• Toys R Us agree to stop separating products by gender after pressure from campaign
    337 replies, posted
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42135073]putting a sign up for boys is going to coerce them into going there if you can't see that for yourself you're dumb [editline]9th September 2013[/editline] they're kids, not fully functioning adults ffs.[/QUOTE] Would a boy like a barbie more if it was in the boy's section?
[QUOTE=sgman91;42135051]Come on people, read the thread if you are going to argue. "Male monkeys, like boys, showed consistent and strong preferences for wheeled toys, while female monkeys, like girls, showed greater variability in preferences. Thus, the magnitude of preference for wheeled over plush toys differed significantly between males and females. The similarities to human findings demonstrate that such preferences can develop without explicit gendered socialization." - [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/[/url] "This cross-species demonstration of male–female differences in toy choice strongly supports and extends prior work with humans (e.g., Berenbaum and Hines, 1992; Campbell et al., 2000; Pasterski et al., 2005; Serbin et al., 2001) and vervet monkeys (Alexander and Hines, 2002) showing that sexually dimorphic toy preferences reflect basic neurobiological differences between males and females and are not caused solely by socialization, as has been suggested by cognitive-social theories of gender role behavior (Caldera et al., 1989; Carter and Levy, 1988; Pomerleau et al., 1990; Roopnarine, 1986)." - [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2755553/[/url][/QUOTE] this changes nothing?
[QUOTE=sgman91;42135066] It shows that gender differences in toy preference isn't arbitrary.[/QUOTE] in certain conditions over certain types of toys [editline]9th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;42135092]Would a boy like a barbie more if it was in the boy's section?[/QUOTE] who knows but he knows someone is telling him he should
[QUOTE=Generic Monk;42135095]this changes nothing?[/QUOTE] If you won't accept conclusions of multiple peer reviewed scientific articles then there's nothing more for me to say.
[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;42135083]No, [I]I'm[/I] just trying to offer the perspective of somebody who is genuinely interested in the production and distribution of toys. If somebody makes a suggestion which doesn't work logistically, I want to explain to them why it wouldn't work. See, this way, we can all [I]learn[/I] and then later we can make suggestions which actually [I]might[/I] work logistically.[/QUOTE] so why didn't you shoot down gendered, but you feel compelled to shoot down the others? yes we can discuss to find new methods but you're showing a preference in what's better based on your views [editline]9th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;42135105]If you won't accept conclusions of multiple peer reviewed scientific articles then there's nothing more for me to say.[/QUOTE] you're taking the conclusion further than the paper itself. if you can't see that, that's on you, not other people.
[QUOTE=sgman91;42135051]Come on people, read the thread if you are going to argue. "Male monkeys, like boys, showed consistent and strong preferences for wheeled toys, while female monkeys, like girls, showed greater variability in preferences. Thus, the magnitude of preference for wheeled over plush toys differed significantly between males and females. The similarities to human findings demonstrate that such preferences can develop without explicit gendered socialization." - [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/[/url] "This cross-species demonstration of male–female differences in toy choice strongly supports and extends prior work with humans (e.g., Berenbaum and Hines, 1992; Campbell et al., 2000; Pasterski et al., 2005; Serbin et al., 2001) and vervet monkeys (Alexander and Hines, 2002) showing that sexually dimorphic toy preferences reflect basic neurobiological differences between males and females and are not caused solely by socialization, as has been suggested by cognitive-social theories of gender role behavior (Caldera et al., 1989; Carter and Levy, 1988; Pomerleau et al., 1990; Roopnarine, 1986)." - [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2755553/[/url][/QUOTE] I'm sorry, I believe you but just listen lol. I worked retail, I don't give a fuck if something is organized by gender or not, it doesn't irk me in the slightest. But I'm telling you, the best way to organize this shit is by toy type. Barbies, Gi-Joe's, etc all go in one isle because they're basically the same thing. See? Right there you condensed two things of DIFFERENT genders into one isle not because it's 'politically corrent' or whatever everyone else is arguing but because it actually makes sense and saves time. Electronics go in another isle unless they're some kind of accessory to gi-joe/barbie. Just group similiar toys together regardless of gender, try and keep brands close to eachother, label isles "Toy figures" and other vague things that can apply to Barbie's and GI-Joe's or toy pink Porsche's and toy pick up trucks.
[QUOTE=sgman91;42135105]If you won't accept conclusions of multiple peer reviewed scientific articles then there's nothing more for me to say.[/QUOTE] Don't you see? The concept of masculine and feminine is false, and should not be pursued. Ever. It's so simple.
