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

[QUOTE=FlakAttack;46578591] And on topic, it amazes me that you guys can still deny SJWs are a thing right after #ShirtGate. [/QUOTE] Stupid fabricated internet drama doesn't prove anything. "SJW" is an ad hominem a person uses to dismiss the ideas of someone they disagree with; not an objective descriptor for a definitive group of people. [QUOTE=Ragekipz;46578693]No, boys like superheroes, because they want to be like the superheroes. Same with cowboys and astronauts.[/QUOTE] [I]Because that is what is advertised to them[/I]; that's what society conditions them into finding appealing. Superheros and Cowboys don't exist in nature - they aren't ingrained into human instinct. Boys like that stuff because they've been taught to like those things and been taught to dislike "feminine" things. This is a bad thing because, oftentimes, perpetuating standards of "masculinity" and femininity" that men and women need meet can have a detrimental effect on the people who don't meet those standards. [editline]26th November 2014[/editline] Literally all people are saying is that we should teach children they can play with whatever toys they want to play with and you people are finding ways to take offense at that statement and making up bullshit about "SJWs" and "the biological differences between men and women" and "the profit motive of advertising." Can't you see you're basically further proving my point?

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;46578778]Stupid fabricated internet drama doesn't prove anything. "SJW" is an ad hominem a person uses to dismiss the ideas of someone they disagree with; not an objective descriptor for a definitive group of people. [I]Because that is what is advertised to them[/I]; that's what society conditions them into finding appealing. Superheros and Cowboys don't exist in nature - they aren't ingrained into human instinct. Boys like that stuff because they've been taught to like those things and been taught to dislike "feminine" things. This is a bad thing because, oftentimes, perpetuating standards of "masculinity" and femininity" that men and women need meet can have a detrimental effect on the people who don't meet those standards. [/QUOTE] But why do you want to level the field from the bottom? People should be encouraged to reach greater standards, not repressed for having greater standards. How is having a role model to look up to bad? Looking up to other people IS part of the human instinct. Is how we learn how to behave and how to talk.

[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? 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. 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] How about you expand your potential market and advertise it for EVERYONE. There is no benefit in advertising for one gender over the other, as both genders together produce a wider target audience and more potential customers.

[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] Mainly doesn't mean exclusively. And it creates a feedback loop of: 1. slightly more boys buy superman stuff 2. market exclusively to boys, say it's "for boys" 3. even more boys buy superman stuff to fit in 4. return to step 1 [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] Sure, they're not explicitly trying to alienate their female customers. But they [I]are[/I] alienating them in the process. [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] As we all know, men never drank soda before there was soda explicitly set out for them and them alone. [QUOTE=Ragekipz;46578693]No, boys like superheroes, because they want to be like the superheroes. Same with cowboys and astronauts.[/QUOTE] Everyone wants to be a superhero! Ask anyone: "would you like to have superpowers?" The answer will be 95% "yes why wouldn't I". [QUOTE=FlakAttack;46578591]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] I like how interviewing random people on the street counts as some sort of point in his favor. I haven't watched the whole thing because jesus christ 40 minutes, but I skimmed through it. I probably watched a little less than half overall, mostly just watching the people supporting your side of the argument. He never actually shows us the studies, he just shows what people say about the studies. Sure, they're generally the people who did the studies, but that doesn't mean they're impartial. For instance, there's one guy who says "men and women's interests are uniform throughout the 53 different countries. These lines are flat." We only get a few frames to catch a glimpse of the lines in the background, and even then it's really blurry. But... [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/JJ2SFXg.png[/IMG] oh yeah those are so flat Maybe I could have chosen a slightly better frame, but you can still see that they're actually pretty jagged. You can squint at the upper image or go back to that scene and squint to see that. Then there's the scientist that works with kids that have deformed genitals (I'm assuming they mean hermaphrodites). He uses the toys to help determine the gender (among other methods), and then he says that the genders instinctively like different toys. It's circular logic. "If they like toys for boys, they're more likely to be a boy. Oh hey, the ones we determine are boys are more likely to like toys for boys! Wow." [editline]26th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Ragekipz;46579307]But why do you want to level the field from the bottom? People should be encouraged to reach greater standards, not repressed for having greater standards. How is having a role model to look up to bad? Looking up to other people IS part of the human instinct. Is how we learn how to behave and how to talk.[/QUOTE] We don't want to get rid of role models. We just want people to stop saying "you can't like [I]that[/I] role model, you're a girl. You have to like [I]this[/I] role model, or [I]this[/I] one."

