Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

You say Lego, I say incredibly expense building blocks that hurt like feth when you step on them at night...

 cincydooley wrote:

I think it's also interesting to note that in the photo that the Ohio mom sent that started this ferver, it does NOT gender the "regular" lego aisle. It simply says building sets.

This one?



You might not feel this way, but many people do feel that having "building sets" and "girl's building sets" sends the message that regular building sets are not for girls.

That's the one.

And I would agree with your assessment; I don't feel that way.

To me, that sign says, "these are the building sets marketed to, specifically, girls, and these are the building sets marketed to everyone."

Unlike this incredibly disturbing image:



Truth be told, and sarcasm aside, if Target leaves aisle's like this alone, it substantiates my belief that it's an incredibly disingenuous act of pandering that they're doing.

But again, I know this is an unpopular opinion.

Wait, do some people believe its not pandering?

 cincydooley wrote:
That's the one.

And I would agree with your assessment; I don't feel that way.

To me, that sign says, "these are the building sets marketed to, specifically, girls, and these are the building sets marketed to everyone."

So if you were looking for building sets for your daughter, would you have been able to find them if said "building sets", or would you require the additional "girl's building sets" sign?

What function did it serve to separate the signs? What harm does it do not to separate the signs?

Unlike this incredibly disturbing image:

So down to "whataboutism"?

Truth be told, and sarcasm aside, if Target leaves aisle's like this alone, it substantiates my belief that it's an incredibly disingenuous act of pandering that they're doing.

Let's agree. Let's say that Target as a business has this weird idea to do what customers asked them to do in order to get people to walk into their store and spend money there:

What harm does it do for them to take down the "girls building set" sign and just leaving the "building set" sign up?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Wait, do some people believe its not pandering?

It's responding to a demand set by their market. Isn't every single thing a business does pandering?

Maybe Target agrees with the reasoning behind why people requested this change, maybe they don't. Who knows, and what difference does it really make?

 CptJake wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


If he's honestly trying to claim that no one ever explains what's wrong with assuming that people should behave and dress in a certain way just because they're of one gender then he's either a grade A idiot or crazy dishonest.

I'll play. Why is it wrong to assume dresses are for girls and not for boys? I honestly do not recall seeing a good explanation for it. I'm not what most would consider a grade A idiot nor crazy dishonest. Why is that norm 'bad'?

Because it doesn't make any sense? It's completely arbitrary.

Maybe while discussing this issue, someone clever at Target suggested the idea that they might make more money on toys if they stop marketing them to 50% of the child population.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Here's the quote that I pulled from his commentary that I find myself asking quite often:

We attack gender norms because they’re norms, but nobody ever explains what’s wrong with them.

I think its an interesting question and, despite his often offputting tone in this commentary, is one that's worth discussion.

If he's honestly trying to claim that no one ever explains what's wrong with assuming that people should behave and dress in a certain way just because they're of one gender then he's either a grade A idiot or crazy dishonest. Starting off by dismissing the entire concept as something only relevant to lesbian gender studies professors is also really, really rude. You don't win debates by starting off with ad hominems and then lying. It's a shame that he's such an ass, because some of the stuff could make for an interesting debate.

Welcome to what Matt Walsh is: a Grade A idiot and an extremely dishonest purveyor of bull gak. I will give him credit though, I've never seen someone that can write so much in so many layers of fallacies as he can. He's essentially the Inception of logical fallacies; a fallacy, within a fallacy, within a fallacy, within a fallacy, etc.into a splendid layer cake of fallacies that's people without critical thinking skill just eat up. That guy is just a crock... it saddens me when I see people I love and respect share his festering horse gak articles on social media.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Same here... My daughter is about to be 6... She is old enough that we generally let her pick out (some of) her own clothes, and frankly, that is one are of the store I don't think they should be mixing up (though they usually have T-shirts on the edges where I can still point them out and daughter can yay/nay them)... Anyhow, my daughter plays more with Hot Wheels and LEGOs than she does her My Little Pony stuff...

Of course, I have insisted that her and her brother have sporting goods, and so we've let them choose out their own rugby balls, soccer balls and baseball stuff.... She has a pink rugby ball, a pink/purple soccer ball, and her baseball glove is bright blue

I may obviously be trying to "push" my daughter in some directions (away from the useless "Disney Princess" tripe, more towards superhero/sporting figure "hero worship" type stuff), but at the end of the day, she still quite often times ends up getting what she wants or does what she wants.