[QUOTE=sgman91;42135105]If you won't accept conclusions of multiple peer reviewed scientific articles then there's nothing more for me to say.[/QUOTE] you've been pinned with legitimate arguments against what you're saying and all you can do is reply with 'at least i bring up scientific evidence'? you're still spouting bullshit and using that as a tool for validation. you're not correct because you bring a report or two up.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;42135057]If they don't make fun of them for using the 'wrong' toys, they will make fun of them for having the 'stupid' hair, or the 'shitty' music.[/QUOTE] To a certain extent you are right, some kids who wouldn't get bullied for their choice of toys would be bullied for something else - but that doesn't mean it's pointless to try to prevent kids from being bullied because of their toys. It's basic logic; remove one of the reasons for why people are bullied, not all of the victims will be helped but some definitely will, how many? I don't know.
[QUOTE=sgman91;42135092]Would a boy like a barbie more if it was in the boy's section?[/QUOTE] of course not, but that's mainly because barbie is marketed entirely towards girls, the toy is a female likeness, and the box/most of the contents are bright pink, which is pretty much universally seen in the western world as a girly colour what a dumb argument
[QUOTE=FingerSpazem;42135120]I'm sorry, I believe you but just listen lol. I worked retail, I don't give a fuck if something is organized by gender or not, it doesn't irk me in the slightest. But I'm telling you, the best way to organize this shit is by toy type. Barbies, Gi-Joe's, etc all go in one isle because they're basically the same thing. See? Right there you condensed two things of DIFFERENT genders into one isle not because it's 'politically corrent' or whatever everyone else is arguing but because it actually makes sense and saves time. Electronics go in another isle unless they're some kind of accessory to gi-joe/barbie. Just group similiar toys together regardless of gender, try and keep brands close to eachother, label isles "Toy figures" and other vague things that can apply to Barbie's and GI-Joe's or toy pink Porsche's and toy pick up trucks.[/QUOTE] "Toys with guns" is just as logical as "dolls." Usually the toys that have to do with fighting or war are together with other things that have to do with fighting and war.
[QUOTE=sgman91;42135092]Would a boy like a barbie more if it was in the boy's section?[/QUOTE] Yes, some of the boys probably would. What you have to realize is that the study you keep citing isn't the cheat sheet that specifies how every single individual thinks, hell, not even the majority. All it's saying is that there is a correlation between gender and toy preference that is statistically significant enough to not be completely random.
[QUOTE=Generic Monk;42135136]of course not, but that's mainly because barbie is marketed entirely towards girls, the toy is a female likeness, and the box/most of the contents are bright pink, which is pretty much universally seen in the western world as a girly colour what a dumb argument[/QUOTE] Hold up here, if a barbie was in the boy's section that would definitely make some boys buy it, not many but some. So it's not "ofcourse not". But other than that you're right.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;42135124]Don't you see? The concept of masculine and feminine is false, and should not be pursued. Ever. It's so simple.[/QUOTE] yes, misconstrue and change the point to make it sound ridiculous, that's how you be a mature and capable debater. Nope. Here's the deal which you haven't gotten apparently. Kids are not making a whole lot of entirely informed decisions here, but they know if they go to where it says they should go when they don't have gender dismorphic issues, they'll find toys that they're told to play with. these toys are going to be informative to them about what their role and desires should be growing up at some level. If we want to let kids dress in girls clothes because they want to, they should be allowed to. They shouldn't be criticized for it or laughed at in the casual way society does currently. You're acting like we're trying to remove those concepts, we're not, but those concepts are flawed and changing and you're clearly trying to hold on to them like they're not flawed fucking concepts. would you tell me why those ideas of masculinity and femininity as of say, 10 years ago, were perfectly fine ideas?
Like, this is basic marketing right here - market something toward a specific audience, in this case a specific gender - and that specific audience is going to be more likely to buy it. Market something toward a specific gender and you're basically saying "This is NOT for the other gender". How do some people not understand this?
[QUOTE=sgman91;42135105]If you won't accept conclusions of multiple peer reviewed scientific articles then there's nothing more for me to say.[/QUOTE] No, I've read it, registered it, accepted it - I just think it doesn't change anything. If this is true then I still don't see the need to add a bias - just let it develop naturally.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;42135171]Like, this is basic marketing right here - market something toward a specific audience, in this case a specific gender - and that specific audience is going to be more likely to buy it.[/QUOTE] if you tell children they're supposed to want something, normally they end up wanting it this isn't rocket science but many people here are failing this logic entirely.
[QUOTE=sgman91;42135137]"Toys with guns" is just as logical as "dolls." Usually the toys that have to do with fighting or war are together with other things that have to do with fighting and war.[/QUOTE] Okay but there's usually enough room in the isles to have a fat stock of Barbie and Gi-Joe's right next to eachother, a lot of parents buy them in pairs too. Also there's not a ton of stuff about fighting and war to constitute a whole isle devoted to it. We had legos and mega blox grouped together, miniature play sets... I mean you have to realize that depending on inventory you have it's not space effective to organize by gender. You really have to cram things into those isles so you want to use as many broad encompassing terms as possible while still being somewhat descriptive. It just makes sense from a business sense you know? If you just labeled them all "GIRLS" or "BOYS" it would be incredibly hard to navigate. I'm just working on logic and efficiency, I could care less about the 'forced gender roles' of labeling toys...
