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.

I'm late to this but whatever, I'm in Afghanistan, so deal with it.

Anyways, Target is in the wrong in my eyes on this one. As others have said, they are going weak knee'd to a very vocal minority. The whole argument that "gender differentiation can lead to mental trauma of a child" is bs. Pure and simple bs. That has been the way of things since mankind began forming societies. It has only been in the last few decades that we've had this gak popping up, and I'm much more willing to bet that denying our evolutionary instincts is much more damaging then following them.

Will I stop shopping at Target over this? No. Cause I don't give that much a damn about it. This crap needs to stop though. You cannot live life free of being offended. When you force others to change their lives to keep you from being "offended" you are the bad person.

Grow a thicker skin, sack the feth up, and leave everyone else along.

 djones520 wrote:
Anyways, Target is in the wrong in my eyes on this one. As others have said, they are going weak knee'd to a very vocal minority. The whole argument that "gender differentiation can lead to mental trauma of a child" is bs. Pure and simple bs. That has been the way of things since mankind began forming societies. It has only been in the last few decades that we've had this gak popping up, and I'm much more willing to bet that denying our evolutionary instincts is much more damaging then following them.

Who's making the argument that gender differentiation is what leads to trauma?

Plus, if people left everyone else along there'd be no need for socially constructed norms, would there? You're defeating your own argument.

 djones520 wrote:

Anyways, Target is in the wrong in my eyes on this one. As others have said, they are going weak knee'd to a very vocal minority. The whole argument that "gender differentiation can lead to mental trauma of a child" is bs. Pure and simple bs. That has been the way of things since mankind began forming societies. It has only been in the last few decades that we've had this gak popping up, and I'm much more willing to bet that denying our evolutionary instincts is much more damaging then following them.
1

What's the evolutionary genetic code for "pink is a girls color"?

 d-usa wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Anyways, Target is in the wrong in my eyes on this one. As others have said, they are going weak knee'd to a very vocal minority. The whole argument that "gender differentiation can lead to mental trauma of a child" is bs. Pure and simple bs. That has been the way of things since mankind began forming societies. It has only been in the last few decades that we've had this gak popping up, and I'm much more willing to bet that denying our evolutionary instincts is much more damaging then following them.
1

What's the evolutionary genetic code for "pink is a girls color"?

It's right next to the "sugar and spice and everything nice" gene.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Anyways, Target is in the wrong in my eyes on this one. As others have said, they are going weak knee'd to a very vocal minority. The whole argument that "gender differentiation can lead to mental trauma of a child" is bs. Pure and simple bs. That has been the way of things since mankind began forming societies. It has only been in the last few decades that we've had this gak popping up, and I'm much more willing to bet that denying our evolutionary instincts is much more damaging then following them.

Who's making the argument that gender differentiation is what leads to trauma?

Plus, if people left everyone else along there'd be no need for socially constructed norms, would there? You're defeating your own argument.

A story I read earlier today brought it up as a point.

And your logic is pretty weak. I'm not pointing towards an abolition of society. I'm saying that roles evolved for a reason. Just waking up one day and denying them is going to cause more harm then embracing them.

 djones520 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Anyways, Target is in the wrong in my eyes on this one. As others have said, they are going weak knee'd to a very vocal minority. The whole argument that "gender differentiation can lead to mental trauma of a child" is bs. Pure and simple bs. That has been the way of things since mankind began forming societies. It has only been in the last few decades that we've had this gak popping up, and I'm much more willing to bet that denying our evolutionary instincts is much more damaging then following them.

Who's making the argument that gender differentiation is what leads to trauma?

Plus, if people left everyone else along there'd be no need for socially constructed norms, would there? You're defeating your own argument.

A story I read earlier today brought it up as a point.

And your logic is pretty weak. I'm not pointing towards an abolition of society. I'm saying that roles evolved for a reason. Just waking up one day and denying them is going to cause more harm then embracing them.

Again, that's an argument to tradition. Slavery was completely logical too. What's the rationale behind pressuring boys to not wear dresses?

 d-usa wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Anyways, Target is in the wrong in my eyes on this one. As others have said, they are going weak knee'd to a very vocal minority. The whole argument that "gender differentiation can lead to mental trauma of a child" is bs. Pure and simple bs. That has been the way of things since mankind began forming societies. It has only been in the last few decades that we've had this gak popping up, and I'm much more willing to bet that denying our evolutionary instincts is much more damaging then following them.
1

What's the evolutionary genetic code for "pink is a girls color"?

