Tesco removes gender-specific toy sections after little girl complains - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Str4fe;46576622]How about like a masculine toy section and a feminine toy section (or something like that).[/QUOTE] That's exactly the same thing, just with slightly fancier words.

[QUOTE=wickedplayer494;46576992]I would've banned him on the spot from my restaurant. Better yet, call up the managers of the others and get him banned from every one in the city.[/QUOTE] Good idea then the kid sure would have gotten his beanie baby toy then.

Can somebody explain to me why "getting offended" is such a cardinal sin? What is everybody on the planet supposed to be super aloof and walk around with leather jackets on going "nbd" at everything? What's so objectionable about finding something objectionable?

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;46577567]Can somebody explain to me why "getting offended" is such a cardinal sin? What is everybody on the planet supposed to be super aloof and walk around with leather jackets on going "nbd" at everything? What's so objectionable about finding something objectionable?[/QUOTE] Forcing someone to change something just because it offends you offends some people. Should their offense be ignored?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46577574]Forcing someone to change something just because it offends you offends some people. Should their offense be ignored?[/QUOTE] Nobody got forced to change anything? Tesco chose to change the signage. I think you got "was offended" confused with "had a gun and was willing to use it."

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;46577583]Nobody got forced to change anything? Tesco chose to change the signage. I think you got "was offended" confused with "had a gun and was willing to use it."[/QUOTE] public outcry and shaming surely has that effect on pr folk

None of the "tumblr" posters who are the subject of 100,000,000 shitty copy pasted "excuse me I'm an agender otherkin and..." jokes have the legal power to force anyone to do anything either so don't get shit confused. This isn't about anybody being "forced" to do anything, this about the expression of opinions. Why is it wrong to express your opinion that something is fucked up? [editline]26th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Gamerman12;46577586]public outcry and shaming surely has that effect on pr folk[/QUOTE] So? Still, nobody got "forced" to do anything and children should be encouraged to play with whatever toys they want to play with so in this case someone airing their displeasure about the signage was clearly a good thing. [editline]26th November 2014[/editline] Y'all are being duplicitous anyway since everybody gets offended about something. If it's not issues of social equality it's politics or video games or the proper way to cook a steak. Complaining about people getting "offended" is just a way to pick and choose which arguments and ideas you want to engage and which ones you want to dismiss out of hand.

Complaining people arent taking your chosen form of complaining the most seriously is some pretty bad hypocrisy. I'm entirely in support of the store removing that sign, but I don't get why being "offended" actually holds any weight in the majority of situations. Simply being offended isn't a good reason for anything to happen.

Using SJW nonironically is still shitposting

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46577628] I'm entirely in support of the store removing that sign, but I don't get why being "offended" actually holds any weight in the majority of situations. Simply being offended isn't a good reason for anything to happen.[/QUOTE] Because we're human beings and we use language to communicate our feelings and ideas? When someone says "I'm offended that this store has this sign because..." what they're doing is using their language to communicate that they believe that there is some kind of problem and then the second party can, if they so wish, listen to and appraise that argument and, if they see fit, address it. People aren't RNGs who do things arbitrarily; if someone takes offense to something that's because they have some kind of reason for being offended and that reason may very well be a sound, logical one. The quality of "offensiveness" never exists without some kind of further qualification, be it explicit or contextual.

Look at that cute lil' feminazi face, it's all because of the patriarchy! (it's a joke, before the dumbs come raining down)

[QUOTE=Starlight 456;46573749]Personally, I strongly disagree with segregating toys into defined "Boys" and "Girls" sections. It's harmful to kids who want to play with the toys they want, because they're not "for" them. Stop liking dolls, Tom, you need the toy monster truck, That's for boys! Stop liking the toy monster trucks, Jane, that's for boys, here, have a doll. There's no reason to be against this except for being afraid of social change.[/QUOTE] hell, kids end up enforcing this on themselves my little brother and sister absolutely refuse to touch things that are 'for girls/boys' my brother will refuse to do anything that's girl stuff, he won't wear or like anything pink and he definitely won't be playing with any dollhouses or any shit like that, and he aspires to be an astronaut my little sister will usually refuse to play any hardcore video games and doesn't play with any boy toys, strictly adhering to only girl toys slathered in pink and aspiring to be good at cooking and cleaning, and her dream jobs include things like being a cheerleader now that's fine, I'm not about to force them in to doing stuff they don't want to do, but the thing is that if you blur the line enough that the "oh this is a boy/girl thing" isn't immediately apparent they can totally get in to that stuff, and all the sudden my super girly little sister will totally play this video game or pick up a nerf gun or listen to this metal song or whatever the fuck, and my little brother loves the [I]fuck[/I] out of My Little Pony, just because she wasn't told that that's not 'for' her, and that's not 'for' him hell, she has a bizarre adoration for Five Nights at Freddy's which is even stronger than my nerdy ass little brother's love for it (yeah I know it's not age appropriate for them, trust me it's not my choice) so honestly I think that both their opportunities and interests are being artificially limited specifically because both of them have been raised in a rigid boy/girl gender role environment and in turn they have accepted this as basic truth and refuse to allow themselves to see any other way, becoming close minded, and that's just shitty

