Toys R Us - Let toys be toys!

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

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.

Didn't you say that the example of boys wearing dresses to school is too extreme to merit its inclusion in this discussion. Seems to me that if the topic has shifted towards the transgendered, that this would not be the case.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Are women more likely to major in math and science because they played with Tonka Trucks when they were 3?

I think it's more the idea that the women who might have pursued math or science but didn't because of negative pressure or experiences would have a chance to do so. In software development I know a number of (and have heard about many more) women who left or stopped entering the field they otherwise enjoyed because of the men and their attitude and behaviour.

Originally Posted by Ark2

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.

That's a good question, in general I don't think it's unreasonable to say people's attitudes are formed by the society around them is it? That you can pick certain values or views and map them geographically and come up with a map of large areas of dominant views rather than a map of grey composed of dots of all colours suggests this.

More quantitative information would be very interesting though I agree.

Originally Posted by Ark2

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?

Both are equally arbitrary and just a product of social convention. Used to be wearing earrings or having long hair was for girls only, now it's less so, so things like that can change over time.

Originally Posted by Ark2

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.

Depends on the school, but in most cases I'd agree that the harm to bringing a Barbie might outweigh the benefit, but you'd also have to weigh that against the harm by not allowing him to do it and the message that gives as well.

To me the idea behind such a program is to help facilitate a change the values up front. Or I guess better not a change, but prevent the values from being setup in the first place. Make it not a big deal so if a boy brings a barbie the other kids don't bully them because it doesn't even enter their mind that it is an issue.

Just like how now my kid can have a black friend and none of the other kids think a single thing about it because it just doesn't enter their mind. That didn't happen because a bunch of 7 year olds stood up and had black friends to change the minds of other 7 year olds, but because they grew up in families and a society they weren't taught race is an issue so race isn't an issue.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Didn't you say that the example of boys wearing dresses to school is too extreme to merit its inclusion in this discussion. Seems to me that if the topic has shifted towards the transgendered, that this would not be the case.

You said the parents forced their child to school in a dress.

Transgendered persons however, are not forced. That is their default state. On top of that, transvestites are not necessarily transgendered, but there needs to be universal tolerance for both.

[Yasa]

Just make all the toys beige coloured and gender neutral. Or even better, focus more on teaching parents to not give a #### if their kid plays with the opposite official Mattel gender specific action figure playset.

As far as I'm concerned, kids will play with whatever they think is fun. It's adults and parents that seem to have problems with it. Thinking a boy playing with a doll house will become a fancy gentleman or a girl playing with a dino-damage t-rex will be a rugby star. News flash; it's not toys that make sexual identification/orientation.

All this commotion and forced perspective onto kids will probably just confuse them, if anything. I don't care if I see boys playing with "girls" toys, or vice versa, but I'm not going to lose my #### if I see a girl playing with a Barbie because she's just signing herself up into a medievel gender role and will forever be destined as an apron-wearing dishwasher with legs. But you know? If a girl, or a guy wants to do that and is happy doing that, then go for it.

Let kids play, everyone else can take a hike.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GGG

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.

It's worth noting that there could (and likely still will be) "boy and girl things" even if we remove the societal aspects of choice, in that males and females might naturally select different things. And I'm cool with that.

[flylock shox]

Good for them, and all the moreso because there doesn't appear to be any profit motive behind it, which is unusual for a private entity. The way products are marketed, particularly to kids, shapes not only their purchasing choices, but also their sense of identity, which includes their potential and their limits.

The more options that are presented to kids, the less their potential is limited, and the more accepting they are likely to be to a diversity of identities across genders.

Plus, tonkas and nerf guns are awesome, and girls should get to enjoy them too. It's only fair.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

there doesn't appear to be any profit motive behind it,

Except for basically attempting to double their target market for 'gender-specific' toys you mean?

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

Except for basically attempting to double their target market for 'gender-specific' toys you mean?

While simultaneously halving their target market for the other gender's toys?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

Except for basically attempting to double their target market for 'gender-specific' toys you mean?

The net effect could be negative if it means younger siblings get older siblings' toys passed down regardless of gender, but I'll assume they've done their market research and anticipate that at worst this move will break even.

[Stormchaser]

Originally Posted by 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."

My 3 girls each loved (or are currently loving) pink and purple and they chose that themselves. I would guess that most girls in a certain age group would be "wired" this same way. They've had pink sections because it has worked and it has worked well. In fact my girls are drawn to "their" section long before they can even read.

Put the legos in a more traditionally girly colored section and I think most boys would ask their parent why the heck everything is pink? I also think that the girls would love all the legos to be in their section. Truth is..my girls love playing with legos too. They love building towers and houses etc. However, I do agree with one of the other posters when he said that they will just play differently with them.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

While simultaneously halving their target market for the other gender's toys?

Not at all. I have my doubts that this is a completely altruistic act.

There is no way that the toys-r-us execs think that by marketing the same toys to both genders that they're going to remain flat in sales. I'm assuming that the idea is that if they can get little Timmy to start collecting both Nerf guns and Malibu Staceys, parents will spend more on making sure little Timmy has both. I don't think the idea from the toys-r-us execs is to have little Timmy to switch from Nerf to Malibu Stacey.