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.
2015/08/13 19:11:57
Subject: Target Changing Policy on Some Gender Based Signs in Stores
d-usa wrote: we will leave gender labels in place where it seems appropriate, such as clothing,
The more I think about this, the more bs it is, IMO.
When it comes to kids, there are no justifiable reasons to separate clothing if your claim is that they're "not constructive;" the tiny body of a 6 year old boy is the exact same as that of a 6 year old girl, save for the parts the clothing is covering up anyway. Neither of which affect fit or clothing construction in any "constructive" way.
In the end, my position is that Target's position is wholly inconsistent and is, as I said, sad pandering to a loud vocal minority.
2015/08/13 19:13:16
Subject: Target Changing Policy on Some Gender Based Signs in Stores
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.
I think we both agree that having a section labeled "girls building sets" sends a message to girls that "these are your toys...", but we disagree about the message ending in "...these other toys aren't for you" or "...we think you would like these better".
Does that sound about right?
2015/08/13 19:19:37
Subject: Target Changing Policy on Some Gender Based Signs in Stores
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.
I think we both agree that having a section labeled "girls building sets" sends a message to girls that "these are your toys...", but we disagree about the message ending in "...these other toys aren't for you" or "...we think you would like these better".
Does that sound about right?
I think that's fair to say.
Stores, the government, etc shouldn't be teaching our kids any of that anyway. For any decent, involved, non-activist agenda driven parent, that's a 2 minute conversation.
"Daddy, what are girl's building sets?"
"They're lego's that come in pinks and purples and have houses and dolls and things like that. Do you want to see them?"
"Oh, so stuff my sister usually likes?"
"Yeah, usually. But you can play with them too. Do you want to?"
Child decides. End scene.
While I haven't had to have any of these conversations with my own daughter yet, I've had them multiple times with 5-7 year olds when I taught (and still do at my wife's school). They're very easy to have.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/13 19:20:19
2015/08/13 19:19:43
Subject: Target Changing Policy on Some Gender Based Signs in Stores
d-usa wrote: we will leave gender labels in place where it seems appropriate, such as clothing,
The more I think about this, the more bs it is, IMO.
When it comes to kids, there are no justifiable reasons to separate clothing if your claim is that they're "not constructive;" the tiny body of a 6 year old boy is the exact same as that of a 6 year old girl, save for the parts the clothing is covering up anyway. Neither of which affect fit or clothing construction in any "constructive" way.
Clothing is probably the section where I am most divided about it. There does come a point where different growth rates set in between the genders, so labeling will be different. And once you get into the age where puberty starts to set in you will have different development in the shapes and proportions of bodies.
But even for a 6 year old girl the clothing is cut differently, with shirts being "form shaped" to start hinting towards hour glass figures, and girls shorts going 1 inch past a 6 year old girl's butt while the 6 year old boys go down to the knees. We could have a whole different discussion about if it is right to sexualize clothes for young kids and if we need clothing that makes a girls body look as if it is shaped like a woman, and I will admit that I would end up really sounding like I'm on a soap box, but that is a whole other discussion again.
But as long as the manufacturers of clothing create clothing that is physically different because of gender, due to cut/sizing/etc, then it does make sense to separate them because of that.
2015/08/13 19:21:23
Subject: Target Changing Policy on Some Gender Based Signs in Stores
d-usa wrote: we will leave gender labels in place where it seems appropriate, such as clothing,
The more I think about this, the more bs it is, IMO.
When it comes to kids, there are no justifiable reasons to separate clothing if your claim is that they're "not constructive;" the tiny body of a 6 year old boy is the exact same as that of a 6 year old girl, save for the parts the clothing is covering up anyway. Neither of which affect fit or clothing construction in any "constructive" way.
Clothing is probably the section where I am most divided about it. There does come a point where different growth rates set in between the genders, so labeling will be different. And once you get into the age where puberty starts to set in you will have different development in the shapes and proportions of bodies.
But even for a 6 year old girl the clothing is cut differently, with shirts being "form shaped" to start hinting towards hour glass figures, and girls shorts going 1 inch past a 6 year old girl's butt while the 6 year old boys go down to the knees. We could have a whole different discussion about if it is right to sexualize clothes for young kids and if we need clothing that makes a girls body look as if it is shaped like a woman, and I will admit that I would end up really sounding like I'm on a soap box, but that is a whole other discussion again.