I used to try and steer my kids away from the Disney Princess gak, but it got to be too hard. Instead, I opted to just instill in them that like princesses is not the same as being a princess, which they have thankfully embraced.

Of course, I definitely not-so-subtly pushed them towards Star Wars, which they really embraced, especially my younger one. One of my finest accomplishments of fatherhood!

You went from doing what people want to harm. If there's harm then clearly Target is not doing what people want.

Walmart would never do those. The moment hippy tree hugging hipster protesters enter the store they are eaten Zombie style by the old lady at the entrance. Thats what she's there for.

Don't mess with Walmart greeters. They'll cut you!

 d-usa wrote:


So if you were looking for building sets for your daughter, would you have been able to find them if said "building sets", or would you require the additional "girl's building sets" sign?

What function did it serve to separate the signs? What harm does it do not to separate the signs?

For me, the "girls building sets" sign would have let me know that's where the Friends sets are. Think of all the time I'd be wasting if I had to walk past the Friends sets in an aisle while I was looking for the Star Wars sets.

So down to "whataboutism"?

No, it isn't. It's about consistency in message, for me. I have to go to the female body wash section to buy the body wash I typically use, because it isn't in the men's section. This is deeply offensive to me.

Let's agree. Let's say that Target as a business has this weird idea to do what customers asked them to do in order to get people to walk into their store and spend money there:

What harm does it do for them to take down the "girls building set" sign and just leaving the "building set" sign up?

I'm with you; but I question the "harm" that was caused by having it up. I think it's nonsense.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

It's responding to a demand set by their market. Isn't every single thing a business does pandering?

Again, I have trouble believing it's really a response to their market, assuming when we talk about "market" we're talking about the majority of said market. We exist, now, in a society where the market ignore the silent majority and panders to a very vocal minority. I struggle seeing that as a good thing.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Welcome to what Matt Walsh is: a Grade A idiot and an extremely dishonest purveyor of bull gak. I will give him credit though, I've never seen someone that can write so much in so many layers of fallacies as he can. He's essentially the Inception of logical fallacies; a fallacy, within a fallacy, within a fallacy, within a fallacy, etc.into a splendid layer cake of fallacies that's people without critical thinking skill just eat up. That guy is just a crock... it saddens me when I see people I love and respect share his festering horse gak articles on social media.

That's where I really struggle with Walsh. He'll occasionally make points I think are good, or agree with, but they're so slathered in rhetoric and mistruth that I'd never recommend him to someone that was more moderate. He's got a demographic that he writes to, that's for sure.

Of course, I definitely not-so-subtly pushed them towards Star Wars, which they really embraced, especially my younger one. One of my finest accomplishments of fatherhood!

And this is why I'm not really concerned about mine. As a female, I want her to be feminine. As a married man, I know she's get that from my wife. As a geek, I know she's going to be exposed to plenty of the nerdy gak I like.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


If he's honestly trying to claim that no one ever explains what's wrong with assuming that people should behave and dress in a certain way just because they're of one gender then he's either a grade A idiot or crazy dishonest.

I'll play. Why is it wrong to assume dresses are for girls and not for boys? I honestly do not recall seeing a good explanation for it. I'm not what most would consider a grade A idiot nor crazy dishonest. Why is that norm 'bad'?

Because it doesn't make any sense? It's completely arbitrary.

Bull gak. There have been separate fashions for men and women for centuries. How is it that now it does not make sense and is completely arbitrary? And again, what makes it 'bad'?

far longer than a few centuries. Please denote a major society where the clothing was not separate.

 CptJake wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


If he's honestly trying to claim that no one ever explains what's wrong with assuming that people should behave and dress in a certain way just because they're of one gender then he's either a grade A idiot or crazy dishonest.

I'll play. Why is it wrong to assume dresses are for girls and not for boys? I honestly do not recall seeing a good explanation for it. I'm not what most would consider a grade A idiot nor crazy dishonest. Why is that norm 'bad'?

Because it doesn't make any sense? It's completely arbitrary.

Bull gak. There have been separate fashions for men and women for centuries. How is it that now it does not make sense and is completely arbitrary? And again, what makes it 'bad'?

Appeal to tradition.

As for why it's bad? Because it gives gakholes a reason to ostracize people for liking the "wrong" thing.

You throw off appeal to tradition like that means something. Why should Target bend a cowered knee to a few whiners vs. every other culture in the history of humanity?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


If he's honestly trying to claim that no one ever explains what's wrong with assuming that people should behave and dress in a certain way just because they're of one gender then he's either a grade A idiot or crazy dishonest.