Not all evolution is genetic.

Gender differentiation is the most natural thing there is...without two genders, we couldn't reproduce and there is a huge difference between men and women, not only from genitalia point of view.

As said above, it's a PR stunt, nothing less.

In general, the whole gender-color thing is nothing but an overblown myth..by leftist id...eologists, as usual. Blue / pink has nothing to do with discriminating against any gender, it was a standard introduced by a company back a lot of years ago and people accepted it. That's all there is. It even was the other way around before.

Color-coding isn't bad thing per se, as in all things according to identity, given that it takes pressure away by making identifying with your gender easier - if we're primed to think that blue is made for boys, acting upon said premise reassures you. Basic psychology.

As previously stated, it's a very vocal, tiiiiiiny minority riding the bandwagon. And really, if we worry about stuff like "gender-coding", it looks like our society solved all problems that actually matter. Hooray!

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Anyways, Target is in the wrong in my eyes on this one. As others have said, they are going weak knee'd to a very vocal minority. The whole argument that "gender differentiation can lead to mental trauma of a child" is bs. Pure and simple bs. That has been the way of things since mankind began forming societies. It has only been in the last few decades that we've had this gak popping up, and I'm much more willing to bet that denying our evolutionary instincts is much more damaging then following them.

Who's making the argument that gender differentiation is what leads to trauma?

Plus, if people left everyone else along there'd be no need for socially constructed norms, would there? You're defeating your own argument.

A story I read earlier today brought it up as a point.

And your logic is pretty weak. I'm not pointing towards an abolition of society. I'm saying that roles evolved for a reason. Just waking up one day and denying them is going to cause more harm then embracing them.

Again, that's an argument to tradition. Slavery was completely logical too. What's the rationale behind pressuring boys to not wear dresses?

It all has a rationale. Discrimination is rational when looked at in the proper context. For a being that is capable of love and empathy, it's a lot easier to take that rock and bash in someone else's skull, in order to take their resources to make your life better, when you have a reason to hate them.

As society evolves, it won't need all of these things, but they will still always be there. We'll still always dehumanize those we're going to go kill. We do it here in Afghanistan. We did it in Iraq, and Vietnam, and Korea, and World War 2, and so forth and so on. But it is not at the fore front of our society today is it? No, because our society has largely realized that it no longer needs to be a continual part of our day to day lives. Gender roles due still play a part in our society though. They've become less important with increased industrialization, certainly, but they are still there. And there is nothing wrong with them. As others have pointed out in this discussion, there is nothing wrong with saying girls may like this toy better.

My 2 (almost 3) year old daughter for example. She got her first doll for Christmas this past year. We got her a stroller, doll, etc... those were the first "girl" toys we bought her. Until that point she had played with her brothers, their toys, etc. She latched right onto that thing, and loved it. She played with it so hard the stroller was broken within a week. We didn't force her to do it. We didn't cut off her access to the "boys" toys. It was as if it was pure instinct that the baby doll was hers to take care of. That it was more fulfilling for her then the cars, and the dinosaurs, and the other toys her brothers were playing with.

All I have to do is look at that example, and say that anyone who denies gender roles, is simply wrong. That two year old girl, who had until then played with nothing but "boy" toys, wanted to play with girl toys, with no coaxing at all. She wanted to play the mommy role. What is wrong with recognizing that?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Anyways, Target is in the wrong in my eyes on this one. As others have said, they are going weak knee'd to a very vocal minority. The whole argument that "gender differentiation can lead to mental trauma of a child" is bs. Pure and simple bs. That has been the way of things since mankind began forming societies. It has only been in the last few decades that we've had this gak popping up, and I'm much more willing to bet that denying our evolutionary instincts is much more damaging then following them.

Who's making the argument that gender differentiation is what leads to trauma?

Plus, if people left everyone else along there'd be no need for socially constructed norms, would there? You're defeating your own argument.

A story I read earlier today brought it up as a point.

And your logic is pretty weak. I'm not pointing towards an abolition of society. I'm saying that roles evolved for a reason. Just waking up one day and denying them is going to cause more harm then embracing them.

Again, that's an argument to tradition. Slavery was completely logical too. What's the rationale behind pressuring boys to not wear dresses?

