Toys R Us agree to stop separating products by gender after pressure from campaign
337 replies, posted
[QUOTE=TheHydra;42134762]how about the store just organizes things by type of toy rather than gender? heck, what if they arranged it alphabetically or by some other, far more organized system?[/QUOTE]
Ask a kid whether it's easier to find a toy based on it being a "boy"/"girl" toy or by alphabetization. It already organized by the type of toy, except the dolls with guns are by the cars with guns instead of the dolls with combs.
[editline]9th September 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=FlubberNugget;42134783]it wouldn't have any instantaneous effect, i said it's a step. it's something that [I]could[/I] happen.[/QUOTE]
There's literally no reason to think that it would help at all.
[QUOTE=sgman91;42134606]How dare supermarkets make alcohol drinkers feel bad by putting it all in one isle! They should spread it around the store so that people don't know they are buying alcohol and can't judge them for it.
The problem here isn't that toys are organized in a logical manner. The problem is that someone is looked down on for buying the "wrong" toy. You are just ignoring this issue by doing things like reorganizing the store to make it less obvious.[/QUOTE]
There's other ways to organize stores rather than some superficial "boys" and "girls" toys. It makes less sense how it currently is, both isles have some similar toys like "girls" lego and "boys" lego, instead you could have a Lego section with the different types. If you begin to disassociate toys with gender the children won't see them as such, and the problem of them being picked on for playing with the 'wrong' toy will go away.
[QUOTE=sgman91;42134643]The problem is the getting picked on, not the store's organization. You really think the kids get picked on while buying the toy and not while playing with it?
This sort of thing ignores the real issues.[/QUOTE]
By putting all Barbies in an aisle clearly labeled "Girls", you're sending a message to the buyer. "The items in this aisle has been determined to be for girls based on society's superficial definition of gender roles". The buyer picks up this message which perpetuates the gender roles, and people who wish not conform to these continue to suffer because of society's obsession with conformity.
A more logical organization might be alphabetic, if that was really the matter.
sgman, where do you think we should stop and start with what is a girl's and boy's toy?
should cooking equipment, everything pink, fluffy be in the girl's aisle only?
should the boy's aisle only be superhero figurines, cars and toy building tools?
really, where [I]can[/I] we make a difference that actually makes sense there?
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;42134695]The existence of the toys in non-essential, that falls to supply and demand. The choice of which toy to buy falls to the child, and perhaps to a discerning parent. Save the guardianship clause, there is NO-ONE and NOTHING forcing a child to buy toys he doesn't like or not buy toys he does like. If a child wants something pink, wouldn't it make it one hell of a lot easier if he can just turn his head and see where the pink things are? Mish-mashing them up to hide traditional gender toy roles is just counter-productive. You might as well organize a movie store according to alternating lead skin color, so we don't get any bad ideas about race.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying "Mix pink and blue" but I mean, why not? Does it really matter in a toy store? You're not buying paint, you're buying toys.
I mean okay, kid likes pink and the store is divided into Blue and Pink. "Great", thinks the kid and goes to the pink section - more commonly known as the girl section.
Now at the same time there is another kid who likes red. Tough luck, there is no Red section. "Oh well", thinks the kid, starts looking and moves on with his life.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;42134800]By putting all Barbies in an aisle clearly labeled "Girls", you're sending a message to the buyer. "The items in this aisle has been determined to be for girls based on society's superficial definition of gender roles". This perpetuates the gender roles, and people who wish not conform to these continue to suffer because of society's obsession with conformity.[/QUOTE]
I'm calling bullshit. I've already shown that there is FAR more scientific evidence that shows toy preference being at least partly biological. Gender roles, when it comes to toys, exists in nature.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;42134744]But how do you make parents teach kids this? You can't, atleast not on a scale big enough to adress the issue. The reason for why parents aren't teaching kids this already is because [I]they[/I] grew up in these gender roles. And you know why they did? Because society encourages it.[/QUOTE]
The passing of familar values isn't the issue. The issue is the passing of the patriarchal view of agency. Rephrased; the issue is that people are dicks, and promote being dicks indirectly by acting like dicks infront of children to one person or another.
What is the problem? People are dicks.
