Humanities desk
< November 7	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 9 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 8

Gender stereotypes in toys

The World Wide Web has a large number of documents about gender stereotypes in toys, for example, http://www.andrews.edu/~rbailey/Chapter%20one/9040385.pdf (The Effects of Stereotyped Toys and Gender on Play Assessment in Children Aged 18–47 Months). However, I have been unsuccessful in my search for international statistics and recent trends.

How do various countries rank in their degree of gender stereotyping in toys?
How do various retailers rank in their degree of gender stereotyping in toys?
How do various manufacturers rank in their degree of gender stereotyping in toys?
How do various media rank in their degree of gender stereotyping in toys?
Which countries, retailers, manufacturers, and media are increasing gender stereotyping in toys, and which ones are decreasing it?
Who or what is ultimately promoting gender stereotyping in toys, and who or what is ultimately inhibiting it?

—Wavelength (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have very high expectations of statistics! They are probably not collected for such things. And there are underlying definitions that you need to explore, for example how do you define a gender-stereotyped toy? What about a situation where dolls are being bought for little girls, but their brothers also play with them? Have you thought about using some kind of case study approach to your questions, where you take the largest manufacturers, download their catalogues, and analyse them using some kind of framework? Lego comes immediately to mind as an interesting case that is relatively unstereotyped. Then there are books, music and story CDs, jigsaw puzzles, educational toys generally. Tricycles and bicycles - does it matter if they are only available in pink and blue, though? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To your four questions, I give the following answers.

Definitions may vary somewhat among various researchers, but I anticipate that such variation would be minimal. On page 100 of the document to which I linked in my opening message, the authors mentioned a seven-point Likert-type scale, where 1 means "very male", 4 means "neither male nor female", and 7 means "very female". On page 101, M means "male stereotyped toy", F means "female stereotyped toy", and N means "neutral stereotyped toy".
Where brothers play with their sisters' dolls, the dolls would still be considered as stereotyped for females.
I had not thought about doing my own primary research, but that is not completely outside the realm of possibility.
If tricycles and bicycles are only available in pink and blue, that does not matter.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[I am revising my reply by inserting the underlined word primary.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)][reply]

[In three expressions (quoted above) where the document omitted hyphens, I would have used them in hyphenated compound adjectives: "male-stereotyped toy", "female-stereotyped toy", and "neutral-stereotyped toy".

—Wavelength (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)][reply]

persian in south asian languages

which muslim dynasty introduced persian language? mughals or delhi sultanate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.17.252 (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK it became a lingua franca under the courts/rule of the Mughal dynasty. Dari Persian I believe is still considered the more cosmopolitan today. More an area of curiosity than expertise in my case, however. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Delhi Sultanate used Persian as its official language, too. Marco polo (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first Islamic dynasty to rule India was the Ghaznavid empire (10th-12th centuries), which originated from Persia. I, however, doubt that Persian was not spoken in the country prior to this. India was a hot bed for merchants from all over the place. I have a two volume work on the history of the Persian language in India. I don't recall the name off hand, but I could look it up if you are interested. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, the rule of the Persian-speaking Sassanids and Achaemenids extended into India. Marco polo (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New york accent

For many years listening to New York accents (mostly on tv) I have always thought there was a very strong Dutch influence. I know that the article New York accent does mention that a layering of Dutch will be there due to the early Dutch settlers. I do though feel that the Dutch accent comes very much more to the fore than any other settlers accents from the past. Would New Yorkers and others agree with this? It could also be that my recognition of accents is not as good as I think and I'm missing other accents that have as much influence on the Newyorkers way of speech. Jack forbes (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I agree, a Dutch accent sounds quite different to me. A "New York" (for example, listening to news radio) accent tends to be "neutral." That said, many neighborhoods or boroughs have their own distinct accent. I somehow avoided the dreaded (or lauded depending on your perspective) Brooklyn accent which either side would argue compellingly is the antithesis of the "New York" accent. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that there is more than one New York accent. I think the stereotypical New York accent is the white working-class accent of, say, Queens. Having grown up outside New York and now living in Boston (an area where Dutch colonists had little presence), I have a perspective on these accents. Both the Boston and New York accents are among the few accents in North America affected by the loss of rhoticity in parts of eastern England in the 17th and 18th centuries. In the case of Boston, this is probably because the original settlers in the 17th century came from an area (East Anglia) that had probably already lost rhoticity. In the case of New York, it is probably because English settlers did not begin to outnumber the Dutch until the end of the 17th century, by which time the London region, where many originate, was probably non-rhotic. The features that most distinguish the New York accent from the Boston accent are the pronunciation of vowels written ar, which in IPA symbols is roughly [aː] in Boston and [ɒː] in New York, and the breaking of the vowel in words like law and dog. In Boston, this is pronounced [ɔː]; in New York it is a glide [ʊ̯ɔː]. The first feature might just be connected with the backing of /a/ in Dutch words like Amsterdam. The second, though, has no connection to Dutch that I can see. The only foreign connection that occurs to me is the similar breaking of Latin /o/ in Italian words such as buono, though I think that this feature is more likely to have developed indigenously than as a result of Italian influence. Likewise, the backing of ar could be an indigenous development as well. Marco polo (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite on-topic, but it may be of interest... Gangs of New York mentions this: "Particular attention was also paid to the speech of characters, as loyalties were often revealed by their accents... To develop the unique, lost accents of the Yankee "Nativists" such as Daniel Day-Lewis's character, Monich studied old poems, ballads, newspaper articles... Monich concluded that native nineteenth century New Yorkers probably sounded something like the proverbial Brooklyn cabbie of the mid-twentieth." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.97.146 (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It probably varied a lot by class. My grandmother, who was of upper middle class English and Scottish descent, grew up in Brooklyn in the first and second decades of the 20th century. Her accent was very similar to that of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR), who was likewise of Protestant white descent and grew up in the New York area in the late 19th century. Here is an audio clip of FDR. Marco polo (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing the consensus is that there is no strong Dutch influence in the New York accent. I do hear it but then it may be that it's all in my head. lol Jack forbes (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing the OP knows about New Amsterdam? 05:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

