Toys R Us - Let toys be toys!

[troutman]

Here comes Dick, he's wearing a skirt
Here comes Jane, y'know she's sporting a chain
Same hair, revolution
Same build, evolution
Tomorrow who's gonna fuss

And they love each other so
Androgynous
Closer than you know, love each other so
Androgynous

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by pylon

Why not put no kids in the ads, and just show the toy,

Because nobody wants to play with a toy that nobody else is playing with.

[Northendzone]

over the next few months all toys will start to be packaged in a rainbow colored boxes.......i personally don't see this as a big deal

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Ark2

I definitely agree that there is a slippery slope argument to be made here. A couple of years ago I read an article about two parents that didn't want to disclose the gender of their second child and they also sent their oldest kid (who was obviously a male) to school wearing dresses. Their argument was that they didn't want to restrict their children with gender roles that stated that dresses are for girls only.

Let's be realistic here, kids need some restrictions. We can argue what those restrictions should be, and toys probably don't need to be one of them, but at some point, common sense has to become a factor. When I was a kid, I would have loved it if I could go to school wearing a tiger mask and superman cape everyday, but making children believe that they can completely disregard social norms and do whatever they want isn't doing them any favours in life.

There has to be a balance though.

Citing the most extreme scenarios doesn't really further the discussion either, it just bogs it down with needless conjecture. There has to be incremental progress to push change, and things like breaking down advertising barriers are things that can help that.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Of course they are, that doesn't mean that a girl should feel bad about wanting to play with Joe's and a boy should feel bad about wanting a Barbie.

Agreed, I partially misread his post to say that the difference in gender was all society driven.

I think gender difference is not totally society driven.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Agreed, I partially misread his post to say that the difference in gender was all society driven.

I think gender difference is not totally society driven.

Well we could find out if the DAMN GOVERNMENT would let us do conditioning experiments on human children, but NOOOOOO they say it's "unethical" and "monstrous".

Pfff typical big government.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bmuzyka

I am just thinking of the Advertisements. Here's one of Tommy and Suzy playing GI Joe, oh and whats this, Debbie and Steve are playing Esthetician.

Next we will get rid of gender specific washrooms in schools, and after that, we can say goodbye to the urinal gentlemen, its just a matter of time that this gender specific device goes the way of the spittoon.

I don't want to lose the urinal or fast bathrooms at sports events but there really isn't any reason for gender specific bathrooms either.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I have a 7 yr old boy and a 9 yr old girl. They are different, they are wired different, IMO.

I have a 3 year old girl and a 5 year old girl and they are wired different.

[photon]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Not the craziest slippery slope argument, but definitely an unnecessary one.

Fun thing about slippery slopes is they can slope both ways, so it's fun to take one's slippery slope and just tilt it the other way to see how silly it really is.

How can a company allow (promote!) gender specific roles with their toy marketing?? Pretty soon gender separation will permeate society, threatening families where the only times men and women can see each other is in strictly engineered and supervised conjugal visits!

[Żoso]

I asked for an Easy Bake oven for Christmas when I was 4. It was mostly because of my love of food and I believed that if I had a toy that could make food, I was golden.

Only a few years later did I realize that it was designed for girls. Oh well.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

There has to be a balance though.

Citing the most extreme scenarios doesn't really further the discussion either, it just bogs it down with needless conjecture. There has to be incremental progress to push change, and things like breaking down advertising barriers are things that can help that.

Progress towards what, though? What does this accomplish? Are women more likely to major in math and science because they played with Tonka Trucks when they were 3? Are men more likely to pursue nursing and elementary teaching positions because they played with dolls when they were 7? No one has brought forth anything substantive to suggest why this is a good thing for anyone other than toy companies who can now market to a previously untapped demographic.

As for not citing "extreme" examples, that's the whole point of a slippery slope argument, despite the fact that I really don't think that it's that extreme to begin with. How is a boy bringing a Barbie doll to school acceptable, but him wearing a dress isn't? Don't these both touch on gender roles? Aren't they both restrictive? How can one be okay while the other is not?

This brings forth another question. For those of you who are in support of this, and believe that "change" is necessary, would you let your 4-5 year old son go to school with a Barbie or a similarly feminine toy? It would be a virtual guarantee that your child would be made fun of and bullied, perhaps maligning them socially and severely limiting their ability to integrate socially. I understand that this campaign is an attempt to eliminate this from being a social stigma, but let's be realistic, there would be many years of casualties before that even begins to happen. For this particular cause, is that even worth it?