But as long as the manufacturers of clothing create clothing that is physically different because of gender, due to cut/sizing/etc, then it does make sense to separate them because of that.
Is that why I get funny looks when I wear my rugby shorts to the gym on leg day or to the grocery store afterwards?
2015/08/13 19:23:15
Subject: Target Changing Policy on Some Gender Based Signs in Stores
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.
I think we both agree that having a section labeled "girls building sets" sends a message to girls that "these are your toys...", but we disagree about the message ending in "...these other toys aren't for you" or "...we think you would like these better".
Does that sound about right?
I think that's fair to say.
Stores, the government, etc shouldn't be teaching our kids any of that anyway. For any decent, involved, non-activist agenda driven parent, that's a 2 minute conversation.
"Daddy, what are girl's building sets?"
"They're lego's that come in pinks and purples and have houses and dolls and things like that. Do you want to see them?"
"Oh, so stuff my sister usually likes?"
"Yeah, usually. But you can play with them too. Do you want to?"
Child decides. End scene.
While I haven't had to have any of these conversations with my own daughter yet, I've had them multiple times with 5-7 year olds when I taught (and still do at my wife's school). They're very easy to have.
True, and I think even with the signs removed that conversation would still be there, because the toys themselves are still labeled. You would just go down the aisle, stand in front of all the Legos, and then still see the Friends set, and then you can still have the conversation there.
But maybe she will pick up that super expensive Millennium Falcon set instead that is too expensive and my wife says I can't have, but surely I can buy it for our precious daughter .
2015/08/13 19:24:06
Subject: Re:Target Changing Policy on Some Gender Based Signs in Stores
I don't see this as a big deal. Buy what you want. I don't even look at the signs, to be honest. If I see bras, typically I know I'm not interested.
I'm more concerned about the people who are complaining to Target about this. Do these people really have this much extra time to be complaining about essentially nothing? Interesting.
I RIDE FOR DOOMTHUMBS!
2015/08/13 19:28:15
Subject: Target Changing Policy on Some Gender Based Signs in Stores
True, and I think even with the signs removed that conversation would still be there, because the toys themselves are still labeled. You would just go down the aisle, stand in front of all the Legos, and then still see the Friends set, and then you can still have the conversation there.
They don't say anything about being for girls on the packaging,do they? Just different colors?
2015/08/13 19:32:03
Subject: Target Changing Policy on Some Gender Based Signs in Stores
True, and I think even with the signs removed that conversation would still be there, because the toys themselves are still labeled. You would just go down the aisle, stand in front of all the Legos, and then still see the Friends set, and then you can still have the conversation there.
They don't say anything about being for girls on the packaging,do they? Just different colors?
The 5 girls on their logo might be a giveaway:
Spoiler:
2015/08/13 19:32:56
Subject: Target Changing Policy on Some Gender Based Signs in Stores
True, and I think even with the signs removed that conversation would still be there, because the toys themselves are still labeled. You would just go down the aisle, stand in front of all the Legos, and then still see the Friends set, and then you can still have the conversation there.
They don't say anything about being for girls on the packaging,do they? Just different colors?
I was thinking that they had girls playing with them, but I do know that they have the "girl" colors (which is a whole other issue with me as you can tell).
So no girls playing with them, but the girl figures are featured pretty heavily.
Seems like it would have been cheaper to just put a "long hair 'hat'" on a regular minifigure instead of making these things.
Edit: Sniped.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/13 19:33:16
2015/08/13 19:33:29
Subject: Target Changing Policy on Some Gender Based Signs in Stores
I believe you that this movie is popular across sexes. However, I see that cover, and think "I am not the target audience for this movie, and I will not like it".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/13 19:36:52
2015/08/13 19:36:36
Subject: Re:Target Changing Policy on Some Gender Based Signs in Stores
I think this is one of those issues that only matters to people with certain backgrounds. For example, my wife was raised in a traditional household and told that it's okay to have dreams as a little girl but that one day she would grow past that and accept her place in the household. She was also told not to play pretend or to use toys and make 'silly noises', which makes it difficult for her to play with our son even today. So, for her gender roles are a much more touchy subject.