[QUOTE=Technopath;46577822]Look at that cute lil' feminazi face, it's all because of the patriarchy! (it's a joke, before the dumbs come raining down)[/QUOTE] It's still a shit joke

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;46577819]Because we're human beings and we use language to communicate our feelings and ideas? When someone says "I'm offended that this store has this sign because..." what they're doing is using their language to communicate that they believe that there is some kind of problem and then the second party can, if they so wish, listen to and appraise that argument and, if they see fit, address it. People aren't RNGs who do things arbitrarily; if someone takes offense to something that's because they have some kind of reason for being offended and that reason may very well be a sound, logical one. The quality of "offensiveness" never exists without some kind of further qualification, be it explicit or contextual.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure if you're referring to this particular incident or if you're speaking about this issue in general. People don't ignore the arguments of persons who claim to be offended, they ignore people who don't have actual arguments to contribute. Like HumanAbyss said, being offended isn't a sufficient reason to enact change; it's the underlying logic that may be justified. For instance, discouraging the perpetuation of gender roles is justified by the fact that people who stray for the norm may be ostracized otherwise. To the contrary, bullying a scientist into submission because you feel offended by the shirt he chose to wear for an interview isn't justified. As you said, people being offended may be an indication of legit concern, but that can't be used as a justification for change without providing an actual reason for it.

[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;46574837]And we will never have. We will always have majorities and minorities, it's in our nature. Gender norms are such a big part of our life that they won't be gone... ever. They are literally everywhere. Why do girls have long hair more often then boys? Oh, gender roles. We should probably shave everyone to 3mm just so we are all equal. Why do women wear short skirts and men dont? Gender roles, I can't even wear a skirt without being bullied by the majority for it. Cruel world. Why do women use lipstick and men most often don't? [sp]Maybe because the lipstick mimics the biological effect of being aroused - blood flowing to lips, making them red - and naturally attracts males[/sp] Society-enforced gender roles! A world without genders is totally not a world of humans. Not possible with homo sapiens.[/QUOTE] lol what the fuck is this there are no gender roles, literally none that have always been true of humanity long hair? [quote]In ancient Greece, long male hair was a symbol of wealth and power, while a shaven head was appropriate for a slave. The ancient Greeks had several gods and heroes who wore their hair long, including Zeus, Achilles, Apollo, and Poseidon. Greek soldiers are said to have worn their hair long in battle. In the European middle ages, shorter hair often signified servitude and peasantry, while long hair was often attributed to freemen, as was the case with the Germanic Goths and Merovingians. The Gaelic Irish (both men and women)[27] took great pride in their long hair—for example, a person could be heavily fined for cutting a man's hair short against his will.[28] When the Anglo-Normans and the English colonized Ireland, hair length came to signify one's allegiance. Irishmen who cut their hair short were deemed to be forsaking their Irish heritage. Likewise, English colonists who wore their hair long in the back were deemed to be forsaking their role as English subjects and giving in to the Irish life. Thus, hair length was one of the most common ways of judging a true Englishman in this period.[/quote] skirts? [img]http://www.proprofs.com/quiz-school/upload/yuiupload/1139882291.jpg[/img] woops makeup? [quote]The earliest records of men using cosmetics were in Asia – in China and Japan 3000BC, men and women used tinctures of gum arabic, gelatin and egg to stain their fingernails to signify their status in society. Flash forward a couple of thousand years and the Ancient Brit warriors were daubing their faces in blue woad and became known by the Romans as Picts – the painted ones. The Romans themselves painted their heads to disguise premature baldness (can’t imagine that was hugely convincing…), a precursor to the wigs and male beauty spots of the court of Louis XIII (who went bald at 23 and hence pushed wigs as all the rage). Harlequins, Dandies and Macaronis followed.[/quote] it's almost like you don't actually know what the fuck you're talking about and seem to assume that all of human society has been following the culture trends of the past like 200 years for millenia

And hell, about the makeup thing, a lot of men use makeup, even lipstick, I can assure you that there isn't a single male actor nowadays that doesn't have lipstick on in their scenes :v:

Honestly, can we just do away with gender specific ads? All they seem to do is offend people lately.