I'll play. Why is it wrong to assume dresses are for girls and not for boys? I honestly do not recall seeing a good explanation for it. I'm not what most would consider a grade A idiot nor crazy dishonest. Why is that norm 'bad'?

Because it doesn't make any sense? It's completely arbitrary.

Bull gak. There have been separate fashions for men and women for centuries. How is it that now it does not make sense and is completely arbitrary? And again, what makes it 'bad'?

Appeal to tradition.

As for why it's bad? Because it gives gakholes a reason to ostracize people for liking the "wrong" thing.

Appeal to tradition? As in Girls have been Girls since there were Girls and Boys have been Boys since there were Boys and have dressed differently for ages as a result, and you honestly feel that is bad and should be changed? Why is that tradition bad? Just because it IS a tradition?

Let's try again. Why is it wrong to assume dresses are for girls and not for boys? Clearly at this point in time it is well outside the norm for boys to like to wear dresses. Why is that bad? Why is it bad for others to assume a boy who DOES like to wear dresses is different/well outside of the norm (his is, isn't he)? And again, why is that norm 'bad'? Is your only answer really because 'the different kid gets made fun of'?

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


So if you were looking for building sets for your daughter, would you have been able to find them if said "building sets", or would you require the additional "girl's building sets" sign?

What function did it serve to separate the signs? What harm does it do not to separate the signs?

For me, the "girls building sets" sign would have let me know that's where the Friends sets are.

So you wouldn't have known that the Friends Lego set was with all the other Lego sets?

Think of all the time I'd be wasting if I had to walk past the Friends sets in an aisle while I was looking for the Star Wars sets.

Everybody else is somehow able to walk past the Lego SW/Avengers/LotR/City/Classic/Technic/whatever to find whatever particular set they are looking for. I'm sorry that Friends messes all that up...

So down to "whataboutism"?

No, it isn't. It's about consistency in message, for me. I have to go to the female body wash section to buy the body wash I typically use, because it isn't in the men's section. This is deeply offensive to me.

Was the message "we will no longer have any gender labeling on any product in our store"? If so, you would have a point.

The message was "when it comes to kid products, we will leave gender labels in place where it seems appropriate, such as clothing, and remove it from areas where we think it does not serve a constructive purpose, such as toys and linen". Responding to that message with "they still sell men's deodorant" doesn't really make much sense.

Let's agree. Let's say that Target as a business has this weird idea to do what customers asked them to do in order to get people to walk into their store and spend money there:

What harm does it do for them to take down the "girls building set" sign and just leaving the "building set" sign up?

I'm with you; but I question the "harm" that was caused by having it up. I think it's nonsense.

Honestly, I'm fine with people thinking it's nonsense and people going "meh".

I'm just amazed at how many people think it's something bad, like the guy whose ramblings you shared for us.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

It's responding to a demand set by their market. Isn't every single thing a business does pandering?

Again, I have trouble believing it's really a response to their market, assuming when we talk about "market" we're talking about the majority of said market. We exist, now, in a society where the market ignore the silent majority and panders to a very vocal minority. I struggle seeing that as a good thing.

I imagine that Target did their market research and likely found that people who like this change are probably going to outnumber the people who will take their business to a store that separates their toys by gender.

for sure.

And this is why I'm not really concerned about mine. As a female, I want her to be feminine. As a married man, I know she's get that from my wife. As a geek, I know she's going to be exposed to plenty of the nerdy gak I like.

I think there is a whole separate discussion people can have about gender roles and our expectations for different genders.

I just don't think that what Target is doing really has much to do with that and it is less "What is Gender" and more "Why can't kids play with whatever they want" and saying that there is no point in separating stuff like linen and toys by gender because my 2 year old daughter is any less "feminine" because her sheets are yellow, her room is painted blue, and she has Duplos that are in the traditional colors instead of pink and purple. I don't think that Target saying "toys are for everyone" really has much impact on gender development, gender norms, or any of that other stuff people seems to focus on when they have strong opinions against this change.

 Frazzled wrote:
You throw off appeal to tradition like that means something. Why should Target bend a cowered knee to a few whiners vs. every other culture in the history of humanity?

Why should we let women vote? Who are we to argue with most historical cultures?

 CptJake wrote:

Let's try again. Why is it wrong to assume dresses are for girls and not for boys? Clearly at this point in time it is well outside the norm for boys to like to wear dresses. Why is that bad? Why is it bad for others to assume a boy who DOES like to wear dresses is different/well outside of the norm (his is, isn't he)? And again, why is that norm 'bad'? Is your only answer really because 'the different kid gets made fun of'?

