Target To Eliminate Signs Specifying Boys Or Girls Toys

[Angry Ram]

Well, I would disagree in your phrasing that most girls love that stuff. When any group is inculcated to the degree that young girls are with idealized pink princess images, it's not unexpected that some respond to that. But it's not a universal thing. Other cultures don't have that. If this were a "girl" thing, we'd see it in other cultures and we just don't. It's a assignation. I don't have a massive sample size, but I have 4 kids between 23-16 with social media and the kids actually like to come over and we talk with them. "The Princess thing" has come up more than once and while not everyone hated pink, only a few actually liked the whole princess thing. The problem is that as one young lady put it, "everyone just buys you this stuff. Christmas, birthdays, back to school. One time I wanted a Power Ranger t-shirt. My brothers and I watched them all the time and I liked that there were girls kicking butt. But my mom just yelled at me, so I gave up. Now I wear whatever I want and she hates everything."

That sentiment has been pretty common. Now, maybe we're talking past one another because I'm looking more at middle/high school and you're looking at elementary school, but nothing's changed for my girls or their friends over the years.

Well, I do have a massive sample size: 3 years worth of working in schools. And yes, I am focusing mostly on elementary. Currently from pre-k to about 3rd grade, most, if not all girls have something Frozen or similar. When I would go into a 4th grade and beyond, it would stop for something more generic. I have never seen a girl with an Iron Man backpack, just like I have never seen a boy with an Elsa backpack.

As for them being freaking toys, would you have played with a pink football in your neighborhood? Really? Cuz the homophobia among a lot of kids growing up is something else. And the explosion. Of social media and all of this "sharing" has brought to light just how bullied some women have felt since they were little girls to fit into a box. Guys could be anything. But girls?

Of course not. As kids, it was always boys vs. girls. And naturally as a dude, I thought boys > girls. It had nothing to do with bullying or the like. It's just how we acted. But we grew up, and naturally I became attracted to girls and started hanging out with them instead of running away from them.

m a former engineer. I built networks. I was offended at that Target sign because toys help kids dream and there are no "girls networks" to be built with pink colors and stickers.

I think the bigger problem is a parent got butthurt. Over a sign. Like, couldn't she have just bought what the daughter (assuming she has one) what she would have liked instead of starting a whole hoopla out of this?

o ones suggesting here at least that the toys change. But good grief, let the kids be kids and pick whichever toys interest them. Frankly, after the last time I was in a Toys r Us to buy a gift card for a birthday party, I figure I'm more worried about the parents. I mean if all the toys were in a huge pile, the kids would still find what they liked. Trust me on that! They know what they want for the most part.

However it used to be or has been, sometimes change is good and this is a good change.

Yeah we are agreeing on the ultimate solution, let the kids do what they want. But still I'm adamant that a girl will want pink and Frozen because she wants to, and a boy will want an Avenger. It has nothing to do with society or gender roles. It's what they like. And it's certainly not gonna harm them in the future.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I think the bigger problem is a parent got butthurt. Over a sign. Like, couldn't she have just bought what the daughter (assuming she has one) what she would have liked instead of starting a whole hoopla out of this?

How do we know it was a parent that just got upset themselves and not a parent that reacted to their child wanting something but being upset because it was a "boy" toy or a "girl" toy and they felt they couldn't have it? Children aren't rational, they cry and get upset over a lot of things, I've seen plenty of children get what they ask for and be upset because the situation isn't how they want.

But still I'm adamant that a girl will want pink and Frozen because she wants to, and a boy will want an Avenger. It has nothing to do with society or gender roles. It's what they like. And it's certainly not gonna harm them in the future.

Tomboys?

 

[Mackeyser]

I shared this thread with my younger daughter.

Let's just say that my ears were ringing from the firm opinion she has about this subject.

She talked about the intense peer pressure kids face to have the latest thing and how as a girl she would get grief because and teasing because she didn't like pink or Barbie or princess stuff.

