Signs in a Toy shop changed after accusations of Sexism

Otis Driftwood

Thread running in tLL on this at the moment so Id be interested in getting some male opinions on the subject.

Hamleys, the London toy shop, has removed the signs which divide boys’ toys from girls’ after protests by feminists that it was sexist stereotyping.

Instead of a “pink floor” for girls and a “blue floor” for boys, Hamleys has introduced plain white labelling with red lettering throughout.

Toys have been reorganised by type rather than which gender is expected to want to play with them.

Laura Nelson, a blogger who accused the firm of “gender apartheid” in October, was celebrating what she claimed as a victory yesterday.

She wrote: “In response to the campaign against categorisation of toys by gender and sexist stereotypes, Hamleys has changed its signage.”

However Hamleys denied the changes were prompted by her campaign and claimed that, instead, they were part of planned alterations to “improve customer flow”.

Nelson, who works for a healthcare charity, started her opposition because she said the “layout of the toyshop restricts children’s and parents’ choices and contributes to our society’s inequality”.

She wrote to the firm’s chief executive, Gudjon Reynisson, and Landsbanki, the Icelandic bank that holds a large stake in it.

She asked that toys be reorganised by type not gender; said the “girls’ floor” was focused on “domestic, caring and beauty activities” while the boys’ was “geared to action and war, with little scope for creativity”; said toy stereotypes influenced the behaviour of both children and parents; and citing precedents for change, including the case of a group of children in Sweden who persuaded Toys‘R’Us to alter its displays.

She said the issue gained ground when “parents, feminists, journalists, scientists” supported it and her blog was picked up on Mumsnet and Twitter.

Last week, she contacted the press office of Hamleys.

On December 11, she tweeted:

amazing!!!! I need to see this with my own eyes - still can't quite believe it. the campaign worked!!!!!!! )))))))

Yesterday, in a further post to claim victory, she said: “Congratulations everyone!

We still have work to do on the nature of the toys themselves, and the gender stereotyping of their marketing - but we have come to a milestone. Great work!”

A spokesperson for Hamleys said: “The changes to our signage were not due to any campaign.

“It was made clear to us from consultants’ and customer surveys that our store directional signage was confusing. As a result we commenced changing all our signage in October of this year in order to improve customer flow.”

Source.

So what do men think?

My own own thoughts is that it is overkill of the highest order and the person that started this "campaign" is nothing but a busy body with way too much time on her hands.

Like it or not,there are toys designed for boys and they are toys that are designed for girl,thats the way it always has been and I believe that is the way it will always be,for my life time at least.

The fact of the matter is that most boys will want to play with guns,action men,football related stuff etc and that most girls will be interested in dolls,fashion stuff etc.

There will be cross over of course but I cant really think of many/any under tens that I know that dont primarily play with toys designed for their gender.

If someday Im to have a son and he was to come to me and say he wanted a Barbie playset he would be told thats a girls toy and likewise if I ever have a daughter and she wanted guns or what ever,she would be discouraged.

Does that make me sexist or does it mean I have subconcious sexist tendencies?

Id be interested on hearing some thoughts on this,particularly from men that have kids themselves.

Kev.OC

Good God. I'm sorry, but that is absolutely ridiculous. In the world we live in today, yes there certainly is stereotyping, but come on, have these people nothing better to do with their time.

If i had kids, i wouldn't want my son playing with a Barbie doll. Likewise, i'd be a bit concerned if my daughter was playing with with Action Man. And, i'm sorry, but i don't see the harm in that. (Maybe that means i might have some of those "subconscious sexist tendencies" O.D. mentioned.)

On a bit of a side-note, this reminds me of something a cousin of mine said a few years ago. He was oven in Scotland working on a building site, and i remember him saying something about having to refer to manholes as "person holes". I dunno if it was said messing, or if there was something more to it, but this story reminds me of that. Just completely over-the-top political correctness.

sharper

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

The fact of the matter is that most boys will want to play with guns,action men,football related stuff etc and that most girls will be interested in dolls,fashion stuff etc.

Maybe so but why should a girl that wants to play with trucks need to walk into the "boys" section to get one? Why should a boy that wants a baking oven need to go to the "girls" section? Why do we need to tell kids boys do this and girls do that, let them go find the toys they want to play with wherever they are.

Is the person that fought this change a busybody? Probably but the reality is that changing society's view of gender is an arduous process that requires a degree of poking to keep going. The way a toystore lays out its stock is pretty harmless but it's part of a collection of factors than encourage enforce particular ways of acting depending on what's between your legs.