How do we fix it? Try to generally promote non-dickery, as loaded as that is.
Yes we have gender roles in our society, but we also have the view that being a dick to someone who is 'wrong' is okay. It's not.
[QUOTE=FlubberNugget;42134822]sgman, where do you think we should stop and start with what is a girl's and boy's toy?
should cooking equipment, everything pink, fluffy be in the girl's aisle only?
should the boy's aisle only be superhero figurines, cars and toy building tools?
really, where [I]can[/I] we make a difference that actually makes sense there?[/QUOTE]
Let society decide based on what kids want. If we see a surge of girls that like toy guns than, by all means, put guns in the "girls" section.
[QUOTE=sgman91;42134832]I'm calling bullshit. I've already shown that there is FAR more scientific evidence that shows toy preference being at least partly biological. Gender roles, when it comes to toys, exists in nature.[/QUOTE]
Yes. But that doesn't mean we need to enforce those biological gender roles. Clearly there is a massive number of "biological outliers" in our society, and these people deserve to be included just as much as "normal" people. Some men like barbies even if biology says they shouldn't.
Again, we don't need to define "normal" and force "non-normal" to be "normal". Even if it's biological.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;42134855]Yes. But that doesn't mean we need to enforce those biological gender roles. Clearly there is a massive number of "biological outliers" in our society, and these people deserve to be included just as much as "normal" people.[/QUOTE]
You don't get rid of stairs because there are people without legs. You don't conform society around outliers.
[QUOTE=sgman91;42134877]You don't get rid of stairs because there are people without legs. You don't conform society around outliers.[/QUOTE]
There is no need for conformity at all. Keep all options open for everyone, ultimate freedom.
or we could just seperate things by kind of toy rather than toy fitting to gender. what point is there in doing that?
it's up to the store to decide whether or not to seperate by gender, and i'm in support of toys 'r us on this one. all i've gotta say, because i've got other things to do
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;42134835]The passing of familar values isn't the issue. The issue is the passing of the patriarchal view of agency. Rephrased; the issue is that people are dicks, and promote being dicks indirectly by acting like dicks infront of children to one person or another.
What is the problem? People are dicks.
How do we fix it? Try to generally promote non-dickery, as loaded as that is.
Yes we have gender roles in our society, but we also have the view that being a dick to someone who is 'wrong' is okay. It's not.[/QUOTE]
I'm not even arguing against gender roles, I just don't really feel the need to preserve them the way you apparently do - there is no good reason to organize toys in a toy store by gender. Nobody is going to be harmed because the store isn't divided into pink and blue anymore.
I mean, if removing the gender organization can actually stop kids from being bullied, why is anybody arguing against it?
[QUOTE=sgman91;42134850]Let society decide based on what kids want. If we see a surge of girls that like toy guns than, by all means, put guns in the "girls" section.[/QUOTE]
This isn't that hard to understand, society pushes girls to 'girl' toys, so there won't ever be a surge of girls rushing to the toy guns.
[QUOTE=sgman91;42134877]You don't get rid of stairs because there are people without legs. You don't conform society around outliers.[/QUOTE]
chair ramps?
[QUOTE=sgman91;42134786]Ask a kid whether it's easier to find a toy based on it being a "boy"/"girl" toy or by alphabetization.[/QUOTE]
I asked my little cousin, he ignored the question.
I don't think it matters at all to little kids.
Kids are VERY visual, they're not gunna care how it's organized. They're going to find everything by looking at the toy's themselves.
This is pretty relevant.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Xc3UcN2qgA[/media]
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;42134885]I'm not even arguing against gender roles, I just don't really feel the need to preserve them the way you apparently do - there is no good reason to organize toys in a toy store by gender. Nobody is going to be harmed because the store isn't divided into pink and blue anymore.[/QUOTE]
It's easier to navigate.
The mere fact that stores do it now shows that there's an advantage to it.
[QUOTE=sgman91;42134902]It's easier to navigate.
The mere fact that stores do it now shows that there's an advantage to it.[/QUOTE]
The most convenient solution isn't always the best one.
[QUOTE=sgman91;42134902]It's easier to navigate.