( I won't even tell you what her older sister did to rebel, but she was disowned at least twice.)
To be fair, that movie is about those two girls. (I expect a "Friends is about those 5 girls" rebuttal )
It did have an interesting impact on Disney though, as they were not expecting that much interest from boys and had to scramble to release figures and things based on the male characters due to a demand they did not expect. It also broke away from some of the previous "damsel in distress" stereotypes that Disney is very well known for and featured a story about two sisters that were there for each other and who saved each other and weren't just waiting on a man to rescue them. Another surprise for Disney is that the people who played the characters are actually the people who sang and are also the people who ended up featured on the traditional "song from the movie" radio release. They did make the traditional "here is the song, let's release a radio version featuring the popular singer right now" version of Let if Go, but it was the movie version that became a hit. A lot of stuff changed for Disney with that movie, many of which they did not expect. It's an interesting thing.
2015/08/13 19:40:57
Subject: Target Changing Policy on Some Gender Based Signs in Stores
Off topic, I am seeing "fedora" presented more and more these days as a negative reference. Can someone kindly explain that to me? Is it like "Only DBs wear fedoras" or something like that?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/13 19:41:35
2015/08/13 19:43:14
Subject: Target Changing Policy on Some Gender Based Signs in Stores
jasper76 wrote: Off topic, I am seeing "fedora" presented more and more these days as a negative reference. Can someone kindly explain that to me? Is it like "Only DBs wear fedoras" or something like that?
I think it's a modern version of "neckbeard" crossed with "hipster" and the like.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/13 19:43:30
2015/08/13 19:45:06
Subject: Target Changing Policy on Some Gender Based Signs in Stores
jasper76 wrote: Off topic, I am seeing "fedora" presented more and more these days as a negative reference. Can someone kindly explain that to me? Is it like "Only DBs wear fedoras" or something like that?
I think it's a modern version of "neckbeard" crossed with "hipster" and the like.
I don't get it...I thought a fedora was like an Indiana Jones hat.
2015/08/13 19:46:43
Subject: Target Changing Policy on Some Gender Based Signs in Stores
d-usa wrote: [
It did have an interesting impact on Disney though, as they were not expecting that much interest from boys and had to scramble to release figures and things based on the male characters due to a demand they did not expect. It also broke away from some of the previous "damsel in distress" stereotypes that Disney is very well known for and featured a story about two sisters that were there for each other and who saved each other and weren't just waiting on a man to rescue them.
As as Disney nerd, I can say this stuff certainly did not start with Frozen It really started with Enchanted in 2007 and then slowly grew from Tangled and Brave in 2010 and 2012 respectively.
Another surprise for Disney is that the people who played the characters are actually the people who sang and are also the people who ended up featured on the traditional "song from the movie" radio release. They did make the traditional "here is the song, let's release a radio version featuring the popular singer right now" version of Let if Go, but it was the movie version that became a hit. A lot of stuff changed for Disney with that movie, many of which they did not expect. It's an interesting thing.
Again, Enchanted and Tangled were the jumping off points for this. The Demi Lovato version of "Let it Go" is less popular cause it sucks . Ain't no one gonna tell me the Peabo Bryson/Celine Dion version of "Beauty and the Beast" was worse than the movie version (as much as I love Murder She Wrote). Peabo + The Great French Canadian Hope = audio gold.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/13 19:47:45
2015/08/13 19:47:09
Subject: Target Changing Policy on Some Gender Based Signs in Stores
jasper76 wrote: Off topic, I am seeing "fedora" presented more and more these days as a negative reference. Can someone kindly explain that to me? Is it like "Only DBs wear fedoras" or something like that?
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.
I think we both agree that having a section labeled "girls building sets" sends a message to girls that "these are your toys...", but we disagree about the message ending in "...these other toys aren't for you" or "...we think you would like these better".
Does that sound about right?
I think that's fair to say.
Stores, the government, etc shouldn't be teaching our kids any of that anyway. For any decent, involved, non-activist agenda driven parent, that's a 2 minute conversation.