I don't find the "this is the way it's always been" argument compelling.

Does that make me sexist or does it mean I have subconcious sexist tendencies?

No but it mean that you consider girls who "want to play with guns,action men,football related stuff etc" are for other parents children and not your own. You plan to make sure they stick to their gender stereotypes without much regard for what they want to do.

sharper

Kev.OC wrote: »

Likewise, i'd be a bit concerned if my daughter was playing with with Action Man.

Concerned? If your daughter was climbing a tree you'd be concerned that she might fall and hurt herself.

What's the source of your concern if she was playing with Action Man?

Kev.OC

sharper wrote: »

Concerned? If your daughter was climbing a tree you'd be concerned that she might fall and hurt herself.

What's the source of your concern if she was playing with Action Man?

Ok, on reflection, "concerned" wasn't the right word to use. I've nothing against a young boy playing with a baking oven, or a young girl climbing trees. That being said, i'm willing to admit that personally i'm a bit old fashioned. I wouldn't like to see my son playing with a pink baking oven, if i had a choice in the matter, if i'm honest with you. Maybe that's just me.

But come on, a blue floor in the boys section and a pink one in the girls section, and that's called "gender apartheid". This is completely over-the-top. Maybe there shouldn't be such a bit distinction between the sections. Perhaps more of a "grey area" for some of the more ambiguous toys would be a better idea.

But i hardly think it's as big a deal as it's being made out to be. There are a lot of factors to be considered here, social norms people want their kids to conform with, etc, but i just don't get the fuss that's being made over this.

Another little completely irrelevant anecdote, when i had long hair i needed something to tie it back. I got those black elastic things. They came in a luminous pink cardboard pack. Is that sexist? Is that stereotyping, to assume men wouldn't want to buy those things? Why couldn't i get one in a manly deep blue?

In this world there are products manufactured specifically for men and products manufactured specifically for women. Sometimes these problems do the exact same thing. "Nivea For Men", for example. I'm pretty sure that does the exact same thing as the regular "Nivea". But men wouldn't buy it. Likewise you wouldn't see many women buying "Just For Men" hair dye. When the children that visit this toy shop grow up they're going to be subjected to this same sexist segregation. Or is the next step in this "campaign" to start working on reform the entire way up the ladder to our clothes shops and pharmacies.

Sonics2k

I think it was mostly over-kill really.

I admit parts of it where stupid, like the beauty salon in the girls area and should of been removed.

sharper

Kev.OC wrote: »

But come on, a blue floor in the boys section and a pink one in the girls section, and that's called "gender apartheid".

It's not just about the colour of the carpet though is it? It's about organising the toys by gender and then creating an environment to appeal to that gender. Boys aren't "supposed" to be wandering the girl section and girls aren't "supposed" to be wandering the boy section.

Gender apartheid is obviously a silly term but then the whole problem is that things don't change easily so it's the fanatical and slightly unhinged that are left to do it.

Neither you nor I are all that bothered about how toy stores are organised but we can also see that you're resistant to changing it for a number of reasons. For one you think boys should be boys so you don't agree the new way is better. For another you probably don't like radical viewpoints intruding in your life.

Is that sexist? Is that stereotyping, to assume men wouldn't want to buy those things?

A little bit yes and probably when someone with too much free time to devoted themselves to getting it changed it'll be changed.

Let's look at this another way though: Suppose the hair bands didn't just have pink packaging but in the shop they were in the midst of a section with all the other female stuff - women's shoes, dresses, lingerie and so on. Every time you have to buy a new one you have to walk in there. Do you suppose that would have any impact on your decision to grow your hair long? Would it make it clear to you that you were less of a man for doing so?

In this world there are products manufactured specifically for men and products manufactured specifically for women. Sometimes these problems do the exact same thing. "Nivea For Men", for example. I'm pretty sure that does the exact same thing as the regular "Nivea". But men wouldn't buy it. Likewise you wouldn't see many women buying "Just For Men" hair dye. When the children that visit this toy shop grow up they're going to be subjected to this same sexist segregation.

Advertising is not well known for being forward thinking or really anything other than pretty awful. Cosmetic companies think there might be a market in pushing what they already have to men with a bit of rebranding.

Or is the next step in this "campaign" to start working on reform the entire way up the ladder to our clothes shops and pharmacies.

Clothes have to be sized differently because of biological differences. A guy that wants to buy a dress probably isn't going to the average clothes shop for that reason alone.

Kev.OC

I think the point is here though, did it really need to be changed?

I can understand where you're coming from sharper, frankly you're making a good argument for it. But i just don't understand it.