One thing I noticed in this thread is that adults respond to this based on how they were kids when kids today live in a very different world. The reasons are manifold from the saturation of social media and media in general, the rise of gaming over music and movies as a cultural influence (the gaming industry is bigger than all movies and music COMBINED) and the breaking down of the rigid gender constructs that society built and adhered to for quite a long time.

Gender is significantly different than it was when we were kids growing up. The stark deliberations don't work anymore.

So, I guess I can see asking "what's the big deal?" And "why should these changes be made?" And all that.

The answer is simple. We grew up in a different time. Right now, in 2015 for kids who have smart phones in elementary school, who have play dates over Skype and think nothing of calling their online associates, friends (15 years ago would you have thought to do that? I dunno that I would? Friend is a real word that means something.)... It's just different. For today's kids, gender stereotyping and gender biasing are impediments. We had our "hills to climb" and certain things were "downhill" for us. Kids today are just on a very different hill is all. What's uphill and downhill for them seems almost backwards to me sometimes, but I have to keep reminding myself that the times they are a changin'.

I've raised two independent young women, God help me, and they don't hold back when they disagree. I feel on pretty solid ground that "most girls" aren't on the pink bandwagon. Plenty, but you lose me on most. That distinction is important, imho. That Frozen was a phenomenal hit was something else, but think of all the sales they lost because most of their IP gear was gender oriented and plenty of kids won't fight through the ridicule or even take that chance. Hell, I know grown men that still won't wear pink dress shirts and that's crazy because pink is a fantastic color. And, no, I don't mean salmon, I mean pink. I wear mine with a cream colored silk tie and the wife hits me with a grumbled, "no fair."

When there are girl sections and boy sections, there is pressure to buy for that gender from that area. Kids don't want to feel out of place and adults often want to reinforce gender identity even if the kid expressly doesn't want that (ever see a pageant parent?)

Does it harm everyone? No. Then again, some really poor folks escape poverty to become pro athletes or scientists. If we only look at the exceptions, we'll never find the harm and it IS there in real and quantifiable ways. I wish I could recall better what my daughter said specifically, but I can't because she was talking so fast. She had a pretty long list of which harms and why and who and all that. She was on a roll, lemme tell ya.

It's a new day. We have to do things differently. We can grasp at fleeting yesterday or embrace today while preparing for tomorrow.

 

[Memento]

You can't be discriminated against, beaten or killed now. Legal protections for such things apply to everyone....status quo on that front.
In terms of bathrooms I couldn't care less. If I owned a business and this became a requirement I might very well go from two bathrooms to one and figure a way to convert that extra space into revenue generating space.
This thing is just such a non issue in so many ways.

Legal protections are a very small comfort when it comes to being beaten, raped, and/or killed or driven to suicide. And that still happens. A lot.

http://lexiecannes.com/stats-on-transgender-discrimination-violence-and-suicide/

This is a 2011 article that is still relevant because there are surveys going up to August of 2015. Those protections apply to lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. Not so much transgendered people.

It should be a non-issue, you're right. It's not yet.

 

[Angry Ram]

How do we know it was a parent that just got upset themselves and not a parent that reacted to their child wanting something but being upset because it was a "boy" toy or a "girl" toy and they felt they couldn't have it? Children aren't rational, they cry and get upset over a lot of things, I've seen plenty of children get what they ask for and be upset because the situation isn't how they want.

If that ends up being the case, the parent should've tried to fix things with their own kid instead of blaming a store's sign.

Tomboys?

In my experiences, working at a school.

@Mackeyser I'm just going based on what I've seen. I agree that times are different for kids today than for us (I'm just a bit older than your oldest daughter btw), but I remain adamant this won't scar or stereotype a kid in their future. That's all I'm saying.

 

[fearsomefour]

Legal protections are a very small comfort when it comes to being beaten, raped, and/or killed or driven to suicide. And that still happens. A lot.

http://lexiecannes.com/stats-on-transgender-discrimination-violence-and-suicide/

This is a 2011 article that is still relevant because there are surveys going up to August of 2015. Those protections apply to lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. Not so much transgendered people.

It should be a non-issue, you're right. It's not yet.