[QUOTE=Solo Wing;46578092]Honestly, can we just do away with gender specific ads? All they seem to do is offend people lately.[/QUOTE] Yes. Let's start selling tampons for men and jockstrap for the ladies.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;46578108]Yes. Let's start selling tampons for men and jockstrap for the ladies.[/QUOTE] Way to utterly miss the point. You don't need to make gender specific ads for the vast majority of things. The only times a gender specific ad would actually be valid is in cases of things that are biologically dependent on the target's sex such as (in your example) tampons.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;46578108]Yes. Let's start selling tampons for men and jockstrap for the ladies.[/QUOTE] They're talking about shit like "SODA FOR MEN" and fucking pink Bic pens "for women". Don't be narrow-minded just for the sake of some [i]sick zinger[/i].

Superheroes and such sells better to boys than to girls, so gendered marking does make sense.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;46578409]Way to utterly miss the point. You don't need to make gender specific ads for the vast majority of things. The only times a gender specific ad would actually be valid is in cases of things that are biologically dependent on the target's sex such as (in your example) tampons.[/QUOTE] Marketing department says that Superman toys are mainly bought by boys. Why shouldn't you be allowed to target those boys in marketing campaings? [QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;46578483]Superheroes and such sells better to boys than to girls, so gendered marking does make sense.[/QUOTE] See, this guy gets it. They're not trying to alienate their female consumers, they just think it's better to focus on a group with more potential buyers. [QUOTE=Dalndox;46578440]They're talking about shit like "SODA FOR MEN" and fucking pink Bic pens "for women". Don't be narrow-minded just for the sake of some [i]sick zinger[/i].[/QUOTE] What's the problem with "soda for men"? They figure "well, there's this group of costumers that don't have their very own <product>. Let's make a <product> aimed at them and try to get those costumers that other companies aren't getting". There's a reason why marketing is one of the most expensive departments of any company.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;46578495]Marketing department says that Superman toys are mainly bought by boys. Why shouldn't you be allowed to target those boys in marketing campaings? [/QUOTE] Have you ever considered for a moment that the reason superhero toys are mainly bought for boys is because they're only marketed as being for boys? Just because a company has a motive for enforcing gender roles with their advertising doesn't justify it. It's still ethically questionable. "It makes us money" isn't an excuse.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;46578495]See, this guy gets it. They're not trying to alienate their female consumers, they just think it's better to focus on a group with more potential buyers. [/QUOTE] They may not be trying to do that but they're succeeding at it which is exactly the problem. If you are discouraging anyone from buying your product because it's being marketed towards the opposite gender then that is an issue. Which is what people keep saying and what people like you and FatFatFatty seem to consistently fail to comprehend.

[QUOTE=Dalndox;46578440]They're talking about shit like "SODA FOR MEN" and fucking pink Bic pens "for women". Don't be narrow-minded just for the sake of some [i]sick zinger[/i].[/QUOTE] Don't forget fitness supplements for men being all about "BIG STRONK MASSIVE MUSCLES" whereas the exact same products but marketed for women are all about toning and that sort of bullshit

I mean I personally believe that advertising, in it's modern form, is malicious and that it exacts a heavy toll on the mental health of the people who live their lives surrounded by it but at the very least we can expect it to be egalitarian. It doesn't cost a company more money to write their advertisements in a gender neutral way and the reasons for the success and failure of ad campaigns are difficult to identify so making appeals about their "profit motive" doesn't cut it.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;46578495] What's the problem with "soda for men"? They figure "well, there's this group of costumers that don't have their very own <product>. Let's make a <product> aimed at them and try to get those costumers that other companies aren't getting". There's a reason why marketing is one of the most expensive departments of any company.[/QUOTE] It's fucking soda. Here's the wiki article about Dr. Pepper TEN: [quote]Dr Pepper TEN, a low-calorie version of Dr Pepper, was released in 2011. This version retains the iconic taste of regular Dr Pepper's 23 flavors, but with just 10 calories per serving. It is being especially marketed toward men, featuring a distinctly masculine package design, complete with a gunmetal gray color scheme, industrial rivets and bold new font, and the tagline "It's Not for Women."[/quote] So it has 10 calories. That's it; that's the whole difference, aside from a slightly different can design. Tell me what reason this needed to be marketed as "Not for Women"? Are you telling me there's just not enough [i]MANLINESS[/i] in the entirety of the soda industry that they can't just pick up a diet variant, which already accomplishes what this product does? And Bic's "pens for women" which were nothing more than pink plastic with a slightly higher price tag. This is what I'm getting at: Gendered marketing is pointless.

