Woman To Shelve Belief That Gender Is Social Construct For Few Minutes While Boyfriend Changes Flat Tire On Side Of Road

From the Babylon Bee:

LOS ANGELES, CA—Local woman and self-described feminist Ruby Alexis decided to temporarily shelve her firmly held belief that gender is nothing but a social construct while her boyfriend changed her car’s flat tire on the side of the road, sources confirmed Tuesday.

[…] At publishing time, sources had further confirmed that the woman also betrays her feminist ideals and embraces traditional gender roles every garbage day, when her yard needs to be mowed, and whenever in the vicinity of a crime or possible physical altercation.

It’s funny ’cause it’s true even though the article is just satire. This self-serving contradiction is the thing that I find the most galling and offensive about feminism as a philosophy because it makes women look like illogical idiots, which we aren’t.

Feminim says:

Women are super strong and powerful and can do everything men can do, including fight in wars, plus have babies!

Also:

Women are absolutely powerless around men, are perpetual victims, and are too terrified at all times ever even to say the word no, and therefore need men to grant them (and enforce) all kinds of special physical and legal protections, plus give us money.

Mmkay, that makes no sense.  Discerning cultural commenters have to ask the hard questions here, namely:

Are feminists master-manipulators just trying to extract maximal resources from men while placing maximal constraints on them, or are they just idiots incapable of logic?

A few years ago I read a book on raising chickens and noticed the authoress had a blog and a small farm. I love reading farming blogs, so I started following her. She was single, unemployed, and a self-described feminist, and I quickly noticed a lot of grrl power BS in her posts. She wrote non-stop about being tough, scrappy, and independent, but I started noticing that her farm was in a perpetual state of crisis and chaos, and she seemed to be able to solve almost none of these problems by herself. Truck broke down? Call a man to tow it to a man in town to fix.  Pipes frozen? Call a plumber (male). Time to slaughter and butcher animals? Call in men to do it. She couldn’t even cut her own firewood, for Pete’s sake, something plenty of non-feminist women manage to do.  Yet she never had any money to pay these men and was constantly trying to bargain her way into paying a reduced fee at a later date.  I finally stopped reading her in disgust.

In no way am I saying that women can’t run farms. I’m not handy at coop-building, but I can haul feed bags, slaughter ducks, and fend off maniacal ganders, and guess what? Women have been doing this kind of stuff for all of history without a useless, helpless, illogical, contradictory philosophy like feminism, which not only doesn’t help women but actively harms them by burning through men’s good will and natural inclination to help us, the way the feminist farmer-blogger burned through the good will of men willing to fix her shit for free.

 

Advertisements

Feminist Fact Or Crap: “We Wuz Housewivz” edition


It’s time to play everyone’s second-favorite game, “Feminist Fact or Crap” (with everyone’s first favorite game of course being How Many Ways Can Feminists Use Images of Their Vaginas and Call It “Art”?)!
Farm Boy quotes Megan Rivera:

Plenty of “modern women” who are into equality with their partners enjoy cleaning and making their home look beautiful. Plenty of modern women who are Feminists enjoy decorating and cooking. Feminism isn’t about demeaning women for being femme, a huge focus of feminism is making sure people have the ability to choose how to live their own lives without harsh judgements of the outside world, and would never dream of looking down on a woman who was a mother, homemaker, domestic, whatever. There are a LOT of women who are Feminists and homemakers, and posts like this and the comments afterward make me feel sad because so many people have a deep, fundamental misunderstanding about what Feminism is and looks like and how Feminists operate. For that I’m truly sorry.

Just as No True Scotsman would ever…so apparently No True Feminist would ever bad-mouth traditionally feminine women or housewives.

Is this claim Fact or Crap?

Let’s go right to the horses’ mouths, shall we? Without further ado, the founding females of modern feminism:

[Housewives] are mindless and thing-hungry…not people. – Betty Friedan

Housewives are dependent creatures who are still children…parasites.” – Gloria Steinem
“No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” – Simone deBeauvoir

Oh dear! It turns out Ms. Rivera’s claim is in fact…

Crap!

Just like all of feminism is crap.

Women didn’t need feminism in order to work outside the home. Women have always been able to work outside the home.  I work outside the home, and I loathe feminism.

