter > teacher" argument has nothing to do with gender as far as I can see.

Bitches be scared of immolation. Probaby.
 
Camille Paglia wrote the most fascinating, exciting book on the arts I've ever read. It, and she, remain very controversial. However strong her convictions, though, I do feel she gets rather carried away with her opinions & the fact that - at last - she has a public for them. Often there's an air of contrariness for its own sake, and this makes one wary of her sincerity even when she makes astute points (about the toils of academe, for instance).
 
Camille Page thinks Transgender issues are a result of the decay of ''Western Culture''(Whatever the feck Western Culture is)and that it also helps ISIS.


The more famous anti trans feminists seems to come across as comedians from 70's or alt right youtubers. Listening to them talk about being no platformed is a bit like listening to Roy Chubby Brown complaining about lack of telly gigs.
 
I'm sure the women of the world are very grateful that you have defined feminism for them and kindly granted them permission to apply for the jobs they want.
Sorry but what wrong did I do that you had to take a sarcastic jibe on me:lol:.

If it is the corporate job part, then that corporate part was just an example, or does not mean I am limiting(in definition, who am I in real world anyways) them to corporate job or field job or any job.
They can do whatever they want as long as they are capable&qualified and it not illegal and harmful to others, which actually is same for everyone regardless of gender. Also capable&qualified does not mean they should not be rejected outright on the basis of
preconceived notions and norms rather after testing their talent. And here I am just talking about the choice of work part, and not including other spheres.
 
Sorry but what wrong did I do that you had to take a sarcastic jibe on me:lol:.

If it is the corporate job part, then that corporate part was just an example, or does not mean I am limiting(in definition, who am I in real world anyways) them to corporate job or field job or any job.
They can do whatever they want as long as they are capable&qualified and it not illegal and harmful to others, which actually is same for everyone regardless of gender. Also capable&qualified does not mean they should not be rejected outright on the basis of
preconceived notions and norms rather after testing their talent. And here I am just talking about the choice of work part, and not including other spheres.

You did what most men do. You graciously granted women permission to be equal. Probably not your intent but we (men) do it all the time.
 
You did what most men do. You graciously granted women permission to be equal. Probably not your intent but we (men) do it all the time.


You probably mistook my posts(not your mistake, I am not that articulate).
I was talking about what feminism has been defined generally, which version is considered ideal and basically I am talking about how there should be no discrimination of work or choice of lifestyle on the basis on gender(or anything).
I even said the below line:

If it is the corporate job part, then that corporate part was just an example, or does not mean I am limiting(in definition, who am I in real world anyways) them to corporate job or field job or any job.

So obviously I do not consider myself in a position to grant anyone any thing.
 
  • "The happiest women I know are not those who are balancing their careers and families, like a lot of my friends are. The happiest people I know are the women — like my cousins — who have a high school education, got married immediately graduating and never went to college. They are very religious and they never question their Catholicism."
    • "The far right is correct when it says the price of women's liberation is being paid by the children."



    Seems like a top feminist. Not.

    Should be a spokesman for church or any other religious organisation. If feminism was about women not going to college and staying at home to look after their kids then we never needed it in the first place. No one is saying women can't shun working life to stay and grow their family at home but the very point of feminism is to not limit the role of the woman to be only a homemaker. Women not being happy at work and only at home is a common conservative talking point, typically made in guise of "real feminism" when in reality it is just another attempt to preserve old traditional family structure. I don't even think it is wrong to advocate the same, don't agree with it but people should be allowed to present their view point. But spare me the BS about it being primarily about happiness of women.

So are you disagreeing with her assertion that women in general are far unhappier than they were some 40 years ago despite the progress made by the feminist movement ? There was a study undertaken about 7 or 8 years ago which pretty much backs up what Paglia says. There's a paper written on it titled: The paradox of declining female happiness.

& real feminism existed in the early days of the movement when they focused on women's social issues. Their quest was also widely supported by many men. Today's feminists focus primarily on men by spewing out bile, hatred, & blame for their unhappiness. The really sad thing is, is that a lot of men actually buy into it.
 
Camille Paglia wrote the most fascinating, exciting book on the arts I've ever read. It, and she, remain very controversial. However strong her convictions, though, I do feel she gets rather carried away with her opinions & the fact that - at last - she has a public for them. Often there's an air of contrariness for its own sake, and this makes one wary of her sincerity even when she makes astute points (about the toils of academe, for instance).