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;42135171]Like, this is basic marketing right here - market something toward a specific audience, in this case a specific gender - and that specific audience is going to be more likely to buy it. Market something toward a specific gender and you're basically saying "This is NOT for the other gender".[/QUOTE] Marking tries to FIND the audience., not CREATE the audience.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;42135153]Hold up here, if a barbie was in the boy's section that would definitely make some boys buy it, not many but some. So it's not "ofcourse not". But other than that you're right.[/QUOTE] when I typed 'of course not' I had the picture in my mind's eye of a lone barbie accidentally placed among action men and toy tanks - now that I think about it if you had a proper display and shit you'd probably sell a few
[QUOTE=FingerSpazem;42135199]Okay but there's usually enough room in the isles to have a fat stock of Barbie and Gi-Joe's right next to eachother, a lot of parents buy them in pairs too. Also there's not a ton of stuff about fighting and war to constitute a whole isle devoted to it. We had legos and mega blox grouped together, miniature play sets... I mean you have to realize that depending on inventory you have it's not space effective to organize by gender. You really have to cram things into those isles so you want to use as many broad encompassing terms as possible while still being somewhat descriptive. It just makes sense from a business sense you know? If you just labeled them all "GIRLS" or "BOYS" it would be incredibly hard to navigate. I'm just working on logic and efficiency, I could care less about the 'forced gender roles' of labeling toys...[/QUOTE] If it's more efficient form a business standpoint then why aren't businesses already doing it?
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;42135134]To a certain extent you are right, some kids who wouldn't get bullied for their choice of toys would be bullied for something else - but that doesn't mean it's pointless to try to prevent kids from being bullied because of their toys. It's basic logic; remove one of the reasons for why people are bullied, not all of the victims will be helped but some definitely will, how many? I don't know.[/QUOTE] But again, that is not the reason they are bullied, it is simply an excuse. I don't think the path to combating bullying is by homogenizing all choices that kids make. If you 'remove' the current organization of toys there will still be those who buy the trucks, and those who buy the barbies. Also, if you guys have such a huge problem with gender roles, I don't see you speaking at all about how women are always portrayed as using makeup. Why shouldn't we have the make up aisle have more pictures of random hairy dudes with makeup. Surely that is another arbitrary societal norm. Surely.
We should sue nature for making men and women so different... Fucking sexist nature
[QUOTE=sgman91;42135220]If it's more efficient form a business standpoint then why aren't businesses already doing it?[/QUOTE] they do though? i mean, it's in the main article. toys 'r us are doing exactly that
[QUOTE=sgman91;42135201]Marking tries to FIND the audience., not CREATE the audience.[/QUOTE] the audience has been created by society over many years creating specific gender roles - why assist in perpetuating it?
[QUOTE=sgman91;42135220]If it's more efficient form a business standpoint then why aren't businesses already doing it?[/QUOTE] They are motherfucker. Target, Value Village, KB toys are three to name a few. There are more ways to organize toys you know.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;42135227]But again, that is not the reason they are bullied, it is simply an excuse. I don't think the path to combating bullying is by homogenizing all choices that kids make. If you 'remove' the current organization of toys there will still be those who buy the trucks, and those who buy the barbies. Also, if you guys have such a huge problem with gender roles, I don't see you speaking at all about how women are always portrayed as using makeup. Why shouldn't we have the make up aisle have more pictures of random hairy dudes with makeup. Surely that is another arbitrary societal norm. Surely.[/QUOTE] What do you mean that we have such a problem with gender roles? You're the one who is so fond of them. I mean I don't care about gender roles so much which is why I don't mind that Toys R Us want to stop separating their stuff by gender. Why do [I]you[/I] have such a big problem with that?
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;42135227] If you 'remove' the current organization of toys there will still be those who buy the trucks, and those who buy the barbies. [/QUOTE] That's fine though. If someone gets a toy because he/she thinks it would be fun to play with, that's brilliant. If the primarily selection is based on what society would define as normal for that gender, and not what the kid personally wants, then there's a problem.
[QUOTE=sgman91;42135220]If it's more efficient form a business standpoint then why aren't businesses already doing it?[/QUOTE] because it makes it easier to buy toys for children for people who can't be arsed to think and tbh most toy stores I've gone into organize by brand or type not gender so this isn't really even that big a problem
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;42135274]That's fine though. If someone gets a toy because he/she thinks it would be fun to play with, that's brilliant. If the primarily selection is based on what society would define as normal for that gender, and not what the kid personally wants, then there's a problem.[/QUOTE] Is there any evidence that kids don't already pick based on what they enjoy more?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.