The law is the law.
The legal protections are there. Social changes (I don't know of anyone who would think it is ok assaulting, injuring etc someone unless attacked) take longer, that is a different process.
The law should apply the same to all.
There is a lot in that study that is pointing toward other more organic issues.

 

[bluecoconuts]

If that ends up being the case, the parent should've tried to fix things with their own kid instead of blaming a store's sign.

If it's a common occurrence, and it probably was in order to gain traction, should we just try to 'fix' the kids? It seems better to just not make them feel shitty for picking up a toy. Especially when it comes to business, they want the kids to want to buy the toys and spend the money, if the kid feels bad and the parent doesn't buy it, then the store no longer gets money.

In my experiences, working at a school.

Are there not tomboys at your school? I saw them all over my school, I still see them now. I mean, if it's common enough to have a well known term...

 

[Angry Ram]

If it's a common occurrence, and it probably was in order to gain traction, should we just try to 'fix' the kids? It seems better to just not make them feel crappy for picking up a toy. Especially when it comes to business, they want the kids to want to buy the toys and spend the money, if the kid feels bad and the parent doesn't buy it, then the store no longer gets money.

I didn't say to "fix" kids. I said that parent should've fixed whatever was going on with her particular kid (if that was the case) instead of blaming it on a sign.

Are there not tomboys at your school? I saw them all over my school, I still see them now. I mean, if it's common enough to have a well known term...

Not when they are younger. When I go to the middle and high schools there's plenty of female students that are outdoorsy or into sports. Especially the soccer players.

 

[Mackeyser]

Well, I'm 46 and a parent of 4 teens/young adults.

I'm coming from 23 years of experience. Now, it's entirely possible that your experience is different. I know when my kids switched elementary schools in a cross town move from Santa Monica CA to Culver City CA, the stuff kids wore was so different the kids were almost intimidated. (Yet another reason why basic uniforms in elementary school are a good idea, imho).

Anyway, I wanna say a huge thanks to everyone participating in this thread. Civil discussion makes for a rich community.

 

[PA Ram]

Well, again I just do not remember growing up with signs that said : Boys or Girls in the toy sections. All I remember are TOYS. Now I do remember them being separated. In other words the G.I. Joes were not next to the Barbies. The Hot Wheels were not next to the strollers. But this was about a sign labeling boys or girls toy sections. And maybe it is honestly something I just never paid attention to but if there was a change it was the change to make signs that pointed out Boys or Girls. I've been looking at old pictures online to see if they used to say Boys and Girls and all I see are Toys.

So if that's true--isn't eliminating the signs for gender just going back to what we did before? In other words wasn't the "change" putting those signs up in the first place?

Maybe I'm wrong. It's a funny thing that I would never have noticed or remembered that but I don't.

Just found an article that sort of points to this. I grew up in the 70s and apparently that was a more gender neutral time.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/07/let-toys-be-toys_n_3402972.html

On the left from a toy catalog in 1976. On the right are today's toys.

Maybe that's why I don't remember it.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I didn't say to "fix" kids. I said that parent should've fixed whatever was going on with her particular kid (if that was the case) instead of blaming it on a sign.

Ah gotcha.... Either way, from what I've experienced, often times kids aren't really rational. You can sit down and try to discuss it with them, but they'll be stuck on one thing and remain upset over it. Even something so minor as that, so I really don't see why it is a big deal to remove the color signs.

Not when they are younger. When I go to the middle and high schools there's plenty of female students that are outdoorsy or into sports. Especially the soccer players.

There were plenty when I was younger, and my brother and my neighbors. Now, Ireland was a little different, we had school uniforms, so I knew what was going on, but one of my friends growing up, before school started, I remember asking them if they were a boy or a girl. They had short hair, liked all the same "boy" stuff that I did, but had earrings. It was a girl (she remarked "Girl, can't you see the earrings?".... She didn't care for dolls or kitchen stuff (in fact, I liked the cooking stuff more)... One of my brothers best friends growing up is the exact same way, and I see a lot of little girls and boys that are into the same stuff. In fact many times you wouldn't be able to tell except that at their young age their parents would dress them, and that's how you could tell.

