HOME | DD
Beavernator — Derpy Messing Around
#baby #bow #dinky #doo #filly #fluttershy #foal #gender #hooves #pie #pinkie #pony #rarity #derpy
Published: 2015-04-01 18:09:15 +0000 UTC; Views: 48828; Favourites: 827; Downloads: 182
Redirect to original
Description
Pink indicates a baby filly, blue a colt- WHAT THE HECK DOES GREEN MEAN?!It means she's a pro-cis tri-gendered whale-kin anti-cis firmament Tumblrina with a degree in gender equality studies.
What- why would you include your degree in your sex? Because it's Tumblr; where someone's sex is just a number.
Sex isn't a number. Only cis white ponies would say that. What does my skin colour and sexual orientation have to do with that?
Help me find a thumbtack so I can pop this zit, please! Cyst white scum! But I'm banana kin.
Oh- terribly sorry. Lemme help you. What the heck just happened?
Ponyville Road View Background by BonesWolbach
Fluttershy Vector originally by Sulyo (deactivated account)
Rarity Rarity Vector (Panel 3) by Nickman983
I claim ownership of all other art assets.
Related content
Comments: 323
I LIKE !
Can we be friends ?
niclove.deviantart.com/gallery…
Join us !
transponiesmeets.deviantart.co…
www.fimfiction.net/group/20655…
www.fimfiction.net/group/20302…
www.fimfiction.net/group/20083…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So... you don't want 2 be friend ?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I just don't know who you are is all. That's why I asked
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ok, what do you want 2 know about me ?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
..Nothing, really. Is there a reason you want to be friends with me?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm like Pinkie Pie, I want 2 be friends with ALLllll...
and we both are bronies, who fights 4 the rights of others
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, I'll add you to my friends list if you really want to be friends that bad then.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdSeZC…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Um..okay, but can you try to respond with typed words instead of videos all the time please?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A fighter of rights, jest like you !
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'm not saying there's complete equality in hiring. But look at the careers that men and women gravitate toward, and their reasons for wanting those careers. For the most part, their reasons are different. A man's love for problem solving drives him to be a doctor. A woman's love for nurturing drives her toward the same profession. It should be our goal to encourage people to pursue careers that utilize their inherent strengths, keeping in mind that the majority of careers in our society require strengths inherent to both sexes. Men and women were made to be two parts of a whole; a team. You wouldn't give an eye a job meant for the hand, nor would you deny that the eye is as much a part of the body as the hand. We need to remember that gender roles are only supposed to be a guide to helping each person discover their strengths. A guide that is perfectly okay to use. Woman, you want to be a coordinator? Good. Our business will fall apart at the seams without you. Man, you want to be out front, seeing for yourself that things are getting done? Good. We need a volunteer to be our inspiration and pep talker. Oh, a man and a woman who wish to work behind the scenes and on the stage respectively? Wonderful. Go to it, and remember that you need one another.
It should never be a matter of, "anything you can do I can do better," but instead a matter of, "anything you want to achieve we can achieve together."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sigh. You missed what I said about encouragement and being hired/not hired based on sex alone rather than skill. No, there isn't a biological difference between which jobs males and females prefer. We encourage women to go into the care professions and we encourage men to go into the math/science professions without looking at their potentials or considering what each individual may want, and we do it often. It's the sad truth. Each individual is different, and many aspects of an individual's personality have little to do with the sex of the individual. We don't need gender roles. We don't need to say that men and women are two parts to the whole. Two individuals are two parts to the whole. That's a better standard to adopt. Gender roles don't help us in any way. All they do is put men and women into boxes and keep them from crossing the boundaries they might wish to cross.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So what you're saying is that the only way to be equal is to be the same. I hope you pay very close attention to the friendship lesson tomorrow. You clearly need it.