Feminism is NOT about giving women “choices”. Feminism is about the destruction of femininity, the enslavement of women to corporate masters, the sexual degradation of women, and the destruction of family bonds.  Women are objectively worse off now than pre-feminism.

image

 

Ladies, don’t fall for the lie that you owe feminism anything just because you have a job. You don’t.   And definitely don’t believe that feminism supports (or ever supported) women who are housewives.

That is utter crap.

Feminism claims another poor girl’s life.

baloch-700

Feminism has been a mixed bag for economically privileged women, but it has been a straight up disaster for poor women.   However, feminism is simply a tool that has been used by a global elite to line their own pockets via usurious “fiat dollars” that banks are allowed to create out of thin air and lend out to us.  How to get us to borrow, spend, borrow, borrow, and spend some more?  Destroy marriage and childbearing, and women will seek to fill the hole that remains with stuff, career, travel, and a vapid Sex-in-the-City lifestyle.

The destruction of traditional culture goes hand-in-hand with the destruction of the family unit.  The progressive globalists pulling feminism’s strings don’t really give a shit about women.  If they did, they wouldn’t have been egging this poor stupid Pakistani girl on, knowing what her eventual fate would be:

What is the real story here? CNN wants to spin an epic tale of an average woman standing up to patriarchal oppressors against all odds. CNN wants to turn her into a martyr and a heroine. But she is neither of those things, and CNN’s tale is false on its face.

The real story is a sordid one. It is a story of a number of news organizations and NGOs following Anglo-Saxon ideologies of feminism and progressivism, funded and directed from abroad, working on a long-term project to undercut traditional Pakistani society and remake it in the images of Harvard and Oxford Utopia. It is a story of a lower-class Pakistani woman without a husband who got sucked into the pointless spiral of selfies, clicks, and likes that is Western social media, and was then selected and fueled down that path by those same news organizations and NGOs in order to further their political goals.

When she met her inevitable fate in Muslim Punjab, they eulogized her and blamed the patriarchy. And yet, before Qandeel Baloch was having phone calls with journalists at major left-of-center newspapers, she was not likely fearing for her life, nor twerking half-naked for millions to watch on YouTube. Qandeel Baloch was not empowered, she was a political pawn for organizations that did not care whether she lived or died.

Notice that none of the female journalists encouraging her to pose half-nude on the internet were themselves doing anything so pointlessly stupid.  They were happy to whisper lies about empowerment in the girl’s ear, telling her she was strong and independent when in reality she was just reveling in the attention, as most girls would.  Did they care that she would be almost certainly be killed?  Apparently not.  Her death has been ever so useful for their narrative and the news organizations’ site traffic though.  She served her purpose for them, poor stupid girl, and she won’t be the last.

Feminism is the lie that progressive globalists feed gullible girls to celebrate their own debasement and destruction.

Women’s lack of culpability in the areas of sex, relationships, and reproduction – it’s a Western Civ thang.

There have been a series of blog posts on several sites I read responding to the Donald Trump abortion comments in which he stated that if abortion were illegal, then a woman who has an abortion should face some sort of punishment.  Pro-life activists, many of whom are Christians, came out forcefully against Trump on this.  The pro-life movement has long held that doctors who perform abortions, but not the women who have them, should be held liable for murder and punished.

Continue reading

Liberalism and Social Justice Warriors have ruined children’s literature.

A while back, some guy said:

Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.

Liberals take this very seriously.  That is why children’s literature now sucks so bad.

Evolutiontheorist left a humorous and insightful comment on my post about the children’s book The Tooth:

“I’ve noticed that the children’s book world is full of sentimental/boring works that only adults would be interested in. Every time I go to the library, it seems like I come home with at least one book that looked good, but turns out to be about a kid who’s pet died or a bird whose best friend turned out to be a snowball and then melted. Or about how the author grew up in poverty but it’s okay because they liked eating paint. (I am not making that up.)

Kids like books about cheeky toy trains, hoppy bunnies, funny superheroes, or grand adventures. They like rainbows and unicorns and swashbuckling pirates. They do not want to hear about how if you eat too much candy, you might have to go to the dentist and get a tooth pulled, for goodness’s sakes.”

If you don’t think that there is any particular agenda behind this, listen to the following children’s story.

Moral of the story: It’s fun being married to a cross-dresser!