The mere fact that stores do it now shows that there's an advantage to it.[/QUOTE]
how is it easier to navigate by two massivly broad identifiers rather than more specific types?
instead of gender, why can't we seperate by kind of toy (car, doll/figurine, what have you) instead, kids and parents alike are going to know how to find what they want easier that way. i don't see how what you're saying has an advantage over that.
[QUOTE=TheHydra;42134762]heck, what if they arranged it alphabetically or by some other, far more organized system?[/QUOTE]
That's a really awful idea, because the staff of your typical Toys R Us aren't paid enough to actually give a fuck.
Would you go by the case ID? You'd get different cases from the same line (for example, Deluxes and Voyagers for transformers) separated because of how their named.
Would you go by brand? Then what do you do when you get toys which are multiple brands (cross promotional NERF, for example)
Would you go by distributor? What happens when the licensing behind it is really ridiculous and complex? (TOMY transformer products, movie licenses)
[QUOTE=sgman91;42134902]It's easier to navigate.
The mere fact that stores do it now shows that there's an advantage to it.[/QUOTE]
No the reason for why stores do it now is because we've always done it. The only time it's easier to navigate is if you already have imprinted in your head that "X type of toys are for boys and Y type of toys are for girls". And how important is that small step toward easier navigation? It'll save you a few minutes in the toy store with your kid?
[QUOTE=sgman91;42134902]It's easier to navigate.
The mere fact that stores do it now shows that there's an advantage to it.[/QUOTE]
that is not proper logic.
especially in the face of changes coming to that very structure, as this story is saying.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;42134855]Yes. But that doesn't mean we need to enforce those biological gender roles. Clearly there is a massive number of "biological outliers" in our society, and these people deserve to be included just as much as "normal" people. Some men like barbies even if biology says they shouldn't.
Again, we don't need to define "normal" and force "non-normal" to be "normal". Even if it's biological.[/QUOTE]
You miss the point. Those biological outliers have just as easy a time going to the opposite aisle, or just looking through both than if you were to randomly mix it up. I want to outline something so that it is totally clear;
[B]EVEN IF[/B] 'TrU' manages to 'optimally organize toys according to politcal correctness', the problem that "Kids will make fun" still is there. AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM. Not the pre-existing notion of male and female and the ontology that goes with it.
[QUOTE=sgman91;42134902]It's easier to navigate.
The mere fact that stores do it now shows that there's an advantage to it.[/QUOTE]
There's so many stores than don't organize the toys by gender already and finding what you need is just as east. Just go into any Target store.
[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;42134924]That's a really awful idea, because the staff of your typical Toys R Us aren't paid enough to actually give a fuck.
Would you go by the case ID? You'd get different cases from the same line (for example, Deluxes and Voyagers for transformers) separated because of how their named.
Would you go by brand? Then what do you do when you get toys which are multiple brands (cross promotional NERF, for example)
Would you go by distributor? What happens when the licensing behind it is really ridiculous and complex? (TOMY transformer products, movie licenses)[/QUOTE]
so matter of factly the only real way to organize a store is putting things into boys and girls based on arbitrary decisions of what is a boys toy and what is a girls toy?
uh, no.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42134937]that is not proper logic.
especially in the face of changes coming to that very structure, as this story is saying.[/QUOTE]
It actually is proper logic. Most debates start with the new claim taking the burden of proof. This means the commonly accepted case (stores organized at least partly by gender) is accepted as the best until proven incorrect.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42134947]so matter of factly the only real way to organize a store is putting things into boys and girls based on arbitrary decisions of what is a boys toy and what is a girls toy?
uh, no.[/QUOTE]
Hey, where'd I say that? I think you're putting words in my mouth; all I said was that alphabetizing is such a retail pain that it isn't viable.
See, this is why the bad reading rating was a [I]thing[/I].
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42134947]so matter of factly the only real way to organize a store is putting things into boys and girls based on arbitrary decisions of what is a boys toy and what is a girls toy?
uh, no.[/QUOTE]
I've already shown it's not arbitrary.
[QUOTE=sgman91;42134850]Let society decide based on what kids want. If we see a surge of girls that like toy guns than, by all means, put guns in the "girls" section.[/QUOTE]
how about you skip the middleman and just let kids buy what they want without a societal bias funneling them into a particular preference? where is the harm in this?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.