I know that there are girls that like girl stuff and boys that like boy stuff. I just don't see why we have to sit there and say "this is for girls and this is for boys" instead of just saying "these are all for kids"... Where's the harm?

 

[Ramhusker]

I'm sitting here wondering when did things like this become a problem? I mean it wasn't when I was a kid or at least I think the typical kid didn't notice anything. It certainly wasn't when my sons were growing up. They are now 26 and 24. My daughter doesn't have a problem buying what she wants. She's 14 in three weeks. I'm wondering what the problem is and why would Target even announce the action they were taking????????

 

[fearsomefour]

I'm sitting here wondering when did things like this become a problem? I mean it wasn't when I was a kid or at least I think the typical kid didn't notice anything. It certainly wasn't when my sons were growing up. They are now 26 and 24. My daughter doesn't have a problem buying what she wants. She's 14 in three weeks. I'm wondering what the problem is and why would Target even announce the action they were taking????????

People need problems to have.

 

[Mackeyser]

Think of it like this: if you are not sensitive to something, then you aren't likely to become irritated or have a negative reaction to that thing.

Case in point: my wife used to be allergic to the sun. As in, she would literally break out in hives when exposed to sunlight. Even sitting in a car, she'd need to wear long sleeves. It was pretty bad. Over the years, she's grown out of it, but during her teen years, she was pretty sensitive to it. The heat, also. She still doesn't sweat much, so she overheats easily which means if it gets too hot, she passes out. It's not pretty.

I grew up every summer in the heat and humidity of the Delaware Valley of PA. 90+ degree summers with plenty of humidity and it seemed like every other year had a pretty bad heat wave. It never seemed to phase me. I enjoyed the heat.

Now, because I'm not sensitive to the heat or sun, I could always choose to discount her sensitivities because I don't share them. I mean, they aren't MY sensitivities.

But, I also have to remember everyone has different sensitivities. Some have more than others and differing levels. And yes, some people can be tedious and obnoxious about them, but that doesn't change that for most folks, their sensitivities are real.

There were stories about sneakers a few years back and folks shrugged and said, "it's just sneakers, what's the big deal?" Except kids were beating up and even killing other kids over sneakers. So, what's the big deal over toys? It's a vector into bullying. They shape kid's vision of what they can be. Not all kids are so strong at 5 through 8 that they can tell the world to "F off, I'll play with what I want to, no matter how much grief I get." Not many kids can pull that off. Most kids want to fit in and toys fit into that social dynamic, so how toys are marketed become a part of that dynamic.

It's bad enough that we have so many really crappy toys out there for kids. I mean really crappy. There's no reason we should stress out kids who aren't alpha kids by creating confusion with antiquated notions that don't fit how content is created for kids today. Games, movies, and most IPs aren't created for girls or boys. Most of that pink crap is created for PARENTS who want to buy it for their kids, not for kids who want it. I mean, ask any 8 year old girl if they want a pink barbie or a nintendo 3DS and MOST will want the 3DS. If the pink thing were true, most of those girls would want the barbie. And if you give all of those girls unfettered access to a bunch of 3DSes of a bunch of colors away from parents and peers, the color selection would show interest across the board.

Lastly, if you reference the pics posted by @PA Ram, the explosion of pink toys is a relatively recent phenomenon. It wasn't always this way.

 

[Angry Ram]

You can sit down and try to discuss it with them, but they'll be stuck on one thing and remain upset over it. Even something so minor as that, so I really don't see why it is a big deal to remove the color signs.

Its just so petty IMO. Like OK, what if the kid wanted Star Wars LEGOs, why didn't the mom just buy her that instead of joining the social media mob and start something?

I know that there are girls that like girl stuff and boys that like boy stuff. I just don't see why we have to sit there and say "this is for girls and this is for boys" instead of just saying "these are all for kids"... Where's the harm?