Men and women are two parts to a whole. To say that a man and a man are two parts to a whole or that a woman and a woman are two parts to a whole is both sexist and illogical. We need both men and women, just as we need both hands and feet, flesh and bone, blood and nerve. We are different for a reason, and that's a good thing. Different does not mean unequal. Yes, it is wrong to treat someone as less of a person based on whether they have indoor or outdoor plumbing. But it is equally wrong to discourage them from discovering their inherent strengths just because said strengths have been known for thousands of years and are thus not "hipster." Can a woman be a CEO? Absolutely. Should a woman who wants to be a CEO be denied the chance? Absolutely not. But would a woman CEO think and act like a man? I sincerely hope not! She is still a woman, with all the strengths inherent to her as a female and as an individual. And odds are she'll need at least one man on her team in order to complete it, because he will bring his inherent strengths as a male and as an individual to the team.
Should women always wear skirts and men always wear pants? That is a cultural assignment of gender roles, and it can be challenged without denying a person's inherent strengths. Ladies, love your slacks. Men, embrace the kilt. Or don't. It's up to you. Should women always make dinner and men always watch football? That I demand they switch up from time to time. Well, I'll sit out the football myself. But you get the idea.
There are culturally assigned gender roles and there are strengths aligned gender roles. Challenge the former, but use the latter when you can. In our society, we tend to adhere to the former and completely reject the latter. And it's hurting us. Women are afraid of looking weak if they act feminine. Men are afraid of being labeled intolerant or abusive if they act masculine. This is no more right than it would be to label a woman as a tyrant if she asserts herself, or calling a man whipped if he displays compassion.
I suppose what I'm saying is, when you try to reject the differences between men and women that make them who they are and give them their unique strengths, you are not eliminating culturally imposed gender roles, but rather merely reversing them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
...No, I am not saying that everyone should be the same. I'm saying that gender roles should be abstract - that is, baby boys can wear pink or dresses, and baby girls can wear blue, and a man can cry/like ponies/be gay without being targeted for those things, and a woman can be a scientist without any sexist bias along her path to become one, and a man can gain custody of a child as easily as a woman can, and a woman can walk around outside shirtless and braless without being arrested or worrying that TV ads have sexualized her too much, and all of these things should be able to happen without a second thought about them from anyone else.
Men and women can be two parts to a whole, but are not always two parts to a whole. When it comes to making babies, they are, obviously. When it comes to supporting each other in a heterosexual relationship, they are. But at a job? Not always. It doesn't even matter what kind of job it is. Two women could make up a whole at a job, and two men could. It depends on each individual's skills, not the sex of each person. Males can have strengths that you usually think of as "female strengths", and females can have strengths that you usually think of as "male strengths".
When you say "think and act like a man," what do you even mean? There's no wrong way to think or act for a woman or a man based on their personality/potential/skills.
What would be strengths aligned gender roles? I only wish to snuff out the gender roles that hurt people. Those are the ones we don't need and shouldn't have. Making gender roles abstract doesn't reverse them. It tells everyone of any sex that they can fill any gender role they want. That is what I mean by abstract gender roles.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
So it sounds like we have the same goal, but different approaches. I do think women tend to have more of some strengths and men tend to have more of others. Obviously it's not set in stone. There are men who make just as effective daycare workers, for example, as women, and women who make just as effective truckers as men (those are two of the jobs where you see gender discrimination, either in hiring or from coworkers). But for the most part, more women than men have the skill set or desire to be childcare workers and more men than women have the skill set or desire to be truckers. The problem I have is when people try to say these tendencies are wrong and should be forcibly changed. Let them be as they are. It's just as wrong to accuse a woman childcare worker of pandering to the status quo as it is to accuse a man childcare worker of pedophilia. It's just as wrong to reject a man applying for a job as a trucker because "we need more women to balance things out" as it is to reject a woman applying for the job because she has a lower center of gravity and shaves her legs instead of her chin.