There's no intellectual that ever existed that was right in everything they said or wrote. But I'd argue that Paglia hits the target far more often than she misses on most of the subjects she covers.
 
My wife and I have been together for 32 years and the foundation has been that such an archaic view is a steaming pile of fetid donkey kidneys.



Colour me controversial but a "feminist" who chooses Playboy to say that men don't have a big enough say in feminism and that feminism is damaging children might just have a slight credibility problem. Oh yes, and blames women for men talking pornographically to them. Right on sister.

If you're looking for a credibility problem then you need look no further than women demanding to break free from male oppression & domination, yet queuing up in their droves to buy a book - & watch the movie - about a woman being sexually dominated by a male.

If Sigmund Freud were alive today he'd have a field day with today's modern woman. Talk about a paradox.
 
Even on supply and demand it makes no sense. Paramedics and fire department jobs require training courses and these are massively oversubscribed in most developing countries. Why? Because they are well paid for the level of education you require to enter and they both have very high levels of job satisfaction.

You might have pictures of heroic muscled men burning to death to save a baby but this isn't a significant risk. Teachers lose a higher proportion of their occupation to job induced mental illness and suicide than fireys do from immolation.

Teachers are a far more important to society yet are paid worse than paramedics and fireys. They also have poor job satisfaction and pay.



Teachers don't get in to teaching to get rich but being paid appropriately for your skills and level of education makes tough working conditions easier to tolerate. The first 5 years of teaching are the toughest as teaching is about the only profession where you are dropped in at the deep end straight after graduation, so combine this with shit wages and it is easy to see why so few new teachers last more than 2 or 3 years before moving on to better paid and less stressful jobs.



Of course it is. From day one we dress the sexes in different colours. We promote different toys and forms of play to each sex and constantly tell them in both subtle and not so subtle ways what is appropriate for a woman and what is not. Cumulatively the effect is huge.

I have 2 granddaughters. One is aged 4, & her younger sister is 2. The eldest loves playing with cars & my little ponies. She has no interest whatsoever in dolls & prams. Yet the younger one is obsessed with caring for her dolls & has zero interest in the things her oldest sister likes. So explain to me how they've been conditioned to become stereotypical females ?
 
    • The happiest women I know are not those who are balancing their careers and families, like a lot of my friends are. The happiest people I know are the women — like my cousins — who have a high school education, got married immediately graduating and never went to college. They are very religious and they never question their Catholicism. They do not regard the house as a prison. … I look at my friends who are on the fast track. They are desperate, frenzied and frazzled, the most unhappy women who have ever existed. They work nights and weekends and have no lives. Some of them have children who are raised by nannies. … The entire feminist culture says that the most important woman is the woman with an attache case. I want to empower the woman who wants to say, "I'm tired of this and I want to go home." The far right is correct when it says the price of women's liberation is being paid by the children.

    Hmmm. There’s a lot of truth in this. I’ve noticed a lot of women feel tremendous pressure to have a high-flying career and any family unit will suffer if both parents work long hours and do a lot of travelling (unfortunately the norm for high-powered jobs these days) Luckily, it’s becoming more and more normal for dads to opt out of the rat race in these scenarios. So that’s an option if they’re hell bent on climbing the career ladder. I do think mothers have a special link with their kids that means a decision like this takes a hell of an emotional toll. My wife doesn’t work and seems way more content and less stressed out than any of her working friends. I’m sure the kids benefit from this too.
 
Isn't that what the men-hating feminists do by putting us all the same box (rapists, oppressors, etc)

Yes you have been put in file #437. When Hillary Sarkeesian forces the soy-eating males to surrender, you are gulag-bound, classification: Oppressor, sub-classification: internet.


By most objective measures the lives of women in the United States have improved dramatically over the past 35 years. Moreover, women believe that their lives are better; in recent polls asking about changes in the status of women over the past 25 or 50 years, around four in five adults state that the overall status of women in the U.S. has gotten better (and the remaining respondents break two-for-one towards “stayed the same” over “worse”). Additionally, the 1999 Virginia Slims Poll found that 72% of women believe that “women having more choices in society today gives women more opportunities to be happy” while only 39% thought that having more choices “makes life more complicated for women.” Finally, women today are more likely than men to believe that their opportunities to succeed exceed those of their parents