I don't think that is the issue. Sometimes toys are specifically to girls. Just like how any product is, and I just don't see how it will scar a ki down the road. Call of Duty is marketed towards young male adults, Leap Frog to 2 year olds, etc. It's not like Target was going "we will not sell you this toy if it doesn't apply to you kid's gender."

 

[fearsomefour]

It's a vector into bullying

As is everything. Literally anything can be used by someone in this way.
It has always been this way and it always will be. Human nature is what it is.
Using the extreme example of a kid getting killed over sneakers....there is no real point in this. There are always examples of extreme behavior, crime ect. As a society we are either going to be a prisoner to these things or not.
In terms of allergies (the example you used in your post) there is a difference. When I am working with someone who has allergy to whatever, lets say plants, I would happily remove a plant from my desk if it might bother them. That is one individual being courteous to another. But, when we get into the level of an entire school of hundreds or thousands of students not being able to have any peanut based food because of one kid having an allergy to peanuts....well, that is just insane. Society functions over the individual. An individuals allergy or special condition is just that. Individual. I agree with trying to make things accessible, equal etc for everyone, but, it is not possible in total. At some point the majority rows the boat so to speak.
The one thing that has continued to expand ( I have my own thoughts as to the root of this nonsense) is the mentality that we are all victims....victim mentality has almost become a sub culture in the U.S.

 

[Mackeyser]

I guess that's the crux of the disagreement, if you will.

I don't see it in this instance as an example of a victim mentality, but rather what I call "astronaut's syndrome" where all too often folks breathe their own air and live in self contained apparatuses such that they don't even relate to anything different. And because they are so insulated in their suits, they don't have to relate to anyone at any time beyond whom they chose.

So rather than see someone who raises a concern and even see if there is genuine reason for it (turns out there is science that backs this concern that gender bias and gender stereotyping is quantifiably bad), we see an explosion is "astronaut's syndrome" where the concern is dismissed out of hand without examination or true consideration.

I'd ask that you look at almost ANY issue addressed in social media. Is there thinking going on taking into account that any incident involved people, likely social context and more? Or do we just get snap opinion "from the bubble", basically transmissions from the helmet, if you will, that just put that particular astronaut on blast?

Victims are a real thing and I hold tremendous disdain for those who embrace being a victim when they are not. My life is an example of not being a victim, I am living these words and have paid in blood to write them. So, I am with you in eschewing those with a victims mentality. That said, I also recognize that all too often that phrase gets abused in an effort to not have to be sensitive to the very real and legitimate concerns of others.

That parse between legit person with an issue (not a victim) and someone using victim hood as an excuse is important.

It seems like that battle ends up being fought every time something comes up rather than just looking at the issue.

As is typically the case, social media is pretty good at starting a conversation, but a terrible place to have one. This place is rare because we're taking the time and thank the Lord more than 140 chars to articulate our thoughts.

 

[fearsomefour]

I guess that's the crux of the disagreement, if you will.

I don't see it in this instance as an example of a victim mentality, but rather what I call "astronaut's syndrome" where all too often folks breathe their own air and live in self contained apparatuses such that they don't even relate to anything different. And because they are so insulated in their suits, they don't have to relate to anyone at any time beyond whom they chose.

So rather than see someone who raises a concern and even see if there is genuine reason for it (turns out there is science that backs this concern that gender bias and gender stereotyping is quantifiably bad), we see an explosion is "astronaut's syndrome" where the concern is dismissed out of hand without examination or true consideration.

I'd ask that you look at almost ANY issue addressed in social media. Is there thinking going on taking into account that any incident involved people, likely social context and more? Or do we just get snap opinion "from the bubble", basically transmissions from the helmet, if you will, that just put that particular astronaut on blast?

Victims are a real thing and I hold tremendous disdain for those who embrace being a victim when they are not. My life is an example of not being a victim, I am living these words and have paid in blood to write them. So, I am with you in eschewing those with a victims mentality. That said, I also recognize that all too often that phrase gets abused in an effort to not have to be sensitive to the very real and legitimate concerns of others.

That parse between legit person with an issue (not a victim) and someone using victim hood as an excuse is important.

It seems like that battle ends up being fought every time something comes up rather than just looking at the issue.