But it isn’t (just) the liberal/SJW agenda that I’m objecting to.  If the story is well-crafted, I could talk through with my kids why I don’t agree with whatever political or “social justice” point the author was trying to make.  Kids’ books have always been a bit preachy in their own way, it’s just that back in the day the preachiness was aimed at getting kids to behave and be good and now it’s aimed at getting them to tear down Western civilization faster, faster, faster.  But the craft aspect to it is TERRIBLE now.  Thornton W. Burgess was a preachy conservationist, but my children loved hearing his stories about Reddy Fox and Lightfoot the Deer (you can listen to his stories being read by non-professional readers here).  He was a fine children’s literature writer despite his tendency to anthropomorphize deer and his inability to comprehend that slow death by starvation due to overpopulation is not kinder than a quick death by a hunter’s gun.

Several years ago on another blog I wrote a post entitled What is happening to children’s literature?  I think we understand now exactly what is happening to it, but I am going to repost that essay here since it seems relevant.

What is happening to children’s literature?  

Posted on 03/09/2014

Painting by Emil Rau | Public Domain image from Wikimedia Commons

If you have children, you probably already know that March is National Reading Month.

Because we don’t watch television, our family listens to a lot of audio books.  We try to choose ones that we all enjoy listening to and which will appeal to a range of ages.  A typical evening in our house finds us gathered in the living room, the children drawing or writing and me working on a blog post, while listening to stories on the CD player.  Because of this, I have listened to quite a number of both classic and modern children’s stories, and I have concluded that the modern ones are largely unimpressive.

Surely I am not the only parent who has noticed the startling decline in the quality of children’s literature?  I first began thinking about this about ten years ago, when my husband and I noticed that many of the picture story books that had the Caldecott Medal Winner sticker on them were so…weird.  The books were uninteresting to children and sometimes even frightened them, but I’m sure they were intriguing to the highly-educated, liberal parents of our generation who were raised to see things that are “alternative” as superior.  This is the basic ethos of progressivism; anything new and strange, no matter how objectively crappy, is better than what came before.  Weird, disturbing children’s books must be better than the simple, charming types of stories that came before, right?

We have continued to notice this trend as our children have gotten older.  One year awhile back, we joined a mother-daughter book club at the library.  One of the first books that was assigned to us was called The Higher Power of Lucky.  We were given a free copy of the book to read, and let me tell you, it was dreadful.  It was equal parts morbid and boring.  The ten-year-old main character is a girl named Lucky whose mother died from being electrocuted during a storm; her father is unaccounted for and she lives with her father’s first ex-wife in an old trailer in a depressing desert town.  She is obsessed with Charles Darwin for some reason and the primary adventure in the story seems to center around Lucky eavesdropping outside AA meetings and worrying that her guardian will abandon her.

Librarians are obsessed with this book.  It is everywhere; it is one of their most highly recommended books.  Just now we have returned from the library and there were five copies of the audio book on the shelf.  Five copies!  Audio books are expensive, and it always takes them ages to order the classic ones that I request, but somehow we have money for five copies of this book.  No one ever checks them out, but I’m sure it makes the librarians feel very cheerful and progressive to see them on the shelf.

There were several other books that we read for that book club, all equally strange and uninspiring.  Modern children’s books usually have main characters who are female, have an intense grrrll power message, and often involve scenes in which girls behave unethically to get what they want.  I allowed our girls to listen to a modern story called The Callahan Cousins on audio book last summer about three cousins (all girls) who stay with their grandmother for the summer.  The girls – all grrrl-powered up of course – lie, steal, gossip, sneak out, sneak around, and none of this is portrayed in the story as a negative thing.

I can’t imagine what kind of literature is out there for boys now.  I rarely see much of anything geared at boys on the shelves, other than stories based on movies, video games, and TV shows.  Classic literature isn’t used much anymore, but the new literature is mostly badly written, dull, upsetting, and uninteresting, mostly progressivist propaganda.  Virtually every book for girls in the age range of 7 to 12 seems to include some kind of self-conscious gender-bending or gender “stereotype” smashing theme.

I know that many of my readers are parents and would probably like to know of good books for children between the ages of 7 and 15.  I will start by recommending the following five books, none of which are Christian books.

