[derleth]

> Boys get to play with LEGOs without the stigma.

But a boy who plays with a Barbie gets the shit beaten out of him. Possibly even by his own parents.

> while boys who behave the same way are praised for being "assertive".

... and develop stress-related problems at a higher rate, and die years younger than women.

Everything cuts both ways. Everything.

[token_female]

> But a boy who plays with a Barbie gets the shit beaten out of him. Possibly even by his own parents.

I already pre-empted this. Read my comment again. Barbies are sex objects. LEGOs are precursors to a respectable career path. It's not a valid comparison.

> and develop stress-related problems at a higher rate, and die years younger than women.

Please, tell me more about how women are systematically oppressing men. Sure, there are some areas in which women have an advantage. The life expectancy thing is likely biological. Many other apparent examples of "reverse sexism" are in fact products of the other kind of sexism - e.g., the oft-cited statistics about divorce law and custody battles - women have an advantage here because society, and the law, tend to see women as being in the domestic sphere while men are supposed to be the ones with careers. Is it sexist? yes. Does it show that sexism isn't an issue? not in the slightest.

[derleth]

> Please, tell me more about how women are systematically oppressing men.

I never said that. I said sexism and sexist attitudes hurt men as well.

> "reverse sexism"

No such thing. There is only sexism. It is always wrong.

> Does it show that sexism isn't an issue?

Only an idiot would claim sexism isn't an issue. Don't accuse me of being an idiot.

Also, this article is interesting:

http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/156194/what_abou...

(I've posted it elsewhere in this comment page, but it deserves a bit more attention.)