I suppose the only way to show you what I mean is to ask what you know about Myers-Briggs. More women than men tend to be FJ (feeling and judging) types, while more men than women tend to be TJ (thinking and judging) types. Each personality uses a certain set of functions in a certain order of development, and each of these functions is associated with certain strengths. Judging types are more common than perceiving types. FJ types use extroverted feeling. They are strong in harmony and empathy. TJ types use extroverted thinking. They are strong in logic and organization. I think perceiving types are split fairly evenly between men and women, though more women than men will be INFPs (idealists and dreamers; my type), while more men than women will be INTPs (puzzle solvers and inventors). And while there are ESFJ men and INTJ women, they are less common than the reverse (especially INTJ females; they are very rare, but for that reason very vocal and well represented on MBTI forums).
As for baby colors, those are totally arbitrary. The societal norm used to be that boys and girls remained indistinguishable until they were old enough to notice the difference themselves; usually around age five. Children have no gender roles, especially at such young ages. And that is one area where I don't think they should. Every girl should climb trees, catch frogs and camp out. Every boy should learn to cook, sew and clean. These are important life skills that nurture both curiosity and self-discipline. To advance society, men and women alike require curiosity. To keep society from going over a cliff, men and women alike require self-discipline. But if parents want to dress their daughters in frilly dresses and their sons in baseball jerseys, there's nothing wrong with that either. Kids outgrow their clothes as fast as they can ruin them anyway, so nothing's really lost.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Look, I agree with everything you said in the first paragraph; however, that brings me back to the idea of making gender roles abstract. If they are abstract, we won't have any of the problems you mentioned in the first paragraph. No one will think, "we need more women in trucking, so we should stop hiring men" or "we need more men in childcare, so we should stop hiring women." If there are no clear gender roles for each sex, then people truly will be hired or considered based on their individual strengths or weaknesses, and not on their sex at all. That's really what I'm trying to say. If that means a woman wants to be in childcare, that's okay, as long as they accept her based on how well she does the job and nothing else. If a man wants to be a trucker, the same reasoning applies there, and vice versa for both.
I know the Myers-Briggs test. I believe I'm INFP as well. I know for sure I'm INF, but for the last letter, I've gotten both J and P at different times I took the test.
Yes, I know the societal norm used to be that way; honestly, I like the idea of dressing all children in dresses until they can dress themselves more out of practicality than anything else. It's easier to slip a dress on your child than pants and a shirt. I definitely agree that little kids don't need to be taught gender roles; when they are taught to fill a specific gender role, it sticks with them. I understand that they don't necessarily stay in the "gender role box" the rest of their lives, even if they did receive extreme gender role bias when they were little, but it definitely takes a toll on people. I think that if we didn't specify a role for girls and a role for boys so much, everything would be better for people. They wouldn't feel so trapped in the box.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I personally think the number one cause of self-identity problems regardless of status quo is the absent father epidemic our society is experiencing. Just having a dad physically present and emotionally invested in a child's life would resolve so much. The overwhelming majority of prisoners grew up without a dad, or with a dad who was physically present but emotionally absent. The majority of girls who end up pregnant in or even before high school have poor or no relationships with their fathers. The vast majority of young people who conclude that they were made incorrectly and have to forcibly "fix" themselves are also fatherless. That is a gender role I won't budge on. A man who has fathered a child is not a real man until he is a father to his child. A woman who has mothered a child is not a real woman until she is a mother to her child. Extreme and tragic circumstances that force the separation of parents and children excepted. Convenience is neither extreme nor tragic, until it is used as an excuse for child abandonment. Then it's just plain tragic.
Your idealism suggests you are an INFP. That is a characteristic of introverted feeling and extroverted intuition working together. You have a strong sense of self-identity and many ideas of how the world should be. An INFJ is less likely to get into an internet debate, as their introverted intuition and extroverted feeling require face-to-face interaction with people in order to get a clear understanding of them. INFJs are more likely to see internet debates as a waste of time. They'd rather discuss the issue with you personally, and help you reach a conclusion you're happy with, rather than try to get you to accept their own ideals as valid.
The INFJ is a rare beast indeed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Could you stop replying with such long comments, please..? I didn't really put my first comment up to get into a long discussion about gender roles..