Yet trends in self-reported subjective well-being indicate that happiness has shifted toward men and away from women.
[...]
First, there may be other important socio-economic forces that have made women worse off. A number of important macro trends have been documented—decreased social cohesion (Putnam, 2000), increased anxiety and neuroticism (Twenge, 2000), and increased household risk (Hacker, 2006).
[...]
The second possibility is that broad social shifts such as those brought on by the changing role of women in society fundamentally alter what measures of subjective well-being are capturing. Over time it is likely that women are aggregating satisfaction over an increasingly larger domain set.
[...]
Subjective well-being data have come to be used in the psychology and economics literatures because they have been shown to be correlated with more objective measures of happiness. Yet these measures do not necessarily indicate that subjective well-being measures are able to capture the positive or negative consequences of large-scale social changes over time.
[...]
And indeed, Figure 7 shows that contrary to the subjective well-being trends we document, female suicide rates have been falling, even as male suicide rates have remained roughly constant through most of our sample. As such, from the early 1970s to the mid-1990s the ratio of female-to-male suicide declined.
[...]
Finally, the changes brought about through the women’s movement may have decreased women’s happiness. The increased opportunity to succeed in many dimensions may have led to an increased likelihood of believing that one’s life is not measuring up.

Frm the paper you cited.

So, 4 possible reasons listed for a decline in subjective happiness and how that subjective decline is mismatched with objective measures....
Feminism is wrong. QED.
 
Unhappiness with modern life isn't exclusively a female thing.
 
    • The happiest women I know are not those who are balancing their careers and families, like a lot of my friends are. The happiest people I know are the women — like my cousins — who have a high school education, got married immediately graduating and never went to college. They are very religious and they never question their Catholicism. They do not regard the house as a prison. … I look at my friends who are on the fast track. They are desperate, frenzied and frazzled, the most unhappy women who have ever existed. They work nights and weekends and have no lives. Some of them have children who are raised by nannies. … The entire feminist culture says that the most important woman is the woman with an attache case. I want to empower the woman who wants to say, "I'm tired of this and I want to go home." The far right is correct when it says the price of women's liberation is being paid by the children.

    Hmmm. There’s a lot of truth in this. I’ve noticed a lot of women feel tremendous pressure to have a high-flying career and any family unit will suffer if both parents work long hours and do a lot of travelling (unfortunately the norm for high-powered jobs these days) Luckily, it’s becoming more and more normal for dads to opt out of the rat race in these scenarios. So that’s an option if they’re hell bent on climbing the career ladder. I do think mothers have a special link with their kids that means a decision like this takes a hell of an emotional toll. My wife doesn’t work and seems way more content and less stressed out than any of her working friends. I’m sure the kids benefit from this too.

It's more of a social problem than a gender one. Our standard of living over the past 30 or 40 years has risen dramatically, & generally speaking we've benefited from more opportunities to work & make money to buy the nice things in life. There's a price that's had to be paid for that though, & unfortunately it's mainly the women who've paid it.
 
So are you disagreeing with her assertion that women in general are far unhappier than they were some 40 years ago despite the progress made by the feminist movement ? There was a study undertaken about 7 or 8 years ago which pretty much backs up what Paglia says. There's a paper written on it titled: The paradox of declining female happiness.

& real feminism existed in the early days of the movement when they focused on women's social issues. Their quest was also widely supported by many men. Today's feminists focus primarily on men by spewing out bile, hatred, & blame for their unhappiness. The really sad thing is, is that a lot of men actually buy into it.

Yes I am disagreeing with that notion. @berbatrick explains it much better than I ever could.
 
Yes you have been put in file #437. When Hillary Sarkeesian forces the soy-eating males to surrender, you are gulag-bound, classification: Oppressor, sub-classification: internet.




Frm the paper you cited.

So, 4 possible reasons listed for a decline in subjective happiness and how that subjective decline is mismatched with objective measures....
Feminism is wrong. QED.

So basically, women being unhappy is men's fault because they now have a lot of the same opportunities.

Yeah, great logic.
 
It's more of a social problem than a gender one. Our standard of living over the past 30 or 40 years has risen dramatically, & generally speaking we've benefited from more opportunities to work & make money to buy the nice things in life. There's a price that's had to be paid for that though, & unfortunately it's mainly the women who've paid it.

For sure. Although there is an unspoken pressure on women, specifically, to be a great parent and have a great career. Men can generally get away with one or the other. They’re not perceived as letting down the sisterhood if they choose to be a stay at home parent.
 
For sure. Although there is an unspoken pressure on women, specifically, to be a great parent and have a great career. Men can generally get away with one or the other. They’re not perceived as letting down the sisterhood if they choose to be a stay at home parent.

That's not true, men are expected to be great husbands and have a great career. And they are not considered full men when they are stay at home dads, they are certainly not part of the "brotherhood".
 