[QUOTE=Last or First;46576001]It's a common stereotype linked to gender roles that women are bad at math. Why would that be the case? How would that evolve? Especially since in the classic "men hunt, women farm" scenario, the women would be the ones figuring out how much to plant, how much to harvest, how much food they'll need for each night and how to spread it among people, etc. Same with science such as chemistry: if women were the only ones cooking, then that's much closer to chemistry than hunting is. On the other hand, if you turn around and say they weren't the only ones cooking, then oh hey, turns out the scenario people base their biotruths on is bullshit! Which is more likely: -men and women evolved to be good at math and bad at math respectively, despite it being more likely to evolve the other way around (and furthermore, women evolving to be less interested in computers somehow, because that's also a common stereotype of "women just aren't interested in computers") -men did the hunting and women did the cooking, but the men came back every hour or so just to do the math and "more chemistry related" cooking for some reason -men came to power due to being physically stronger than women on average, the people in charge who had superiority complexes said that men were smarter than women, and math and science were associated with being smart, so society decided men must be better at math and science[/QUOTE] I have a great video response to anyone who says there are no basic psychological differences between the average male and female. [video=youtube;tiJVJ5QRRUE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiJVJ5QRRUE[/video] [QUOTE=Solomon;46577806]Using SJW nonironically is still shitposting[/QUOTE] It's funny because this a shitpost: shitty, noninformative, inflammatory. Good job on bucking the trend kid. And on topic, it amazes me that you guys can still deny SJWs are a thing right after #ShirtGate. [QUOTE=Mister Sandman;46577940]hell, kids end up enforcing this on themselves my little brother and sister absolutely refuse to touch things that are 'for girls/boys' my brother will refuse to do anything that's girl stuff, he won't wear or like anything pink and he definitely won't be playing with any dollhouses or any shit like that, and he aspires to be an astronaut my little sister will usually refuse to play any hardcore video games and doesn't play with any boy toys, strictly adhering to only girl toys slathered in pink and aspiring to be good at cooking and cleaning, and her dream jobs include things like being a cheerleader now that's fine, I'm not about to force them in to doing stuff they don't want to do, but the thing is that if you blur the line enough that the "oh this is a boy/girl thing" isn't immediately apparent they can totally get in to that stuff, and all the sudden my super girly little sister will totally play this video game or pick up a nerf gun or listen to this metal song or whatever the fuck, and my little brother loves the [I]fuck[/I] out of My Little Pony, just because she wasn't told that that's not 'for' her, and that's not 'for' him hell, she has a bizarre adoration for Five Nights at Freddy's which is even stronger than my nerdy ass little brother's love for it (yeah I know it's not age appropriate for them, trust me it's not my choice) so honestly I think that both their opportunities and interests are being artificially limited specifically because both of them have been raised in a rigid boy/girl gender role environment and in turn they have accepted this as basic truth and refuse to allow themselves to see any other way, becoming close minded, and that's just shitty[/QUOTE] I have 3 sisters and 2 brothers. My parents were always open minded and let us do whatever we want. Hell they downright encouraged us to be different and in that respect, made great role models: my mother had the primary income and besides odd jobs my father stayed home to raise us. We all grew up with a love of video games, computers, and cooking (likely because that's what my dad did) but besides that, we often played together with everything: dolls, cars, pogs, lego, nerf guns... even creative shit like oil pastels and wood burning. But even after a childhood like that and our family being really close and accepting, the boys and girls are very different and are more traditional in their interests than not. Not everyone's experience matches your own.

Thankfully this sheet of paper will do no harm to the young minds now. So will the bored underpaid intern who whipped it up in 5 minutes be punished or what Also, thinking back to when I was that age, I basically wanted every stupid thing that was ever advertised on TV and I mean from boys' toys, to girls', to weight-loss-pills and pots and pans. That didn't mean I had a point on society or anything, just that I was little and the power of commercials is so exponentially powerful at young age.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;46578522]Have you ever considered for a moment that the reason superhero toys are mainly bought for boys is because they're only marketed as being for boys? Just because a company has a motive for enforcing gender roles with their advertising doesn't justify it. It's still ethically questionable. "It makes us money" isn't an excuse.[/QUOTE] No, boys like superheroes, because they want to be like the superheroes. Same with cowboys and astronauts.