Well, historically, men don't wear dresses just like women don't wear ties. What's the rationale for encouraging it, exactly? That's the real mystery. We're definitely turning into chicks faster than I thought possible. For example, it wasn't until recently that men started wearing scarves as a fashion statement, thanks to Lenny Kravitz and Johnny Depp. I say wear whatever you want--but just like the people with 13 face piercings, don't be confused and wildly offended when people give you strange looks.

Is there any real reason to market the stroller as a "girl" toy?

Is there something wrong with a boy wanting to play with a stroller and a baby doll?

Is there a reason to color code the section where you would buy the stroller as "girl"?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Anyways, Target is in the wrong in my eyes on this one. As others have said, they are going weak knee'd to a very vocal minority. The whole argument that "gender differentiation can lead to mental trauma of a child" is bs. Pure and simple bs. That has been the way of things since mankind began forming societies. It has only been in the last few decades that we've had this gak popping up, and I'm much more willing to bet that denying our evolutionary instincts is much more damaging then following them.

Who's making the argument that gender differentiation is what leads to trauma?

Plus, if people left everyone else along there'd be no need for socially constructed norms, would there? You're defeating your own argument.

A story I read earlier today brought it up as a point.

And your logic is pretty weak. I'm not pointing towards an abolition of society. I'm saying that roles evolved for a reason. Just waking up one day and denying them is going to cause more harm then embracing them.

Again, that's an argument to tradition. Slavery was completely logical too. What's the rationale behind pressuring boys to not wear dresses?

What's the rational behind shaking hands? Or clapping? Or any number of other ticks that people do.

Tradition is a perfectly acceptable reason to keep doing something. You have to have a reason to deviate from it. What's the rational behind the gender neutering of everything that wierdos keep pushing?

Tradition is useful and worth keeping as long as it does more good than harm. In that very case, re-assuring gender identitiy for millions far, far, far outweights the implied problems of a tiny minority.

And nobody is saying not to reassure gender identity, they are just saying that they will no longer market toys by gender.

People are outraged over something that isn't even happening. I don't think Walmart ever had the kind of labeling that Target had with their toys, and all those parents were able to figure it out and the kids shopping there turned out normal.

What's harmful are the people who pressured Target to do this. The action Target is doing is of course harmless, but the force that caused that action is anything but harmless.

 Grey Templar wrote:
What's harmful are the people who pressured Target to do this. The action Target is doing is of course harmless, but the force that caused that action is anything but harmless.

So people complaining about the change are harmful as well and Target would cause even more damage by caving in to yet another vocal group?

 cincydooley wrote:

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?

Probably... but that has honestly never EVER stopped me from doing that. Back when I was a skinny lad, after a ride on my road bike, if i'd forgotten extra kit in my jeep, I'd just head to lunch wearing my "spandex diaper" in public.



As for questioning the "norm" on clothing, I kind of get it... when it's come to clothing, it's gone entirely one direction. By this I mean, back when my grandmother was in school, girls wore dresses/skirts. That's it... PE class they were "allowed" sweat pants/shirts, and then promptly had to change back into "appropriate attire" By the time my dad was through high school (he graduated in 74) Women were allowed to be wearing pants/jeans, shorts and pretty much whatever. Eventually, it became the accepted norm that women wore pants as well. We even invented things like "Mom Jeans" in the 80s and 90s.

Why hasn't that been a two way street? Outside of Scotland, and a few more tribal areas of the world, men simply don't wear "skirts" or dresses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
I don't think Walmart ever had the kind of labeling that Target had with their toys, and all those parents were able to figure it out and the kids shopping there turned out normal.

Most toy stores, like walmart are actually quite sneaky about it... Take for instance the difference between a GI Joe and a Barbie... There's really not much difference if you really think about it. And yet, go to the toy section, and the area where GI Joe, Transformers and similar reside is labeled "Action Figures" and the section where Barbie and her "Friends" reside is labeled "Dolls" or "Dress up"

 Grey Templar wrote:
What's harmful are the people who pressured Target to do this. The action Target is doing is of course harmless, but the force that caused that action is anything but harmless.

What do you feel is harmful about communicating to a company that you don't want to shop in a store with gender differentiation in the Toy section?

If the situation were reversed, and a group of offended consumers asked KMart to start marketing to boys and girls separately , and KMart obliged, would you think that was harmful, as well?

 d-usa wrote:
Is there any real reason to market the stroller as a "girl" toy?

Is there something wrong with a boy wanting to play with a stroller and a baby doll?