Again, Target is not changing the labeling for clothing, so there is not really much to argue along that line.

But do you think it's bad for a boy to wear a dress? If so, can you tell me why?

I would be glad to give you my honest answer, but it depends on why you think it is bad for a boy to wear a dress.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You throw off appeal to tradition like that means something. Why should Target bend a cowered knee to a few whiners vs. every other culture in the history of humanity?

Why should we let women vote? Who are we to argue with most historical cultures?

Agreed. This women's suffrage thing has been a real cluster. Best chuck the whole thing.

 Frazzled wrote:
You throw off appeal to tradition like that means something. Why should Target bend a cowered knee to a few whiners vs. every other culture in the history of humanity?

I hardly think that Target putting the pink sheets next to the blue sheets and taking down a sign saying "girl's building set" is bending a cowered knee to every culture that has decided that we need separate Legos during the history of humanity...

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Let's try again. Why is it wrong to assume dresses are for girls and not for boys? Clearly at this point in time it is well outside the norm for boys to like to wear dresses. Why is that bad? Why is it bad for others to assume a boy who DOES like to wear dresses is different/well outside of the norm (his is, isn't he)? And again, why is that norm 'bad'? Is your only answer really because 'the different kid gets made fun of'?

Again, Target is not changing the labeling for clothing, so there is not really much to argue along that line.

But do you think it's bad for a boy to wear a dress? If so, can you tell me why?

I would be glad to give you my honest answer, but it depends on why you think it is bad for a boy to wear a dress.

Simple. When boys wear dresses they become men who were dressing who become men who wear dresses and carry swords and attack the English and eat haggis.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You throw off appeal to tradition like that means something. Why should Target bend a cowered knee to a few whiners vs. every other culture in the history of humanity?

I hardly think that Target putting the pink sheets next to the blue sheets and taking down a sign saying "girl's building set" is bending a cowered knee to every culture that has decided that we need separate Legos during the history of humanity...

you think wrong.
"We will fight them on the beaches. We will fight them in our bars. We wil fight them in our Target Lego lines!"
-ROboChurchill

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Let's try again. Why is it wrong to assume dresses are for girls and not for boys? Clearly at this point in time it is well outside the norm for boys to like to wear dresses. Why is that bad? Why is it bad for others to assume a boy who DOES like to wear dresses is different/well outside of the norm (his is, isn't he)? And again, why is that norm 'bad'? Is your only answer really because 'the different kid gets made fun of'?

Again, Target is not changing the labeling for clothing, so there is not really much to argue along that line.

But do you think it's bad for a boy to wear a dress? If so, can you tell me why?

I would be glad to give you my honest answer, but it depends on why you think it is bad for a boy to wear a dress.

And I'm off topic an not addressing Target or their policy, I'm addressing the post I quoted in my original reply that stated:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


If he's honestly trying to claim that no one ever explains what's wrong with assuming that people should behave and dress in a certain way just because they're of one gender then he's either a grade A idiot or crazy dishonest.

I think that is BS, and AllMightyWalrus' replies to me have kind of firmed up my belief.

Yes I think it is generally wrong for a boy to wear a dress. Not sure how the reason for my belief has anything to do with your willingness or ability to give an honest answer. You'll either give one or not.

 CptJake wrote:
And I'm off topic an not addressing Target or their policy, I'm addressing the post I quoted in my original reply

Sorry, that was meant to be more of a general reply and not really focused on you.

I do want to address the "is it wrong to think that boys shouldn't X" question though and by doing so I would try to steer the thread back towards the "colors" and "gender based toys" direction.

Yes I think it is generally wrong for a boy to wear a dress. Not sure how the reason for my belief has anything to do with your willingness or ability to give an honest answer. You'll either give one or not.

Because without knowing why, I can't really answer it. We could simply go back and forth with "I think it's wrong" "I don't think it's wrong" without every having any kind of actual discussion about anything, but at that point we might as well stop posting, put up a poll at the top of a thread saying "I think it's wrong for a boy to wear a dress: yes/no" and be done with it.

For me, your reason matters because it will shape my response to the question. I'm honestly not trying to trap you or anything like that, so I hope that I don't come across as hostile with it. It really just boils down to my answer being different depending on why your viewpoint is the way it is.

In this context, wrong and right are just points of view.

 Frazzled wrote:
In this context, wrong and right are just points of view.