Yes, it is stereotyping, and maybe it's not right, but that doesn't make it inherently wrong either.

In my opinion it's just over-the-top political correctness.

Daftendirekt

Calling the original layout "gender apartheid" is nothing short of hysterical. Toy shops have gender-divided layouts because it's presumed to be more convenient, not to intentionally enforce gender stereotypes. Nothing to stop kids crossing from one to the other.

In spite of that, I think the new layout does make sense. Kids don't care whether society deems a toy to be a boys' toy or a girls' toy. If they want something they want it, and it seems pointless to insist that they venture into the 'wrong' aisle to find it.

That said, I'm not going to lose any sleep if other toy stores don't follow suit.

The Big Red Button

In our house (three sons, four daughters) the only toys we were ever given were Meccano, Knex, Lego, and similar "boys" toys. (I'm a girl, by the way!)

We never thought twice about it, and certainly we never considered them to be boys toys. I do remember thinking it was a bit unfair that all my friends had massive Barbie collections and I didn't - but then I'd call to their houses to play with the Barbies, and it was the most boring thing ever, I just didn't get what we were supposed to do with them!

The thing is, though, if I had been brought to a toy store as a kid, and had seen that all of my favourite toys were in the "boys" section, I have to admit that I would have felt completely confused by it! I think I might have sort of felt that I was somehow doing something wrong by playing with them. Of course I don't feel that way at all now - but, as a kid, you can be very easily influenced by that sort of thing.

I remember, also, my younger brother getting very attached to one of those Tiny Tears dolls. Someone gave it to my sister, and she had no interest in it, whereas he loved to mind it and feed it and change its nappies! He was maybe five at the time. My parents never saw it as being in any way strange, nor did anyone else in our family, and it certainly doesn't seem to have had any lasting negative impact on him! To be honest, I think my parents may have been ahead of their time re. the whole gender equality thing!

I'm really not a fan of over-the-top political correctness, but I do see where they're coming from with this campaign. Wouldn't really lose any sleep over it at the same time though. In my opinion parents will always be the biggest influence when it comes to these issues.

Neonjack

Go to any department store in the country and they have sections labelled 'menswear' and 'ladieswear'. Maybe that should be changed too. :rolleyes:

Pawwed Rig

sharper wrote: »

Clothes have to be sized differently because of biological differences. A guy that wants to buy a dress probably isn't going to the average clothes shop for that reason alone.

I kinda like the idea of getting my Y fronts in the lingerie section of Dunnes Stores

Whatever about Barbie Dolls and Action Men I definitely think it is an issue where in the girls section of the Toy shop you have things like toy kitchens and toy irons and buggies etc. This definitely enforces the 'womans role' as the homemaker and minder stereotype for little girls. Then in the boys section you have the toy hammers, construction sets and other items that socialises the boy as the worker.

I would imagine that parents should be taking a bigger role in eliminating these stereotypes rather than relying on toy shops though.

pug_

Nelson, who works for a healthcare charity, started her opposition because she said the “layout of the toyshop restricts children’s and parents’ choices and contributes to our society’s inequality”.

There's a sweeping statement if ever I heard one, I'd be interested to see if there is any proof to substantiate a claim like that.

Yesterday, in a further post to claim victory, she said: “Congratulations everyone!

We still have work to do on the nature of the toys themselves, and the gender stereotyping of their marketing - but we have come to a milestone. Great work!”

And that right there is why people don't like this type of campaign. It comes across as arrogant and self congratulatory. If she was genuine about this and really wanted to make change for changes sake she could have been gracious and thanked the shop for making the decision to change the layout.

In general I disagree with the sentiment of the campaign. I do think there is gender stereotyping in the toy market and that it's not necessary a good thing, but it's not all down to the shops, it's pretty much engrained in our society, and personally I think a lot of it is based on our genetic make-up.

I have two kids myself, one boy and one girl, and obviously enough they have to play with each other a lot of the time. My son likes jumping, climbing, play fighting, all the things you'd consider boys games, and my daughter plays along to a certain extent but looses interest or just starts shouting at my son to stop when it gets too boisterous for her. Whereas my daughter is happiest when she's playing doctor or house, and again my son enjoys it a certain amount, but invariably tries to turn the game around after a while by putting the dolls in jail or something. I notice the same type of thing happens when their friends come over to play, even girl friends of my son (who is the eldest) will spend more time playing house with my daughter than my son who they came over to play with in the first place.