other explanations

what are other explanations for this: http://english.pnn.ps/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9100 Than the conclusion the article reaches regarding the reason for the attack? (i.e. other than the explanation that the attacks took place because he 'looked like an arab', and that the attack was of a 'nationalistic' character). Secondly, how likely is the article's conclusion to be accurate? (0.0-1.0) Thirdly, insofar as there is a significant chance that the article is accurate, I would like to know where in Nazi Germany 1920-1945 this sentiment expressed in this way could be placed? In other words, when is the earliest time during that period that nationalistic German youth would have attacked someone for looking Jewish (without that person actually being Jewish)? Thank you. 84.153.236.235 (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you're editing from a German IP, I'm guessing you probably read and write German. I think you'll probably get a better answer faster at our German counterpart, w:de:Wikipedia:Auskunft. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think they don't like to always have everything compared to the Worst Thing That Modern Humanity Has Ever Done, the Holocaust, i.e. that they did. So I wouldn't ask them... (It's just rude.) 84.153.236.235 (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

84.153.236.235—you say, "I think they don't like to always have everything compared to the Worst Thing That Modern Humanity Has Ever Done, the Holocaust." Where in your above explanation did you compare anything to "the Worst Thing That Modern Humanity Has Ever Done, the Holocaust."? I don't see that. Bus stop (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good questions, OP. I'm sure you've already thought that one possibility is that it could have been an incident of "non-ethnic" hooliganism pure and simple. The victim is reported to have said "they said I looked like an Arab" (in a language he could understand, while they were kicking and beating him...). There does not seem to be any other evidence of that being the real cause. It does seem at least plausible that that really was the cause, though. (I am not familiar enough with German social history to know the answer to your final question). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see that - the article is vague enough on the point of who said the guy looked like an Arab that my assumption was that the friends he was visiting told him that. Presumably in either English or Spanish. Or he may even speak Hebrew (remember, the friends were Jewish), in which case he might have understood his attackers. Also, in my own opinion, it's quite likely that this was racially charged - after all, unfortunately no society is completely without angry, hostile, violent racist idiots. I don't see why Israel would be an exception. TomorrowTime (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An attack like that isn't unique to a Nazi environment. One could easily find an example of Jewish looking people attacked in Germany in 1919 or earlier. People have been attacked in recent years in Germany for looking foreign or Turkish. A few similar attacks are mentioned in the Racism in Germany article if you're interested in an actual reference. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The terminology of "nationalistically motivated" crimes seems to be used by Israeli police on other occasions as well, see http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3632504,00.html . --Soman (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When seagulls follow the trawler

What meaning or point was Eric trying to convey? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3221471.stm Unlike us Brits, the Froggies have philosophy lessons at school apparantly. 92.24.186.80 (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article on Eric Cantona, he was "[p]erhaps referring to how journalists would constantly monitor his behaviour" ("Cantona said, in a slow and deliberate manner: "When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea. Thank you very much." He then got up from his seat and left, leaving many of the assembled crowd bemused.") So, Cantona is the trawler, the journalists are the seagulls, and the newsworthy gossip are the sardines. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's an implicit suggestion that reporters are opportunistic scavengers willing to squawk and squabble loudly over any smelly refuse that falls into their grasp. which may in fact be largely true... --Ludwigs2 22:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, maybe? I'm thinking of a certain Don Henley song right about now... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that the interpretation of the quotation given by Sluzzelin is the most obvious one, I do think that Cantona's main point was made not so much by the content of his remark, but by the absurdity of it; by saying something seemingly nonsensical to a room full of journalists and cameramen waiting for a statement, he perfectly ridiculed the media hysteria surrounding him at that time. Ooh aah Cantona. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 November 8

Contents