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;46578693]No, boys like superheroes, because they want to be like the superheroes. Same with cowboys and astronauts.[/QUOTE] Holy shit, you pretty much have no concept of cause and effect do you? I mean this goes out for (unfortunately) quite a few posters in this thread. When you say things like "That sign is just a recommendation for other people to choose gifts" you are basically fucking pinpointing the [U]cause[/U] of gender roles. Of course it might be difficult for you to grasp why "recommending" a product specifically for boys or girls leads to these gender roles being enforced and be part of the norm. It is obviously hard to follow the logic behind a potentially clueless going into a store, going straight to the girls section and buying a doll for a girl and then buying a chemistry set from the boys section for a boy, leading to the girl thinking that this is the toy for her. It is not like that recommendation was not externally placed, right? Then you go ahead and say stuff like "Boys want to be like superheroes" which is the fucking [B]effect[/B] of these gender roles. Boys do not appreciate superheroes because they are born to believe they will fly or fight crime. It is because all those clueless relatives, over all those years bought the toys from the Boys section. Honestly I can see no way of properly defending this point of view without actually defeating your own arguments. There is absolutely no good done by branding products per gender and why the fact that Tesco is doing something good bugs so many people is what I truly wonder. Honestly, I apologise for perhaps being harsh, but can you please tell me why you are against this change? I don't mean sell me why gender roles are great and everything, why this specific incident is a thorn in your side?

[QUOTE=Budapi;46573556]You want to force change by catering to minorities?[/QUOTE] there is something called "tyranny of the majority" and you are exemplifying it

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46577628]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.[/QUOTE] typically the things that people get offended about are things that have broader social context when one can reasonably understand why a person's feelings will be hurt about something that is said, and that something that is said is not absolutely necessary to the given situation, it's generally good practice to avoid saying it or to otherwise change the way one says it. we are all emotional creatures, and having a willful disregard for those emotions just makes one an asshole. for example, when someone calls themselves "politically incorrect" and passes off bigoted rhetoric as "telling it like it is" it just makes them come off as a self-righteous prick that's using politics to thinly veil prejudiced attitudes. it's not something you can legislate, but it's generally a good personal value to have.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;46578693]No, boys like superheroes, because they want to be like the superheroes. Same with cowboys and astronauts.[/QUOTE] lmao do you think guys are actually born wanting to be like superheroes, and girls aren't? do males have some sort of "superhero switch" in their brains or what?

If you're arguing that gender roles are not important because "boys just like superheroes" because you're looking at a world where we're telling them that's what they're supposed to like in regards to their gender, then there isn't much help for you. I don't see how you could apply that kind of reasoning to anything. You're literally looking at the results of gender roles, and saying that they don't have an effect.