Is the boy/girl game divide purely learned behaviour introduced by society and peers? I don't know, but I kind of doubt it. As a race we have a long history of task separation built into our daily lives that is only really changing in the last few hundred years. Personally I'd need to see some proper research before I'd be convinced that every bit of our masculine/feminine make-up is completely learned behaviour.

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

If someday Im to have a son and he was to come to me and say he wanted a Barbie playset he would be told thats a girls toy and likewise if I ever have a daughter and she wanted guns or what ever,she would be discouraged

This I disagree with, personally I think kids should be allowed to play with whatever they want. Learning who you are and what you like and don't like is all part of growing up, and actively discouraging something a child wants to do can be counter-productive imo. Speaking from experience my son has played with washing machines, kitchens and dolls and is perfectly happy and well adjusted. My daughter has never played with anything masculine much but has lately started playing with my sons light sabre a bit, and I'm happy to let her do so.

Maguined

I think the person that campaigned for the change is definitely a busy body however I do not think the store making the change was overkill. It is a private business and they can conduct their business whatever way they like, I do not feel that private business have to push any societal agenda at all so do not agree with the campaign trying to make a gender debate on their business. If you do not like how a business is run then do not shop there, take your business elsewhere.

If I had kids I think I would try and direct them a little, not because of a gender bias but as others have said I mostly see "girls" toys as being crap and think "boys" toys probably encourage more technical imagination in kids better, there is more building and assembling, breaking things apart and slotting back together in different creative ways which in my opinion is way more fun and better for the kid that some Barbie doll you dress up and brush her hair. If my kid really wanted a doll though I would get it for them whether they were a boy or a girl, yes the boy might get slagged by other little boys but I would like to think I would use it as an opportunity to teach my child not to be overly worried about what other kids want and to learn to define themselves by their own opinions and be more independent thinking*.

*this is all hypothetical and wishful thinking of course, not having a child I have no idea if this would work out the way I would like but it's how I would like to do it.

Maguined

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I would imagine that parents should be taking a bigger role in eliminating these stereotypes rather than relying on toy shops though.

This is the bit that annoys me whenever these debates come up, it's up to parents to raise their children, not every tiny detail of society to change to the wishes of some peoples political ideals.

sharper

Maguined wrote: »

This is the bit that annoys me whenever these debates come up, it's up to parents to raise their children, not every tiny detail of society to change to the wishes of some peoples political ideals.

If the toystore had one floor for English children and another floor for Irish children you'd probably have a different view.

It's upto parents to raise their children yes but that doesn't mean every value every parent chooses to instil in their child is off limits for discussion, criticism or approval. In my experience the "Parents can raise their kids as they want" argument is a proxy for approval of the current behaviour under discussion.

The inertia of societal norms is enormous and takes a long time to correct. Someone mentioned above that ovens etc are still seen as girl's toys despite adult women no longer having the homemaker role for quite a while now. If you throw 100 girls and 100 boys into a room with various toys odds are more girls than boys will want to play with the oven but the whole point is about giving people the freedom to do what they want, not what other people have decided they should want. If all of the girls and none of the boys pick the oven then no harm has been done. If none of the girls and all of the boys pick the oven then also no harm has been done.

Galvasean

I noticed Smyths in Dublin labels aisles in terms of 'action figures', 'fashion & dolls' etc. I think it's a good move on behalf of the business. Some girls like GI Joes and Transformers while some boys do like Barbies*. They shouldn't have to walk into a gender specifically labeled section to get them. It certainly can't harm sales that's for sure.
That said, I agree with the poster who said the woman in the OP comes across as self-congratulatory. The whole phrasing of the campaign sounds like, "Look at me! Am'nt I great!" when in actuality it seems toy stores are by and large making the move by themselves to increase business as opposed to bowing to PC pressure or a will to end 'gender apartheid' or some such nonsense.

*I knew one such boy as a kid. Whenever he was over he would completely ignore my GI Joes, dinosaurs etc. and go straight for my sister's Barbies. Fast forward to adulthood and he's gay. I guess it's a sign that homosexuality is something that you have from the word go as opposed to something you pick up in later life, but I digress. His parents didn't buy him Barbies but he did have sisters so he played with theirs (life will find a way ). Since he had no interest in action figures the parents got him Lego every Christmas.

Bullseye1

The worst thing we ever did was give them the vote

PseudoFamous

Some things are designed for boys, some things are designed for girls. Putting the things designed for boys into a section labelled "Boys", and the things designed for girls into a section labelled "Girls" makes perfect sense to me. Subcategories in each section according to age also make perfect sense to me, i.e., 1-3, 4-7, etc., as some toys are designed for, for example, a girl between the ages of 8 and 11. It's just categorisation.