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by photon

How can a company allow (promote!) gender specific roles with their toy marketing?? Pretty soon gender separation will permeate society, threatening families where the only times men and women can see each other is in strictly engineered and supervised conjugal visits!

Except that companies have been marketing this way for centuries and that hasn't happened, so I don't see how your argument holds water. A slippery slope is applied to something that is new, nothing something that has been around for ages.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Progress towards what, though? What does this accomplish? Are women more likely to major in math and science because they played with Tonka Trucks when they were 3? Are men more likely to pursue nursing and elementary teaching positions because they played with dolls when they were 7? No one has brought forth anything substantive to suggest why this is a good thing for anyone other than toy companies who can now market to a previously untapped demographic.

As for not citing "extreme" examples, that's the whole point of a slippery slope argument, despite the fact that I really don't think that it's that extreme to begin with. How is a boy bringing a Barbie doll to school acceptable, but him wearing a dress isn't? Don't these both touch on gender roles? Aren't they both restrictive? How can one be okay while the other is not?

This brings forth another question. For those of you who are in support of this, and believe that "change" is necessary, would you let your 4-5 year old son go to school with a Barbie or a similarly feminine toy? It would be a virtual guarantee that your child would be made fun of and bullied, perhaps maligning them socially and severely limiting their ability to integrate socially. I understand that this campaign is an attempt to eliminate this from being a social stigma, but let's be realistic, there would be many years of casualties before that even begins to happen. For this particular cause, is that even worth it?

Ask every trans person who has attempted suicide or the families of those who have been successful.

[octothorp]

Next they'll be forcing Mighty Machines to rewrite their theme song so it goes
'stories to enjoy / for every girl and boy,'
instead of
'stories to enjoy / for every girl and BOY-OY-OY!!!!'

Really though, I think most toy-purchasing decisions that parents are involved in are made prior to even entering the store. At least that's the way it is for us. We don't go into a toy store and just tell our kid, 'Yeah, go pick out something you like.' The only thing this likely affects are lazy relatives who go into a toy store and want to be told exactly what to buy for a five year old boy, for example.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Ask every trans person who has attempted suicide or the families of those who have been successful.

I'm asking you, someone who seems to be in favour of this. Other than some grandiose hand waving, is there anything that supports why this is positive change?

[jammies]

All this will do is drive more parents to buying their boys unabashedly masculine handguns.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Except that companies have been marketing this way for centuries and that hasn't happened, so I don't see how your argument holds water. A slippery slope is applied to something that is new, nothing something that has been around for ages.

All it means is that the slopes become less slippery over time.

I didn't mean it as a legitimate argument, just that a slippery slope argument itself is fallacious; the supposed chain of events that the slope describes have to be taken on their own merit to see if they are warranted. You showed the chain of events wasn't warranted in my slope.

But gender equality hasn't even been around for ages (and some would argue still doesn't even exist), and I support Toys R Us's effort. I think the incidental messages sent to kids is still pervasive enough to warrant actions like this. I know a girl who had to switch schools because her interests were "gender atypical" like science and math and the other girls and boys in school ostracized and bullied her because of it. Or I read an article recently by a woman and her experience in the tech industry as a programmer, I see the terrible attitudes towards women there personally all the time.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Ark2

I'm asking you, someone who seems to be in favour of this. Other than some grandiose hand waving, is there anything that supports why this is positive change?

Because gender, like most things in life, isn't black and white. There exist people who don't subscribe to binary gender roles, and there are those who strongly identify with the gender opposite their birth gender. These persons are specifically why things like gender reassignment surgery exists.

What a shift in perception of gender norms would accomplish is greater acceptance and normalcy for these people, who, due to reasons beyond their control, experience a suicide rate 25x greater than the general population. That, to me, is unacceptable.

[Ashartus]

Has anyone been to Toys'R Us lately? I almost get sick the way the whole "girls toy" section is nothing but pink. I don't care if pictures show both boys and girls, but at least they could get away from "everything for girls must be pink."

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Ark2

I'm asking you, someone who seems to be in favour of this. Other than some grandiose hand waving, is there anything that supports why this is positive change?

I think that the underlying concept that there are some things boys can do and other things girls can do is re-enforced subtly through out our society. This catagorizing of girl things and boy things begins at a young age but eventually comes into career choice.

Tech and Engineering are still male dominated fields at the university level even though women make up the majority of post secondary education students. In my opinion some of it is due to the catagorization of things as girl things. So long term I believe that reducing the perception of having girl things and boy things at a young age will allow more equality at an older age.