Toys R Us - Let toys be toys!

[GreenLantern]

Toys R Us is looking to work closely with the Let Toys Be Toys consumer campaign group, agreeing to become more inclusive in its marketing of toys to girls and boys.

The news follows a meeting last week between TRU's UK board members and Let Toys Be Toys, with the group believing it marks a major change in the UK toy sales landscape.

TRU will draw up a set of principles for in-store signage meaning that, in the long-term, explicit references to gender will be removed and images will show boys and girls enjoying the same toys. TRU also promised to start by looking at the way toys are represented in its upcoming Christmas catalogue.

MD Roger McLaughlan said: "We very much enjoyed meeting Let Toys Be Toys. We will work with the Let Toys be Toys team to ensure we develop the best plan for our customers."

Megan Perryman, Let Toys be Toys campaigner, added: "We're delighted to be working so closely with a major toy retailer and believe that there is much common ground here. Even in 2013, boys and girls are still growing up being told that certain toys are 'for' them, while others are not.

"This is not only confusing but extremely limiting, as it strongly shapes their ideas about who they are and who they can go on to become. We look forward to seeing Toys R Us lead the way to a more inclusive future for boys and girls."

http://www.toynews-online.biz/news/r...belling/040859

[Bmuzyka]

Really? Seriously? Can the Helicopter Parenting end already? GI Joes, Hot Wheels and the Sears Catalogue lingerie section are for boys, and Barbies and Easy Bake Ovens are for girls.

[Buff]

Oh brother... or am I supposed to now say Oh sibling?

[PsYcNeT]

I'm not sure what the removal of the imposition of gender roles has to do with helicopter parenting.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by fotze

Because fags buy their daughters a science kit.

If they really wanted to be helicopter parents, they should buy their kids a Kinex kit.

[Puppet Guy]

[Bmuzyka]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I'm not sure what the removal of the imposition of gender roles has to do with helicopter parenting.

Because one of the aspects of helicopter parenting is to try and control your child's environment to ensure they never get hurt, physically or emotionally. They forget that getting hurt is simply a step in emotional and physical development.

[cDnStealth]

Originally Posted by Bmuzyka

Because one of the aspects of helicopter parenting is to try and control your child's environment to ensure they never get hurt, physically or emotionally. They forget that getting hurt is simply a step in emotional and physical development.

Oh... I thought you were joking in your original post...

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Bmuzyka

Because one of the aspects of helicopter parenting is to try and control your child's environment to ensure they never get hurt, physically or emotionally. They forget that getting hurt is simply a step in emotional and physical development.

I don't see how this fits in with the above article. There has to be a line, how much care for your child is too much care?

As well, the removal of gender roles doesn't save your child from emotional hurt, I think the only potential goal is to raise a generation that doesn't have pre-set notions of gender identity. It seems to be more of an ideological goal (which you can disagree with on those grounds of course), rather than one of helicopter parenting. Social progress and all that.

[RedMileDJ]

nm. Not quite on topic.

[Ark2]

I can understand this from TRU's perspective, as it has the potential to increase the toy market, but I don't see all gender roles as negative. Is stating that action figures are for boys and Barbies are for girls such a debilitating thing? Where does one draw the line? Are dresses no longer just for girls?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bmuzyka

Because one of the aspects of helicopter parenting is to try and control your child's environment to ensure they never get hurt, physically or emotionally. They forget that getting hurt is simply a step in emotional and physical development.

Isn;t imposing gender roles on toys the act of helicoptor parenting. Don't let billy play with a barbie doll because that toy isn't made for him. Removing gender conotation from toys allows kids to choose rather than parents.

Its sad that my daughter asks if girls can play with certain toys. It takes a lot of work overcoming the gender stereotypes. Although after a trip to universal studios she now loves the transformers.

[MaDMaN_26]

Originally Posted by Ark2

I can understand this from TRU's perspective, as it has the potential to increase the toy market, but I don't see all gender roles as negative. Is stating that action figures are for boys and Barbies are for girls such a debilitating thing? Where does one draw the line? Are dresses no longer just for girls?

God I hope so, so tired of pretending I'm Scottish just so I can dangle in the wind.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Ark2

I can understand this from TRU's perspective, as it has the potential to increase the toy market, but I don't see all gender roles as negative. Is stating that action figures are for boys and Barbies are for girls such a debilitating thing? Where does one draw the line? Are dresses no longer just for girls?

Isn't the better question the reverse.

Why is a GI Joe a boys toy?

Why is a Barbie a girls toy?

[CaptainCrunch]

I don't believe in Gender rules on toys. I mean lets face facts. If your sister leaves her barbie out of her room and Shipwreck or Snake eyes happens to be home on leave from a long field deployment what happens is what happens.

And if the code of action figure military justice deems that death by easy bake oven is the applicable punishment, who am I to say no.

and if Barbie accidentally drinks too much and goes careening out of control in her lighter soaked with a lit fire cracker pink corvette. Well we will mourn her passing and move on.

[Bmuzyka]

Don't get me wrong, I have no problems with kids playing with any toys they like, but for a Toy store to adopt a policy that says, "we can't advertise a kid playing with a toy unless we show a boy and a girl playing with it!". That is kind of insane.

[worth]

I think there is a serious debate in here somewhere. Our whole society is brought up on the notion of if you are a boy, you do x, if you are a girl, you do y. This goes far beyond toys and I think most people have recognized that you can't paint one gender with one stroke of a brush. I think this is a subject that deserves some serious thought.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Bmuzyka

Don't get me wrong, I have no problems with kids playing with any toys they like, but for a Toy store to adopt a policy that says, "we can't advertise a kid playing with a toy unless we show a boy and a girl playing with it!". That is kind of insane.

It's not that they can't, they are choosing not to.

There's a pretty big difference here, and no government legislation involved. TRU may not be my favourite company, but they're adopting a stance against social engineering and that's nice to see from a large corporation.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by GGG

Isn't the better question the reverse.

Why is a GI Joe a boys toy?

Why is a Barbie a girls toy?

In all honesty, a boy playing with a Barbie or a girl playing with a GI Joe doesn't bother me, it's just the idea that the concept that there are boys toys and girls toys is so harmful to children that annoys me. Suggesting that it is "extremely limiting in who they can become" sounds like a bit much to me.

[Bmuzyka]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

It's not that they can't, they are choosing not to.

There's a pretty big difference here, and no government legislation involved. TRU may not be my favourite company, but they're adopting a stance against social engineering and that's nice to see from a large corporation.

But when corporate makes this a policy, it means that the stores can't, and the publications can't. Government Legislation isn't the only thing in the world that decides that people and organizations can't do something.