As discussed in another post, it would be absurd if clothes retailers described their inventory with unspecific names, "trousers and suit jackets" instead of "Menswear", or conversely, "dresses and lingerie" instead of "Ladieswear".

Maguined

sharper wrote: »

If the toystore had one floor for English children and another floor for Irish children you'd probably have a different view.

Not really to be honest, if a business wanted to have such a silly plan then my opinion would be to let them, if it offends their customers and their customers choose to take their business elsewhere then they have suffered for their actions. There would be nothing stopping the kids going to whatever floor they wanted to anyway.

sharper wrote: »

The inertia of societal norms is enormous and takes a long time to correct. Someone mentioned above that ovens etc are still seen as girl's toys despite adult women no longer having the homemaker role for quite a while now. If you throw 100 girls and 100 boys into a room with various toys odds are more girls than boys will want to play with the oven but the whole point is about giving people the freedom to do what they want, not what other people have decided they should want. If all of the girls and none of the boys pick the oven then no harm has been done. If none of the girls and all of the boys pick the oven then also no harm has been done.

The kids have the freedom to choose what toy they want in the toy store, just because a toy is on a different shelf does not mean the child has no access to it, the same toys are in the same store, it' only on what shelves they have been organised that has changed but the same freedom of access is still there in my opinion.

Zulu

Won't anyone think of the partents?!?

Simply put, having a "boys" isle & a "girls" isle is handy for adults, who for the most part are spending the money, to locate presents.

But if it upsets certain members of our society, we should probably change the wording to accodomate for their specific needs. :rolleyes: That said, in Smyths or other toy stores I never came across a "boys" isle, but rather a very obvious "pink" isle.

sharper

Maguined wrote: »

Not really to be honest, if a business wanted to have such a silly plan then my opinion would be to let them, if it offends their customers and their customers choose to take their business elsewhere then they have suffered for their actions. There would be nothing stopping the kids going to whatever floor they wanted to anyway.

I don't disagree - businesses have the right to layout their stores as they wish (though race/ethnicity would probably be outright illegal). What we're discussing though is whether one layout is in any sense better than the other and whether the means through which this change was achieved is acceptable.

I think that in most cases people are happy that the new layout is more sensible but are uneasy about the way it was done.

The kids have the freedom to choose what toy they want in the toy store, just because a toy is on a different shelf does not mean the child has no access to it, the same toys are in the same store, it' only on what shelves they have been organised that has changed but the same freedom of access is still there in my opinion.

Creation a section called "Girl's Toys" decorated in a way intended to appeal to girls has the effect of discouraging boys from going in there and vice-versa. They're forced to make an explicit choice to go looking for "Boy/Girl Toys" instead of just "Toys".

People understand signals like this even if not consciously. Boys and girls are being told what they should be playing with and a girl that wants to play with lego is being told she's less of a girl and more of boy for doing so. If you want to say "Toy stores have the legal right to do this" then sure they do, that's not the issue.

Zulu

sharper wrote: »

Boys and girls are being told what they should be playing with and a girl that wants to play with lego is being told she's less of a girl and more of boy for doing so.

Sorry, but where is this the case?

In the past 7/8 years since I've been buying toys, lego has pretty much had a isle to itself, and caters for both sexes. (In stores I've been in in Ireland, so unless this is vastly different outside Ireland...)

sharper

PseudoFamous wrote: »

As discussed in another post, it would be absurd if clothes retailers described their inventory with unspecific names, "trousers and suit jackets" instead of "Menswear", or conversely, "dresses and lingerie" instead of "Ladieswear".

A guy trying to buy trousers won't easily get a pair designed to fit women to fit him. A woman trying to buy trousers won't easily find a pair designed to fit men that fits her.

The separation makes logical sense based on measurable physical differences.

Why does a girl buying lego need to go to the "boys" section? There is nothing inherent in anything you'll find in that section that makes them unsuitable for girls.

Short version: Girls can choose to play with toys "intended" for boys. They cannot choose to wear trousers designed for men.

sharper

Zulu wrote: »

Sorry, but where is this the case?

In the past 7/8 years since I've been buying toys, lego has pretty much had a isle to itself, and caters for both sexes. (In stores I've been in in Ireland, so unless this is vastly different outside Ireland...)

It's an example, in place of lego you can subtitute any toy that would have been present exclusively on the "boys" or "girls" section.

PseudoFamous

sharper wrote: »

Creation a section called "Girl's Toys" decorated in a way intended to appeal to girls has the effect of discouraging boys from going in there and vice-versa.