As is typically the case, social media is pretty good at starting a conversation, but a terrible place to have one. This place is rare because we're taking the time and thank the Lord more than 140 chars to articulate our thoughts.

That, the snap judgement of others, is a two way highway.
I get what you are saying. Not sure I am buying it.
The argument could be made that people putting their individual agenda/issue ahead of others is living in their own "astronaut" orbit.
Real issues with real importance, real victims that demand real change....that is one thing. Feelings....as it relates to society, laws, the world....feeling don't matter much and should not.
Just my 2 cents.

 

[Mackeyser]

How is seeking an end to gender stereotyping of toy departments putting the individual above society?

See, I don't see it as one parent getting upset. I've known about this issue for two decades and it wasn't a new issue when I found out about it. So framing this issue as one parent...anything is simply incorrect. Even if one tweet was the straw that broke the camels back, there were lots of other straws that preceded the back breaking straw.

As for feelings, who arbitrates what constitutes real harm? As an example, Verbal and emotional abuse are real things and they mostly deal with feelings. Because they involve feelings should verbal and emotional abuse not be subject to the law as they are now? Obviously there are limits and I agree that as we find an equilibrium, there will be pendulum swings on each side.

Rather than discount anything out of hand I tend to want to deal with the subject on its merits.

It seems we mostly agree, tho that the gender stereotyping is bad and that's good.

 

[fearsomefour]

How is seeking an end to gender stereotyping of toy departments putting the individual above society?

See, I don't see it as one parent getting upset. I've known about this issue for two decades and it wasn't a new issue when I found out about it. So framing this issue as one parent...anything is simply incorrect. Even if one tweet was the straw that broke the camels back, there were lots of other straws that preceded the back breaking straw.

As for feelings, who arbitrates what constitutes real harm? As an example, Verbal and emotional abuse are real things and they mostly deal with feelings. Because they involve feelings should verbal and emotional abuse not be subject to the law as they are now? Obviously there are limits and I agree that as we find an equilibrium, there will be pendulum swings on each side.

Rather than discount anything out of hand I tend to want to deal with the subject on its merits.

It seems we mostly agree, tho that the gender stereotyping is bad and that's good.

I was speaking more in general terms and gave several examples of that.
As for "gender stereotyping" being harmful, I have never thought about it. I have known people that did the whole "pink princess" thing to the 10's....again, not what I would do and their kids turned out fine. I have seen parents not allow any sort of stereotyping or "violent" toys in their house....the boy would often pick up a stick and pretend it was a gun, which I thought was funny....and the kids turned out fine. My opinion of it holds no more or no less value than anyone elses. If someone finds a sign saying "boys" or "girls" offensive, that is strange to me....but, so is someone getting freaked out if their boy played with a doll or their girl with a tool set....its all silliness to me. A lot of this is human nature.
I agree with judging things on their own merit. A small group of people trying to control or change things/laws/society based on their own emotion/feelings and little else....this hold little value.
In my experience folks that get this (pick your term) outraged, offended etc to start some social media campaign or movement to put a place out of business based on their feelings tend to reveal their own emotional damage. Or maybe because it is easy in this age to send a tweet and feel like a person is doing something. Again, speaking in general terms.
Feelings have no place in the law. That was really my point. Our society has changed where facts matter less, feelings more. This translates to a lot of weakness and ignorance to me. Being offended and outraged by almost everything has sort of turned into industry in America.
If someone is so fragile and emotionally damaged they cannot take seeing, hearing or perceiving something that does not fit their world view, then, they are probably beyond help. A lot of this is not about "social justice" of some kind it is about trying to bend society to a persons world view.
The problem with letting feelings rule the town square is there is no end to it. Every person can offended by 20 things a day. Society has changed so that one perspective (generally) is being served....my problem is there is a thin line between PCism, the thought police and wanna be social engineers.
The best lesson I ever taught my son is society doesn't care and he is not special. His family and friends, people he knows and is close to care about him and what he is doing and he is special to them. No one else does. He is not entitled to anything and expect no help from anyone.