I'm sure the women of the world are very grateful that you have defined feminism for them and kindly granted them permission to apply for the jobs they want.

Seriously if you can't talk about the subjects without getting wound up you should probably save yourself the stress.
 
    • The happiest women I know are not those who are balancing their careers and families, like a lot of my friends are. The happiest people I know are the women — like my cousins — who have a high school education, got married immediately graduating and never went to college. They are very religious and they never question their Catholicism. They do not regard the house as a prison. … I look at my friends who are on the fast track. They are desperate, frenzied and frazzled, the most unhappy women who have ever existed. They work nights and weekends and have no lives. Some of them have children who are raised by nannies. … The entire feminist culture says that the most important woman is the woman with an attache case. I want to empower the woman who wants to say, "I'm tired of this and I want to go home." The far right is correct when it says the price of women's liberation is being paid by the children.


    Hmmm. There’s a lot of truth in this. I’ve noticed a lot of women feel tremendous pressure to have a high-flying career and any family unit will suffer if both parents work long hours and do a lot of travelling (unfortunately the norm for high-powered jobs these days) Luckily, it’s becoming more and more normal for dads to opt out of the rat race in these scenarios. So that’s an option if they’re hell bent on climbing the career ladder. I do think mothers have a special link with their kids that means a decision like this takes a hell of an emotional toll. My wife doesn’t work and seems way more content and less stressed out than any of her working friends. I’m sure the kids benefit from this too.

You don't have to have a high-flying career to work long hours. There are far more women that work ridiculous hours and juggle two or three jobs because they're on minimum wage and have no other way to pay the rent and help feed and clothe the family.

I agree about the benefits of one parent not working whilst children are young though, if it's financially possible, and it's a shame that there seems to be a stigma to doing that nowadays, sadly limiting parent's choice.
 
To add to that, there are a lot of women, and men, at all levels of pay, that have to have everything that's available, Iphones, conservatories, holidays, BMWs, whatever. A lot of people seem to have lost the value of time, and time with your kids is the most valuable time of all.
 
If you're looking for a credibility problem then you need look no further than women demanding to break free from male oppression & domination, yet queuing up in their droves to buy a book - & watch the movie - about a woman being sexually dominated by a male.

If Sigmund Freud were alive today he'd have a field day with today's modern woman. Talk about a paradox.

Oh dear. The lights may be on but .......
 
Women have always worked. The stay at home mum was invented by wealthy, out of touch, religious folk.

Stay at home mums are working, housework is a non-commercial work but it's still a work. And like you said, in most scenarios women have always worked one way or the other.
 
That's not true, men are expected to be great husbands and have a great career. And they are not considered full men when they are stay at home dads, they are certainly not part of the "brotherhood".

They aren't? There goes my membership. :)
 
Women have always worked. The stay at home mum was invented by wealthy, out of touch, religious folk.

Nonsense. My working-class father, having his children in the 1930-50s, said quite plainly he would have felt a failure if his wife had to work once they had children. Many had to of course, but a lot more didn't. For my generation, having children in the 80s, I once read 60% of mothers gave up work while the children were young, although the norm had changed in that most went back to work again afterwards. The out of touch jibe is somewhat ironic.
 
Nonsense. My working-class father, having his children in the 1930-50s, said quite plainly he would have felt a failure if his wife had to work once they had children. Many had to of course, but a lot more didn't. For my generation, having children in the 80s, I once read 60% of mothers gave up work while the children were young, although the norm had changed in that most went back to work again afterwards. The out of touch jibe is somewhat ironic.
If your mum wasn't working during the war she was in the minority. A lot of women also kept working after the wars, regardless of their husbands coming back or not. The 80s had quite a large middle class, with many mothers returning to work before long.
 
I'm not even slightly wound up. People's ignorance simply amases me.

It must be wonderful to be so certain that you are right on every facet of life socially that any other viewpoint is instantly ignorance worthy of nothing more than sarcasm.
 
I have 2 granddaughters. One is aged 4, & her younger sister is 2. The eldest loves playing with cars & my little ponies. She has no interest whatsoever in dolls & prams. Yet the younger one is obsessed with caring for her dolls & has zero interest in the things her oldest sister likes. So explain to me how they've been conditioned to become stereotypical females ?

Don't worry. Society has just worked better on the younger one. And hope isn't lost. The older girl still like female specific toys like my little pont. By the time she grows up I'm sure she will have complied to expectations a bit better.