The packaging and general design of the toys is designed to appeal to the target gender. Unless you want to further eliminate packaging and have nondescript cardboard boxes as the packaging, you're going to continue discouraging the untargeted audience.

Bad Panda

Hi all,

I actually read some of the thread in the Ladies Lounge. To say some of the posts in there were utterly ridiculous is an understatement.

Why is it always 'girls are serperated from boys and we can't allow this to happen' as opposed to 'boys stuff is seperated from girls' - if you get me! It seems it's only women to care about this.

I couldn't care less if boys and girls toys are seperated.

And then to keep pressing the point that toys like my little pony are for boys too. Come on!! They're NOT! End of story! Yes, boys can play with them if they wish, but their made to appeal to girls.

Hey guess what, boys and girls are different!

As for the woman who started this campaign, well..she'd be better focussing her energy on the more pressing issues in society, if she's that much time on her hands.

Zulu

sharper wrote: »

It's an example, in place of lego you can subtitute any toy that would have been present exclusively on the "boys" or "girls" section.

Well it's not a great example. Lego get's trotted out, often, as a boys toy to promote the argument that "girls are prevented from becoming engineers". It's not a boys toy. Not anymore at least, if it ever was.

From my Irish experience there is only a "pink" isle which is crammed with "girls" toys, ie: Bratz, Sylvainian families, baby dolls etc.
Other than that, its computer games & remote controlled toys, lego, board games and arts and crafts, buggies & bikes, and the closest to a "boys" isle is the army figures, dinky cars, & dinosaurs isle.

I've never (I used to work in a toy store when in college years ago, & more recently I've taken twin boys & their sister shopping), witnessed boys turning away from the pink isle (because of subliminal messages or otherwise), and similarly, my god daughter has never avoided any other isle.
Kids love toys and run rampant. They do tend to favour certain toys, but I'd wager that this is more due to advertising during cartoon TV than how the shop presents it's wares.

To be frank, I don’t believe the reason of “sexism” is valid. I think it’s the protester being too sensitive (probably due to her own experiences) and projecting something that’s not there.

Noffles

Amusingly I was banned for apparent trolling on LL when I stated this but.. does anyone find it strange talking about gender labels, when you're in a "ladies lounge" or a "gentlemen's club"...?

stimpson

This is utter nonsense, but I wouldn't expect any less from a shrill post-feminist. I've stopped posting on tLL because it makes me weep for the future of humanity to think that many otherwise intelligent women will fly off the handle with very little provocation.

I have a son that likes playing with trains. He also likes his bike and tools like Daddy's. He likes hitting things until he breaks them and then he likes to pretend he's fixing them with my tools. Most of my screwdrivers live in his toy chest.

Now he also likes to cook with my wife. Brink him into a toyshop and he'll happily stand at a toy kitchen and pretend to cook. Big deal. He's a child and he likes to play with whatever he likes to play with. If he has to go from one section of the shop to another to find the toys he likes then it's no real hardship.

People who try to raise their children as "gender neutral" are indulging in abuse as far as I'm concerned. Most boys like cars and guns. Most girls like dolls and tea parties. If you are trying to reprogram your kids then you are a fool.

sharper

Zulu wrote: »

Well it's not a great example. Lego get's trotted out, often, as a boys toy to promote the argument that "girls are prevented from becoming engineers". It's not a boys toy. Not anymore at least, if it ever was.

If it ever was? Come on you know well lego are a classic boy's toy.

As for the rest, we're talking about a specific store which had an explicit boy's and girls section. I'm not sure how your experience of stores without such sections does anything but reinforce the view that it should have been changed.

sharper

stimpson wrote: »

Now he also likes to cook with my wife. Brink him into a toyshop and he'll happily stand at a toy kitchen and pretend to cook. Big deal. He's a child and he likes to play with whatever he likes to play with. If he has to go from one section of the shop to another to find the toys he likes then it's no real hardship.

The store in question had a layout like this



If your son had to go to the "Girl's floor" and look for the toy kitchen amidst all the "girl toys" how long would it take for him to get the idea that boys aren't supposed to like cooking?

Zulu

sharper wrote: »

If it ever was? Come on you know well lego are a classic boy's toy.

How so?
It was building things. When I was little it was spaceships on the box, but generally bases for my other toys as quickly afterwards. Can girls not like spaceships?

In fact, now I think of it, in the early 80's (when I was little) we had:

• A few spaceships
• A police station
• A fire station
• A red technic car

I genuinly can't think of what other "sets" we had. How are any of them exclusivly "boys" toys?