All of these stories are available on audio book at our library, but even if you can’t get the audio version, I think your children would enjoy reading these stories:

The Miracles on Maple Hill  (1956) by Virginia Sorensen:

Five Little Peppers and How They Grew (1939) by Margaret Sydney:

Rascal (1963) by Sterling North:

Larklight (2006) by Philip Reeve:

 

The Mistmantle Chronicles – start with Urchin of the Riding Stars (2005) by M. I. McAllister:

And our family’s FAVORITE series of audiobooks ever, Hank the Cowdog.

These are perfect for young boys as well as girls.  You can buy the books, but I very strongly recommended springing for the extra few dollars to buy the audio books.  The author reads them himself and includes songs, and his delivery is just so entertaining.  I recommend Hank the Cowdog very highly.  We have almost the entire series on audio book now (we’ve been purchasing them slowly over the past decade); also, check your library’s children’s audio book collection because they very well may have some of these or may be willing to purchase them.

Here is a YouTube clip of the author, John Erickson, giving a reading (he’s a much in-demand speaker and lecturer and is a salt-of-the earth Texan Christian sort.)

Why I am deeply grateful to feminists.

I have wanted to comment on women having to register for the draft for a while, and now I am finally getting around to it.  On this matter, all I can say is: thank you, feminists!

In years of railing on the internet against feminism, against modernism, against materialism, and in favor of a traditional kin-based patriarchal social structure, I have accomplished only a little, mainly changing the minds of a handful of people who may have been readers of one of my previous two blogs.  But feminists, in their inability to consider any long-term consequences of their political agenda, have accomplished what I could not; they have assured an almost immediate return to marriage and natalism in the event of a war requiring conscription.

Thanks to the tireless efforts of feminists, men will be in a position to call all the shots if there is ever a draft for a war; every young woman will suddenly realize that she has an immediate desire to become pregnant as soon as possible because the alternative is the risk of getting killed in battle or taken prisoner by an enemy that has not had the, er, benefit of HR’s sexual harassment training.  There is zero possibility that our current economic set-up of subsidizing single motherhood will be sustainable if suddenly the majority of 18-29 year-old women decide to become pregnant at the same time; the sheer weight of that economic burden would collapse the system.

Most women know that they are utterly unsuited for fighting in a war (as opposed to serving as nurses or the like) and would only be in the way, endangering the lives of the other soldiers.  Women aren’t stupid and have a higher sense of self-preservation that you might suspect by looking at feminist talking heads.

But really, can you even imagine someone like Lena Dunham, Anita Sarkeesian, or Lindy West fighting in a war?  Regardless of what they may say, it is not now nor has it ever been one of feminism’s goals to establish actual parity of responsibility between men and women.  Were there to be a war with a female draft requirement, young women would instantly know whom to blame for this—feminism, which would be revealed as the anti-family, female-supremacist failure that it really is.   And young women would also quite clearly see where safety lies – in marriage and motherhood.

Which is what I have been saying for years now.

So now I say:

Thank you feminists, for achieving what I could not: our assured eventual return to a kin-based patriarchal social structure which is the source of safety and well-being for women and children.  You have my deepest gratitude.

Great job, feminists!

Hey feminists, I know you are but what am I?

That moment when I realize I am far less sexist than feminists…

If I had a nickel for every time I was taken to task by some internet feminist for being allegedly sexist back when I used to run my anti-feminism blog, I would be writing this post from my Northern Michigan hunting preserve with luxury cabins and on-site deer processing facility.  But it turns out, feminists are the real sexists:

In Karen Keller’s kindergarten classroom, boys can’t play with Legos.

They can have their pick of Tinkertoys and marble tracks, but the colorful bricks are “girls only.”

“I always tell the boys, ‘You’re going to have a turn’ — and I’m like, ‘Yeah, when hell freezes over’ in my head,” she said. “I tell them, ‘You’ll have a turn’ because I don’t want them to feel bad.”

Although her approach might anger some parents, Keller is sticking to her guns: It’s all part of a plan to get girls building during “free choice,” the 40 minutes of unstructured play time embedded at the end of every school day.

Huh.  Sex-segregated play?  Tell me the one about gender being just a social construct, feminists.