[QUOTE=Last or First;46579408]Mainly doesn't mean exclusively. And it creates a feedback loop of: 1. slightly more boys buy superman stuff 2. market exclusively to boys, say it's "for boys" 3. even more boys buy superman stuff to fit in 4. return to step 1 [/QUOTE] If they saw a significant interest of girls in superman toys, they would change their marketing strategy. [QUOTE] Sure, they're not explicitly trying to alienate their female customers. But they [I]are[/I] alienating them in the process.[/QUOTE] They don't care, because they're not a significant part of their business. Changing their business model to suit a minor group might drive the major group away. [QUOTE] As we all know, men never drank soda before there was soda explicitly set out for them and them alone.[/QUOTE] Men weren't drinking diet soda, which was always gender neutral market. They created a more masculine marketing in order to get a market that their competidors weren't getting. [QUOTE] Everyone wants to be a superhero! Ask anyone: "would you like to have superpowers?" The answer will be 95% "yes why wouldn't I".[/QUOTE] Yeah, but girls are more likely to identify with female superheroes and boys are more likely to identify with male superheroes. [QUOTE] We don't want to get rid of role models. We just want people to stop saying "you can't like [I]that[/I] role model, you're a girl. You have to like [I]this[/I] role model, or [I]this[/I] one."[/QUOTE] Nobody is saying that people can't like Y or X. The fucking thing on OPs pic says "Fun gifts for boys". It's a sugestion, not an order. If it was saying "For boys only" then that would be a different thing. [QUOTE=Fetret;46579426]Holy shit, you pretty much have no concept of cause and effect do you? I mean this goes out for (unfortunately) quite a few posters in this thread. [/QUOTE] Target advertising doesn't come before group identification. It's impossible to say that male targeted ads enforece gender roles, when in fact male targeted ads come from males buying X product, not the other way around.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;46580388] Nobody is saying that people can't like Y or X. The fucking thing on OPs pic says "Fun gifts for boys". It's a sugestion, not an order. If it was saying "For boys only" then that would be a different thing. Target advertising doesn't come before group identification. It's impossible to say that male targeted ads enforece gender roles, when in fact male targeted ads come from males buying X product, not the other way around.[/QUOTE] I can't bother with the rest of the baseless arguments, but what we are saying is ads and branding toys by gender enforces and strengthens gender roles. For example: For many many many reasons a gender role is established, like women should stay home and cook. Toy ovens and toy cooking utensils and stoves etc... are made and are put in the Girls Toys section, girls are given more ovens because they are in the Girls section and that is what women do anyway, boys are not given ovens and those who want ovens do not receive them because they are in the Girls section and there is social pressure. These kids grow up, the women think women should stay home and cook, men believe women should stay home and cook, so they design toy ovens and put them in the Girls section... No one ever argues branding and targeted ads are the sole cause of gender roles. It is a part of the problem, a part that is easy to fix, a part that can partially break the cycle. If complaining and being offended is what it takes to change, then that is what should be done.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;46580388]If they saw a significant interest of girls in superman toys, they would change their marketing strategy. They don't care, because they're not a significant part of their business. Changing their business model to suit a minor group might drive the major group away. Men weren't drinking diet soda, which was always gender neutral market. They created a more masculine marketing in order to get a market that their competidors weren't getting. Yeah, but girls are more likely to identify with female superheroes and boys are more likely to identify with male superheroes. Nobody is saying that people can't like Y or X. The fucking thing on OPs pic says "Fun gifts for boys". It's a sugestion, not an order. If it was saying "For boys only" then that would be a different thing. Target advertising doesn't come before group identification. It's impossible to say that male targeted ads enforece gender roles, when in fact male targeted ads come from males buying X product, not the other way around.[/QUOTE] so you're aware of advertising but not the possible feedback loop that might arise from encouraging people to do things a certain way through said advertising?

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;46578108]Yes. Let's start selling tampons for men and jockstrap for the ladies.[/QUOTE] Hahahahahahahaha

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;46580388]Target advertising doesn't come before group identification. It's impossible to say that male targeted ads enforece gender roles, when in fact male targeted ads come from males buying X product, not the other way around.[/QUOTE] how the hell would you know that

It's things like this that make me have hope for the future, not because "lol put an end 2 gender roles" but because it shows that people are becoming more and more sensitive to the feelings and rights of others. 10 years ago this would've never happened I'm pretty sure (at least in the US, idk what it's like in brit-land).

Why are you all arguing with Ragekipz? He's such an obvious shit poster he's doing this for kicks.