Is there a reason to color code the section where you would buy the stroller as "girl"?

Changing the way a toy is marketed will not actually do anything. Given all the items that are marketed to adults as gender based products ( based on packaging colour, typset and shape) do you really think taking gender based marketing out of items marketed to children will make any difference? KIds like to ape adults , even if we try to go back to the grey overall way of trying to raise kids, the actions of us and society as a whole will reinforce gender bias.

Is there any reason tp colour code different cosmetic sections for adults or label them differently?Of course kids don't notice things adults do.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
What's harmful are the people who pressured Target to do this. The action Target is doing is of course harmless, but the force that caused that action is anything but harmless.

What do you feel is harmful about communicating to a company that you don't want to shop in a store with gender differentiation in the Toy section?

If the situation were reversed, and a group of offended consumers asked KMart to start marketing to boys and girls separately , and KMart obliged, would you think that was harmful, as well?

Its their incessant driving to remove gender differentiation like its some horrible oppressive thing that is harmful. Its because it is pushing for de-masculinity/de-femininity, which is wrong for many obvious reasons.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its because it is pushing for de-masculinity/de-femininity, which is wrong for many obvious reasons.

The notion that the world should be blind to gender and sex fell out of favor a long time ago, and was never especially popular to begin with. It's role in the development of modern social theory has been massively overwrought by the entertainment industry, traditionalists, and every person who has ever used the term "feminazi" without feeling dirty afterwards.

What LGBT advocates generally push for today is the disassociation of certain objects and preferences from gender identity, and an end to the characterization of the same as masculine, feminine, gay, straight, etc.

Good for Target. I like that a kid can go and pick whatever toys they think are awesome, without getting any kind of marketing message about what kind of toys those kids are supposed to like.

Two cents from my own two year old - it's pretty much impossible to avoid pushing some kind of gender bias on your kid. But whatever gender bias we've put on her is nothing compared to how girlie she is - she loves her little play kitchen and her tutu and tea parties and all that kind of girlie stuff.

And that's cool, the whole point is that kids gets to figure out what they like by themselves. That means some kids will defy traditional gender stereotypes, and other kids will embrace them. It's all cool, as long as no-one's being told what they ought to like.

 cincydooley wrote:
Though, I am probably going to get my daughter's ears pierced for her first birthday, and I've come to understand from Facebook that this also makes me an awful parent. I guess I have to deal with it.

Heh. We had our kid done at like 9 months. If we had our time over we probably would have done it sooner, it's way easier to do and keep clean before they're active.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bran Dawri wrote:
Tacos are much better if you make them yourself.

Sure, but making your own tacos takes effort, and that kind of defeats the whole idea behind tacos.

Also, I can sort of understand not using blue and pink paint anymore, but green and yellow? Those are gender-neutral colors AFAIK...

I guess if they use any colours to differentiate one section from another, then before long those colours will be seen as male and female. It's a bit like how pink used to be for boys and blue for girls.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Henry wrote:
Diet Coke for women, Mountain Dew for men.

All good points. One interesting story that supports what you were saying;

Diet Coke was marketed heavily to women as weight loss was mostly an issue that concerned women. That changed, and but Diet Coke gained little market share with men - the perception was that it was girly. Rather than make the advertising for Diet Coke more neutral and pick up the male market over time, Coke thought it was quicker and better to just make a new diet drink and marketed that at men - Coke Zero.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
Anyways, Target is in the wrong in my eyes on this one. As others have said, they are going weak knee'd to a very vocal minority.

I like how these anti-PC arguments always operate on an assumption that other people are just giving in to vocal critics. It isn't even considered that maybe, just maybe, the board and senior management of Target might actually believe in removing the gender differentiations.

The whole argument that "gender differentiation can lead to mental trauma of a child" is bs. Pure and simple bs. That has been the way of things since mankind began forming societies. It has only been in the last few decades that we've had this gak popping up, and I'm much more willing to bet that denying our evolutionary instincts is much more damaging then following them.

And for most of history the role of women has been extremely limited, for much of history they were little more than property. As we realised that was really fething nasty we stopped it. Shockingly no harm was done by denying those 'evolutionary instincts'.

When you force others to change their lives to keep you from being "offended" you are the bad person.

The change that's being forced on people is that they will no longer see lots of pink on the shelves in one part of the toy store. Claiming that it a huge imposition is fairly fething ridiculous.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
What's harmful are the people who pressured Target to do this. The action Target is doing is of course harmless, but the force that caused that action is anything but harmless.