Anyway, it's true that when fathers leave, it causes a number of problems for their children. However, the way you're talking makes me think you're against adoption or putting kids into foster homes or things like that. I don't think that's what you meant, but I'm asking anyway. Actually, I don't like foster homes, because when kids end up there, they get moved around a lot and don't have a permanent loving family or anyone to trust/lean on, and it leads to a lot of problems. Adoption is a better option. Personally, I don't know if I want kids (and I think I already said that), and I've already made the decision that if I ended up pregnant right now, I'd get an abortion. That's a different story...
I'll admit that I wish sometimes that people thought the way I do, and agreed with me on lots of things, but I do understand that the world doesn't work that way. I understand especially how hard it is to get people online to actually agree with me. Most of the time, when I talk to people online, I'm just trying to help them understand where I'm coming from or understand the facts that are relevant to whatever we're discussing. I am well aware that they probably won't completely agree with me by the end of it, but just giving them the understanding and trying to show them why I feel the way I do about it is my real goal.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm actually very pro-adoption, and dream of doing so one day. But having the option there doesn't absolve the birth parents of any responsibility in at least seeing that their child will be cared for in their absence. Yeah, the foster care system sucks. IMO, the only way to fight it is to be in it. Fostering a kid could literally mean the difference between life and death for them. The state wants them to feel rejected, so fight the state by showing those kids love.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Wait... when you said.. "walk around outside shirtless and braless" you didn't mean... at the same time !?
did you ?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, I did. If men can walk around without anything covering their top halves, then women should be able to do the same thing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A, me it's the opposite, if women can't walk around without anything covering their top halves, then men shouldn't be able to do that
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, either way, it's equal. If men aren't allowed to do it anymore, I'm cool with that. Then it'd be fair (although I'd prefer gaining the right to walk around shirtless instead)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think it would be better if none of them did that, less car-crash because of no rubbernecking.
You know what I mean ?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Er, actually, I'm not sure if you mean that in a metaphorical sense or a literal one.
A metaphorical sense would be something like, if we suddenly allow women to walk around shirtless/braless, everyone would respond with extreme emotions and reactions. A literal sense would be that men would be driving their cars and see a woman walk by without a shirt or bra on and crash. I don't think that would actually happen just because a man saw a woman walking down the street like that..
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5Dci_…
And don't forget gay guys & women who sees a shirtless man
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's a scene from American Dad. It can't be taken seriously. Also, he was doing it while the woman was wearing a bra.
I haven't forgotten them. I was just using men as an example.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And you think he wouldn't have if she was shirtless & braless !?
k.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, he probably would've, and it would've been his fault. (:
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Umm... in saison 9 episode 17 Rubberneckers
he does go 2 jell
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhI904…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Okay, and again, it's a cartoon. If someone was "rubbernecking" in real life, he/she would go to jail for causing a car accident, not for staring at a woman who wasn't wearing a bra (although if my significant other was doing that and got in a car crash because of it, I'd be punishing him myself).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
He went 2 jail because of the car accident & that he lied to the Insurance-guy, not because of rubbernecking.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRExjV…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Kay. Either way, my point still stands.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Calm down. This has very little to do with gender roles. The pink and blue are used to identify the babies gender in the early parts soley for convenience. Babies all look the same for quite a while so the only way to tell without being invasive is color coding.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Actually, it does have to do with gender roles. Babies don't know anything about gender roles. Simply making it a standard in society that they have to be dressed in a certain color - baby girls wear pink and baby boys wear blue - is the a defining of gender roles in itself.
Yeah, maybe it helps people see which is which, but again, who cares? If someone misinterprets which sex your kid is, just tell them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
But green is a good colour; we can't let it go to waste!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
That description is spot on.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
What the heck just happened?
That's what I want to know. *scratched head* O_o
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If it makes you feel any better I don't know what happened, either.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's always important to be proud of what you identify as. I myself identify sexually as an attack helicopter.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Look at the color of the bows. It's a stab at gender roles.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>