True, which is why I was asking "why". Even if we still disagree, talking about actual reason is more productive than simply saying "something is right/wrong". And for me, even if I disagree with your viewpoint, I might understand your viewpoint better if I knew why it is the way it is.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


If he's honestly trying to claim that no one ever explains what's wrong with assuming that people should behave and dress in a certain way just because they're of one gender then he's either a grade A idiot or crazy dishonest.

I'll play. Why is it wrong to assume dresses are for girls and not for boys? I honestly do not recall seeing a good explanation for it. I'm not what most would consider a grade A idiot nor crazy dishonest. Why is that norm 'bad'?

Because it doesn't make any sense? It's completely arbitrary.

If the norm didn't make sense it would have disappeared millennia ago.

Gender differences are not arbitrary. They're based on the very real psychological and physical differences between males and females, which led to how society developed and functioned. And functioned quite nicely.

Girls have worn dresses for centuries. Boys have not. Generally speaking. This is normal, and thats ok. Nobody is at stores preventing people from buying dresses for their boys, but its not normal behavior. And there is nothing wrong with pushing for normalcy. Anyone who is deviating from it honestly won't care about this push and just get on with it. Be your special snowflake, but don't whine about things which are really inconsequential.

Traditional gender roles are a good thing. They're not some oppressive totalitarian regime forcing everyone to comply. they're just the normal thing.

 d-usa wrote:


Everybody else is somehow able to walk past the Lego SW/Avengers/LotR/City/Classic/Technic/whatever to find whatever particular set they are looking for. I'm sorry that Friends messes all that up...

Apologies; I was trying (and failing it seems) to be facetious.

Was the message "we will no longer have any gender labeling on any product in our store"? If so, you would have a point.

The message was "when it comes to kid products, we will leave gender labels in place where it seems appropriate, such as clothing, and remove it from areas where we think it does not serve a constructive purpose, such as toys and linen". Responding to that message with "they still sell men's deodorant" doesn't really make much sense.

I highlighted what I think is the important piece there. It's not that they "still sell men's deodorant;" following their logic, does it really "serve a constructive purpose" to separate Men's and Women's deodorants? I'd argue no, and that to leave them separate is inconsistent with the above message.

I'm just amazed at how many people think it's something bad, like the guy whose ramblings you shared for us.

The concept I agree with that Walsh rants around is the notion that these loud minorities in society are screaming that it's "bad" to gender anything. I have a lot of trouble agreeing with that.

I imagine that Target did their market research and likely found that people who like this change are probably going to outnumber the people who will take their business to a store that separates their toys by gender.

Come on. You really think Target did any market research surrounding this? I don't.

Lego did a signficant amount of market research before they launched the Friend's line. They provided data to the angry mob's petitioning them to support the creation of Lego Friend's. And people still don't listen. To me, this is incredibly reactionary by Target and I'd be very surprised to find that they did any sort of research about it.

for sure.

I just don't think that what Target is doing really has much to do with that and it is less "What is Gender" and more "Why can't kids play with whatever they want" and saying that there is no point in separating stuff like linen and toys by gender because my 2 year old daughter is any less "feminine" because her sheets are yellow, her room is painted blue, and she has Duplos that are in the traditional colors instead of pink and purple.

But they always could, couldn't they?

Is changing the names on an aisle going to force Alpha Male Macho Dad to take Junior down the doll aisle? Is it going to prevent super "enlightened" lesbian mom from taking her adopted son down the doll aisle?

It's not right?

 cincydooley wrote:

Is changing the names on an aisle going to force Alpha Male Macho Dad to take Junior down the doll aisle?

The change was not made in order to force Alpha Male Macho Dad down the doll aisle. He always had the choice to go down whatever aisle he wanted.

Is it going to prevent super "enlightened" lesbian mom from taking her adopted son down the doll aisle?

The change was not made in order to prevent super "enlightened" lesbian mom taking her adopted son down the doll aisle.

It's not right?

Patent's have been able to go down whatever aisle they wanted, and they had the choice to even go to whatever store they wanted. Adding the signs in the first place didn't change that, and removing them now doesn't change that.

All Target is doing is saying "we are no longer separating toys by gender and we are no longer going to label certain toys as 'girls' or 'boys' toys" and "we are no longer telling kids what toys they can and cannot play with". That's it. Parents are free to continue to parent however they want.

 d-usa wrote:
"we are no longer telling kids what toys they can and cannot play with".

I guess my response would be that they never did this in the first place.

It's a mere PR stunt. Target is jumping on the LFGEGEBETEWTWTTXYZ+ bandwagon for publicity. You'd have to be pretty delusional to think that a company such as Target suddenly decided to care for people.