As for the rest, we're talking about a specific store

I'm not. I'm talking about toy stores in Ireland. I've made that clear from the get-go

Bad Panda

sharper wrote: »

The store in question had a layout like this



If your son had to go to the "Girl's floor" and look for the toy kitchen amidst all the "girl toys" how long would it take for him to get the idea that boys aren't supposed to like cooking?

Like a normal person I'd explain to him that some things are aimed primarily at girls, some primarily aimed at boys, because things boys like are sometimes different to what girls like, but boys and girls and can choose any toys they want, from any section.

stimpson

sharper wrote: »

If your son had to go to the "Girl's floor" and look for the toy kitchen amidst all the "girl toys" how long would it take for him to get the idea that boys aren't supposed to like cooking?

I know how to handle a frying pan, so it's not like it's reinforced at home. Having said that, he doesn't get to watch toy ads on the telly either (CBeebies FTW) so it's not that he has been marketed to. He just likes "boy" toys. And kitchens.

It's maybe a little unfortunate that that particular toy shop has separate floors for boys and girls, but I'm sure that's more to do with practicalities than a sexist conspiracy. In the local Smyth's he is free to wander from aisle to aisle but his favourite toys happen to involve machinery and wheels.

padraig91

http://delilah-mj.blogspot.com/2011/12/campaign-success-hamleys-toyshop-scraps.html

thank god there is a link to the crazy woman's blog allow me to write a comment there telling her when to go


dammit it has to be sent to her for approval ah well she gets the message

stimpson

Looking at the sign, they have just changed the colours. Boys toys are still on 5th, 3rd has Barbies and Hello Kitty. And Game is still in the basement.

What exactly has been achieved apart from making a moron feel that she has made a difference?

Galvasean

FWIW, I dont ever recall LEGO being only for boys. I grew up in the late 80s -early 90s and LEGO was always for everybody. Boys and girls in my class would get LEGO for Christmas.

Zulu

Galvasean wrote: »

FWIW, I dont ever recall LEGO being only for boys.

I think some ladies regret they never asked Santa for it!

sharper

Zulu wrote: »

I'm not. I'm talking about toy stores in Ireland. I've made that clear from the get-go

It's pretty hard to argue for or against your experience of toy stores. Maybe they're all fine and maybe they're not.

BigDuffman

Seriously...what the hell has the PC lunacy in the world come to. When I have kids they can play with whatever the hell they want. They will not be forced to play with gender specific toys. I'm sure they will make the decision themselves.

Here's a generalization and by its nature.... its general. Boys are perfectly happy running around using sticks as guns and swords, they have been doing that since the creation of guns and swords, prior to this they merely used a stick as a stick. Girls (in my experience) are perfectly happy playing mammys and daddys etc but can also have fun running around with sticks bateing eachother.

Toy manufacturers design toys, like other product manufacturers design their wares. To appeal to a specific market. Since the dawn of time kids have been made toys that they want. Broadly speaking boys like swords and things, girls like dolls (enter femnazi that will harp on about liking swords as much as boys blah blah) so adults make these toys and give them to the kids.

Instead of an action man, if I was to give a 5 year old lad a unisex PC gender sensitive, activity figurine with the power to share housework equally, respect emotional needs. I can be pretty sure he will throw it back at in my face demanding more guns.

Likewise if I was to give a 5 year old girl a lego set to build a scale model of a tax office (I'm trying to think of a building that is "equality themed") as opposed princess fairy magic wonderland dolls house. I can imagine the results.

Politically correct my ar$e.

No off with me to enroll my son into the Womens Mini Marathon and enquire about joining the ICWA (Irish Country Womans Association) and give out when they are gender biased with regards to letting men in.

sam34

as per the charter, please stop complaining about the ladies lounge and those who post there.

anyone who continues to whinge about it will be banned, as per the charter.

no further warnings.

Zulu

sharper wrote: »

It's pretty hard to argue for or against your experience of toy stores. Maybe they're all fine and maybe they're not.

Hummm, that's a cop out, but so be it.
I'm talking about toy shops in general in Ireland. I think that's far enough to expand out the conversation. You were happy enough to entertain that up until a few posts ago. Hamleys store in London is one store that has a labelled "boys" floor & a "girls" floor.
In Ireland, we don't have this, we have a "pink" isle, and as such the protesters grievance is trivial, to say the least, when considered in the larger picture. Which is my point.

On another note: you haven't explained to me how lego is a "boys" toy. Is there something I'm missing?

sharper

Zulu wrote: »

You were happy enough to entertain that up until a few posts ago.