I know I said I wasn’t going to write about the idiocy of feminism much anymore, but this story hit close to home.  As you may know, I am a speech-language pathologist.  I have worked in private practice and out-patient med rehab, but currently I work in a public school.  It’s a nice school.  The teachers are good, it’s a semi-rural setting, the kids are progressing well…no OMG aren’t the public schools so awful! stories to share about the building I work in.  The Kindergarten teachers there, who are not to my knowledge sexist feminists, all have tubs of Legos in their rooms for the children to use during choice time, and I have never ever seen them restrict use to one sex or the other.

As readers of my old blog may recall, I am a huge proponent of using Legos or other such bricks during therapy.  A typical therapy session for me is as follows:

I go to pick up Bobby (not his name) from Mrs. Smith’s (not her name) Kindergarten room.  He is building with Legos but doesn’t mind stopping to come to the speech room to work on his /s/ sound.  We sit at the table and I open up my large totebag filled with ziploc bags.  In the bags are various small sets of Legos, including the Friend Legos that are marketed toward girls, with their instruction booklets.  There are also large ziploc bags full of Snap-N-Style dolls.  He may choose any of these items.  Bobby always chooses the Legos, and he never chooses the Friend Legos.  Girls almost always choose the dolls or sometimes the Friend Legos.  Hey folks, I don’t make the biological sex roles!  But neither do I fight against them…

“Bobby, let’s go through your words now.  For /s/, keep your teeth together, put your tongue on the ‘T’ spot, and blow.  Ready?  Repeat after me.”

After 5 words, Bobby gets the blocks he needs to complete step 1.  He then uses the words in sentences and gets the blocks for step 2.  He continues working dilligently on his speech work with pauses to build.  At the end of the session, he has built this:

“Great job on your speech sounds, Bobby.  You may have 2 minutes to play with what you built.”

“Can we make a video?” he asks.

Yes, I say, smiling to myself because Bobby doesn’t know that making Lego videos is my trick for getting him to practice narrative language skills.  Bobby proceeds to narrate a brief story about a bad thief and a good cop while I record it with my school iPad.  While he watches the video happily, I tell him to check to make sure his story has a beginning, a middle, and an end.  He says it does.  He gets his sticker (he can choose from a wide variety of stickers but almost always chooses a super hero sticker – hey folks, I don’t make the biological sex roles).   He leaves.

Bobby returns to class happy and sits down for read-to-self time.  When Suzy (not her name) comes to speech, she gets to choose from the same totebag.  She almost always chooses the Snap-N-Style dolls, which stimulate her spatial reasoning skills and develop her fine motor abilities just like Legos do.  Her narrative video shows a girl doll feeding the Snap-N-Style puppy and brushing its fancy fur.

Oh, curse you, you persistent biological sex roles!

Naturally Bobby and Suzy are free to choose to play with whatever they find in the totebag.  Boys who play with dolls and girls who build motorcycle cops are A-okay by me; my therapy goals for them will be achieved either way.

In other words, I don’t have to be sexist like feminists are to use Legos at school.

Now, let us contemplate the school district’s response to noted sexist Kindergarten teacher Karen Keller:

“Following the release of a recent news article, the Bainbridge Island School District (BISD) has received inquiries that reflect inaccurate perceptions about student access to Legos in Karen Keller’s kindergarten classroom at Blakely Elementary School,” wrote district spokeswoman Galen Crawford.

“In keeping with a science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education grant, Ms. Keller gave girls a designated time to play with the building toys during a 30-minute ‘free-choice’ time block in September 2015. This isolated, short-term practice ended in October. All students in all classrooms have and will continue to have access to all instructional and noninstructional materials.”

Hey Bainbridge Island School District administrators, here is a protip from me: if you refuse to call out isolated incidents of terrible and probably illegal behavior by one of your teachers, you feed the fire of public perception of our schools being evil dens of ultra left-wing idealogues who want to brainwash and indoctrinate little children to their personal political agenda by all means possible, including using discriminatory classroom practices.  Those of us who are down here in the trenches know that most teachers aren’t like that, so why do you throw them under the bus by defending bad apples like Karen Keller?   It’s hardly a mystery why homeschooling is increasing by seven to fifteen percent per year when certain school administrators won’t police their own.

Luckily for me, this kind of crap would never fly in the district I work in.  I wouldn’t work there if it did since speech therapists are highly in demand and I could choose to work in a variety of schools, therapy clinics, hospitals, or skilled nursing facilities instead.  I will never silently acquiesce to sexual discrimination against boys no matter where I work.