"Daddy, what are girl's building sets?"
"They're lego's that come in pinks and purples and have houses and dolls and things like that. Do you want to see them?"
"Oh, so stuff my sister usually likes?"
"Yeah, usually. But you can play with them too. Do you want to?"
Child decides. End scene.
While I haven't had to have any of these conversations with my own daughter yet, I've had them multiple times with 5-7 year olds when I taught (and still do at my wife's school). They're very easy to have.
Brilliance.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2015/08/13 19:49:06
Subject: Target Changing Policy on Some Gender Based Signs in Stores
jasper76 wrote: Off topic, I am seeing "fedora" presented more and more these days as a negative reference. Can someone kindly explain that to me? Is it like "Only DBs wear fedoras" or something like that?
Lt. Coldfire wrote: I don't see this as a big deal. Buy what you want. I don't even look at the signs, to be honest. If I see bras, typically I know I'm not interested.
I'm more concerned about the people who are complaining to Target about this. Do these people really have this much extra time to be complaining about essentially nothing? Interesting.
More brilliance!
Also, I did not know toys were separated by girls/boys.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
due to a demand they did not expect. It also broke away from some of the previous "damsel in distress" stereotypes that Disney is very well known for and featured a story about two sisters that were there for each other and who saved each other and weren't just waiting on a man to rescue them. Another surprise for Disney is that the people who played the characters are actually the people who sang and are also the people who ended up featured on the traditional "song from the movie" radio release. They did make the traditional "here is the song, let's release a radio version featuring the popular singer right now" version of Let if Go, but it was the movie version that became a hit. A lot of stuff changed for Disney with that movie, many of which they did not expect. It's an interesting thing.
When was that? Having a hard time remembering one this century like that actually, but I've been out of that circuit for a bit. GC has graduated from Tangled to waiting with baited breath for Deadpool.
(when I mentioned the Deadpool movie I did not expect a detailed psychological review of Deadpool-wo) .
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/13 19:56:42
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2015/08/13 20:06:17
Subject: Re:Target Changing Policy on Some Gender Based Signs in Stores
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.
Please, you can do better than that.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
2015/08/13 20:22:15
Subject: Re:Target Changing Policy on Some Gender Based Signs in Stores
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.
I think we both agree that having a section labeled "girls building sets" sends a message to girls that "these are your toys...", but we disagree about the message ending in "...these other toys aren't for you" or "...we think you would like these better".
Does that sound about right?
I think that's fair to say.
Stores, the government, etc shouldn't be teaching our kids any of that anyway. For any decent, involved, non-activist agenda driven parent, that's a 2 minute conversation.
"Daddy, what are girl's building sets?"
"They're lego's that come in pinks and purples and have houses and dolls and things like that. Do you want to see them?"
"Oh, so stuff my sister usually likes?"
"Yeah, usually. But you can play with them too. Do you want to?"
Child decides. End scene.
While I haven't had to have any of these conversations with my own daughter yet, I've had them multiple times with 5-7 year olds when I taught (and still do at my wife's school). They're very easy to have.
Brilliance.
I'd like to add : "The ones the same colour as the deodorants and shampoos and make up that mum wears"
"er...yes (the ones also marked by signage for women fething everywhere(
Yes I think it is generally wrong for a boy to wear a dress.
Why?
Because it is windy.
because it was definitely damaging for boys many years ago when they wore dresses. It actually makes sense when kids are in the nappy stage now i think about it. That said, would i do it when the rest of society wasn't , definitely not.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/08/13 20:41:46
Manchu - "But so what? The Bible also says the flood destroyed the world. You only need an allegorical boat to tackle an allegorical flood."
Shespits "Anything i see with YOLO has half naked eleventeen year olds Girls. And of course booze and drugs and more half naked elventeen yearolds Girls. O how i wish to YOLO again!"
Rubiksnoob "Next you'll say driving a stick with a Scandinavian supermodel on your lap while ripping a bong impairs your driving. And you know what, I'M NOT GOING TO STOP, YOU FILTHY COMMUNIST"
.
)
It actually makes sense when kids are in the nappy stage now i think about it. That said, would i do it when the rest of society wasn't , definitely not.