I was under the impression we were discussing the toystore in the first post of the thread, not your experiences of toy shops or various toy shops in Ireland. The more vague the detail the more impossible the discussion becomes. You say such and such a store is laid in such a way and you never seen whatever - this all your personal observation and experience which is inarguable.

On another note: you haven't explained to me how lego is a "boys" toy. Is there something I'm missing?

I said it was perceived as a boy's toy, in your experience it isn't. What else is there to discuss? I'm not trying to prove to you that it is and I already pointed out it was a throwaway example.

If you think it's a "cop out" so be it.

LeeHoffmann

If someday Im to have a son and he was to come to me and say he wanted a Barbie playset he would be told thats a girls toy and likewise if I ever have a daughter and she wanted guns or what ever,she would be discouraged.

Does that make me sexist or does it mean I have subconcious sexist tendencies?

Both. That's scary that you'd put them off the toys they want to play with because you think they've picked the 'wrong' one. :rolleyes: Why does it bother you?!

I despair

LeeHoffmann

.

Otis Driftwood

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

Both. That's scary that you'd put them off the toys they want to play with because you think they've picked the 'wrong' one. :rolleyes: Why does it bother you?!

I despair

Because I know how cruel kids can be.The fact is that in general boys will play with boys toys and vice versa,a child that is different in any way is usually singled out,why wouldnt I want to try and protect any kids I may have as much as I possibly could?It doesnt make me a bad person and it sure as hell doesnt make me sexist and I resent the insinuation tbh.

I dont mean that I wouldnt let a 3 or 4 year old play with certain toys but I think that when kids begin to get older that it would be perfectly fine to say to them that certain toys arent designed for them.

I will also say that I reckon its much easier for girls to play with boys things than vice versa.Tom boy is a common saying and its always ment in an affectionate manner,is there a male equivalent of a tom boy?

Zulu

sharper wrote: »

I was under the impression we were discussing the toystore in the first post of the thread

We, or at least I, was discussing the concept of sexism in a toy store viz a "girls" isle or a "pink" isle, & the perceived impact this has on society as a whole.

I don't see the problem of broadening the conversation to include Irish toy shops. If you only wish to discuss Hamleys in London, then her protests are even more trivial, as it's only one toy shop.

You say such and such a store is laid in such a way and you never seen whatever - this all your personal observation and experience which is inarguable.

Everything that anyone discusses could be considered personal observation & experience, so by that reckoning, there is no point discussing anything.

You are being deliberately obtuse, which is a pity, because the topic is considerably interesting & worthy of further discussion.

strobe

sharper wrote: »

Maybe so but why should a girl that wants to play with trucks need to walk into the "boys" section to get one? Why should a boy that wants a baking oven need to go to the "girls" section? Why do we need to tell kids boys do this and girls do that, let them go find the toys they want to play with wherever they are.

Daftendirekt wrote: »

In spite of that, I think the new layout does make sense. Kids don't care whether society deems a toy to be a boys' toy or a girls' toy. If they want something they want it, and it seems pointless to insist that they venture into the 'wrong' aisle to find it.

They are layed out that way for the parents, not for the kids. It's the parents that buy the shit and the parents don't suffer emotional trauma from being forced to venture into the "girls" section to buy a doll.

There is no more intent behind it than having coffee and toothpaste in separate sections in a supermarket.

I can understand to a point the argument for not segregating by gender, but it is handier. I have never noticed the fact that it specifically says boys or girls in hamleys, but in Smyths, where it doesn't say it, my daughter always goes to (and says "im to going to")the boys aisle to look at toys, she has no interest in girls toys. I don't take issue with them being called boys toys, if you raise your kids well, they will be confident enough not to care what it says on a sign and to be comfortable with who they are. I would feel the same if my son was playing with "girls toys"

sharper

Zulu wrote: »

If you only wish to discuss Hamleys in London, then her protests are even more trivial, as it's only one toy shop.

It's the one toyshop someone say fit to make a fuss over having it change, that would suggest all the objections to it are also trivial.

I don't have kids, I don't hang out in toy shops Irish or otherwise so I have nothing to add to that discussion. The article in the original post gave information about how it was organised, the campaign to change it and people posted mostly to disagree with that change. I'm interested in what people think about this case and why they think that.

strobe wrote: »

They are layed out that way for the parents, not for the kids. It's the parents that buy the shit and the parents don't suffer emotional trauma from being forced to venture into the "girls" section to buy a doll.

Even my very limited experience of toy shops says they're full of kids. The argument that toy shops are built to appeal to and cater to adults doesn't really strike me as true.