But let’s end on a positive note, shall we?  Let’s talk about why I use Legos in my therapy plans so often.  It isn’t solely because Legos are fun and children love them.  There is actually a plethora of research that demonstrates the cognitive, fine motor, linguistic, social and academic benefits of playing with bricks such as Legos.  I use them as reinforcers for speech sound articulation therapy, for building narrative language skills, and for improving social pragmatic language skills for children on the autism spectrum.  I’ve used them with kids who stutter to practice fluency techniques.  I’m even considering starting a second blog on which I post all my therapy lesson plans involving Legos or other building blocks since I’ve seen so much improvement in the children with whom I use them.

For those who are interested, here are a handful of studies, but there are many more:

  • Caldera YM, Culp AM, O’Brien M, Truglio RT, Alvarez M, and Huston AC. 1999. Children’s Play Preferences, Construction Play with Blocks, and Visual-spatial Skills: Are they Related? International Journal of Behavioral Development; 23 (4): 855-872.
  • Casey BM, Andrews N, Schindler H, Kersh JE, Samper A and Copley J. 2008. The development of spatial skills through interventions involving block building activities. Cognition and Instruction (26): 269-309.
  • Christakis DA, Zimmerman FJ, and Garrison MM. 2007. Effect of block play on language acquisition and attention in toddlers: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 161(10):967-71.
  • Heisner J. 2005. Telling Stories with Blocks: Encouraging Language in the Block Center Early Childhood Research and Practice 7(2).
  • Ferrara K, Hirsch-Pasek K, Newcombe NS, Golinkoff RM and Shallcross Lam W. 2011. Block talk: Spatial language during block play. Mind, Brain, and Education (5): 143-151.
  • Kamii C, Miyakawa Y and Kato Y. 2004. The development of logico-mathematical knowledge in a block-building activity at ages 1-4. Journal of Research in Childhood19: 44-57.
  • Keen R. 2011. The development of problem solving in young children: a critical cognitive skill. Annu Rev Psychol.62:1-21.
  • Legoff DB and Sherman M. 2006. Long-term outcome of social skills intervention based on interactive LEGO play. Autism. 10(4):317-29.
  • Oostermeijer M, Boonen JH and Jolles J. 2014. The relation between children’s constructive play activities, spatial ability, and mathematical word problem-soving performance: a mediation analysis in sixth-grade students. Frontiers in Psychology 5 Article 782.
  • Pepler DJ and Ross HS. 1981. The effects of play on convergent and divergent problem solving. Child Development 52(4): 1202-1210.
  • Richardson M, Hunt TE, and Richardson C. 2014. Children’s construction task performance and spatial ability: Controlling task complexity and predicting mathematics performance. Percept Mot Skills. 2014 Nov 11. [Epub ahead of print]
  • Roseth CJ, Johnson DW, and Johnson RT. 2008. Promoting Early Adolescents’ Achievement and Peer Relationships: the Effects of Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Goal Structures. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 134, No. 2: 223-246.
  • Sprafkin C, Serbin LA, Denier C and Connor JM. 1983. Sex-differentiated play: Cognitive consequences and early interventions. In MB Liss (ed), Social and cognitive skills: Sex roles and child’s play. New York: Academic Press.
  • Stiles J and Stern C. 2009. Developmental change in young children’s spatial cognitive processing: Complexity effects and block construction performance in preschool children. Journal of Cognition and Development (2): 157-187.
  • Verdine BN, Golinkoff RM, Hirsh-Pasek K, Newcombe NS, Filipowicz AT, Chang A. 2013. Deconstructing Building Blocks: Preschoolers’ Spatial Assembly Performance Relates to Early Mathematical Skills. Child Dev. 2013 Sep 23. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12165. [Epub ahead of print]
  • Wolfgang CH, Stannard LL, and Jones I. 2003. Advanced constructional play with LEGOs among preschoolers as a predictor of later school achievement in mathematics. Early Child Development and Care 173(5): 467-475.
  • Wolfgang, Charles H.; Stannard, Laura L.; & Jones, Ithel. 2001. Block play performance among preschoolers as a predictor of later school achievement in mathematics. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 15(2), 173-180.

Happy building!