What do you feel is harmful about communicating to a company that you don't want to shop in a store with gender differentiation in the Toy section?

If the situation were reversed, and a group of offended consumers asked KMart to start marketing to boys and girls separately , and KMart obliged, would you think that was harmful, as well?

Its their incessant driving to remove gender differentiation like its some horrible oppressive thing that is harmful. Its because it is pushing for de-masculinity/de-femininity, which is wrong for many obvious reasons.

I'm guessing the motivating factor for the offended parents here is not overall gender neutralization, but gender neutralization in the workforce?? I mean, I don't know if this is still the case, but when I was a kid, alot of the toys marketted to girls were assoociated with either beauty and cosmetics (ex Barbie) or domestic activitie (ex Easy Bake Oven) while alot of toys markettef to boys were about mimicking professional or blue collar jobs. I can see why a parent especially of a girl would not want to expose their children to those gender roles. I don't prtend to know the extent to which this is still true, as my exposure to children's toys is now limited to video and table top games.

 sebster wrote:

 Henry wrote:
Diet Coke for women, Mountain Dew for men.

All good points. One interesting story that supports what you were saying;

Diet Coke was marketed heavily to women as weight loss was mostly an issue that concerned women. That changed, and but Diet Coke gained little market share with men - the perception was that it was girly. Rather than make the advertising for Diet Coke more neutral and pick up the male market over time, Coke thought it was quicker and better to just make a new diet drink and marketed that at men - Coke Zero.

I think Dr. Pepper actually did a good job with their commercials for Diet Dr. Pepper... but then they came out with the line of "10" (Dr. Pepper 10, or some crap like that) and are kind of reverting into the "coke" stances.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I think Dr. Pepper actually did a good job with their commercials for Diet Dr. Pepper... but then they came out with the line of "10" (Dr. Pepper 10, or some crap like that) and are kind of reverting into the "coke" stances.

As an unrelated aside, have you guys tried that? It's pretty amazing. Usually soda tastes like soda, and diet soda tastes like a grosser version of that soda, but I think it's very hard to taste any difference between Dr. Pepper 10 and actual Dr. Pepper. Pretty good stuff.

 djones520 wrote:
I'm late to this but whatever, I'm in Afghanistan, so deal with it.

Anyways, Target is in the wrong in my eyes on this one. As others have said, they are going weak knee'd to a very vocal minority.

This isn't a new trick for Target really.

I don't know if I'm missing something, but I would imagine this was a pretty rational business decision.

First, there's a ton of overlap in toy interests between boys and girls. Admittedly, its more girls playing with boy toys, but there's plenty of examples going the other way. (My younger brother had a couple of the lego paradise sets as a kid, and he's a guns, trucks, and football married man) I think this is way to sell more toys, because kids, parents, and relatives buying gifts will be more likely to shop in more aisles. And the longer a person shops, the more they spend.

Second, its a way to further differentiate themselves from their main competitive, Walmart. In a time when political affiliation is increasingly polarized, that's not a bad play.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

As for questioning the "norm" on clothing, I kind of get it... when it's come to clothing, it's gone entirely one direction. By this I mean, back when my grandmother was in school, girls wore dresses/skirts. That's it... PE class they were "allowed" sweat pants/shirts, and then promptly had to change back into "appropriate attire" By the time my dad was through high school (he graduated in 74) Women were allowed to be wearing pants/jeans, shorts and pretty much whatever. Eventually, it became the accepted norm that women wore pants as well. We even invented things like "Mom Jeans" in the 80s and 90s.

Why hasn't that been a two way street? Outside of Scotland, and a few more tribal areas of the world, men simply don't wear "skirts" or dresses.

Part of it is probably that trousers are simply more practical to wear. Another part might be that while "It's okay for women to do traditionally male things" has a lot of traction, "It's okay for men to do traditionally female things." gets a lot more resistance. A woman doing male things is empowered, a man doing womanly things is seen as either strange, suspicious or ridiculous.

Too true Elemental. I was on sentry duty with an American colleague once and it was the first chance for us to both have a good chat. As is normal for US forces he was only going to do a few years service. When I asked what he wanted to do when he left he said "please don't laugh but I want to be a nurse."

To me that's a perfectly normal occupation for anybody, but to him it was seen as women's work and he was a little embarrassed by what he thought others would think of his ambition.