Quote:
|
I think this misses a bet. If little girls wrote the Preamble to the US Constitution, it would begin, "We, the people of the United States, love Princesses!" You'll find no end of feminist disquiet about Princess Obsession by little girls. As the father of a daughter, who wants his daughter to succeed in life, I can relate to some of these. The thing is, a game like Princes' Kingdom offers a constructive way to engage "the Princess problem." Because you can draw them in with the chance to "play a Princess," but then the game itself is all about doing things. That is, it can help girls associate wisdom, courage and usefulness with the Princess archetype over prettiness and fashion. The defult unisex designator, "Prince," needlessly narrows the appeal of the game to half of its potential audience.
|
I'll keep reading the review after this little piece of crap but I'l have to breath heavily first. BTW, I'm the father of three. Two are girls. I'm taking this into consideation when I mean that "The defult unisex designator, "Prince," needlessly narrows the appeal of the game to half of its potential audience" is just PC crap.
What do you want? Princesses' Kingdoms? In which sense would that increase the appeal to more than half of its potential audience? Or else, Princes and Princesses' Kingdoms? Still sexist. Princesses' and Princes's Kingdoms? No less sexist (but of course, today sexism against males is perfectly ok).
Not only PC crap. It's also logical crap. How is it possible for a person to write "The defult unisex designator, "Prince,"", and next imply that it is sexist? How can "unisex" be sexist? If defies logic.
I really mean, I need a good breath to get out of this paragraph of crap and keep reading the review. I'll do it.