Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Sexism you deal with in everyday life? ***Mod Note in first post. Please read***

1…1011131516…21

Comments

  • #362
    Lyaiera
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭Lyaiera


    true-or-false wrote: »
    I'd say that's more likely to just be a shelving issue. The sign above is clearly a relatively permanent sign, with the blue being painted onto the walls. They probably found a place for board games and never updated the sign above, or the whole shop is divided into boys/girls and they just arbitrarily chose the boys' section for family games.

    I do think it's sexist to divide the shop into boys/girls, but I sincerely doubt there's any significant message behind putting board games in the boys' section.

    That's what I'm hoping. Sectioning toys one way and another happens and it needs to change. However it'd be a backwards step to decide board games should be targeted at a particular gender.


  • #363
    wallycharlo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 344 ✭✭wallycharlo


    Lyaiera wrote: »
    Sectioning toys one way and another happens and it needs to change

    How prevalent is this?

    Granted, it's been a while since I have been in a toy store myself, but I don't ever recall seeing 'boy's toys' / 'girl's toys' shelf labels? Toys would have been naturally seperated in a logical way, i.e. your prams and dolls would reside on a different aisle than your guns and star wars, but I don't remember seeing any specific signage?

    I do know that there have been some high profile individual cases which have attracted media attention recently (I think it was Boots?).


  • #364
    Lyaiera
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭Lyaiera


    wallycharlo wrote: »
    How prevalent is this?

    Granted, it's been a while since I have been in a toy store myself, but I don't ever recall seeing 'boy's toys' / 'girl's toys' shelf labels? Toys would have been naturally seperated in a logical way, i.e. your prams and dolls would reside on a different aisle than your guns and star wars, but I don't remember seeing any specific signage?

    I do know that there have been some high profile individual cases which have attracted media attention recently (I think it was Boots?).

    The people I listen to on it say it's actually a more common occurrence in the past few years than it ever was in the 80s and 90s. And that's in both toy shops and advertising. Part of the complaint is the pinkification of branding. All girls toys are pink all boys toys are blue, and the same goes for the different areas of a shop. The most famous example is the probably the lego ad that was hailed as decent advertising.

    284599_10150269909434427_28123629426_7495356_40297_n.jpg

    Some people do get caught up on the pink, I don't have as much of a problem with it but when it's to the exclusion of all else comes the problem. I suppose I look at it from a marketing point as well because I'd hold advertising towards kids at a much higher standard than I would advertising towards adults. Kids are hugely influenced by advertising and in turn peer pressure so I think advertising and branding aimed at children needs to be far more responsible.


  • #365
    wallycharlo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 344 ✭✭wallycharlo


    Lyaiera wrote: »
    The people I listen to on it say it's actually a more common occurrence in the past few years than it ever was in the 80s and 90s

    That's very interesting, I would not ever have thought that, in fact it runs contrary to what I would have asssumed.

    i.e. in a way I could somehow imagine a time in the less PC past when such labeling / advertising had the intention of telling granny or gandad what was an appropriate toy for a grandchild etc, but these days it would seem pretty inappropriate.


  • #366
    Lyaiera
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭Lyaiera


    wallycharlo wrote: »
    That's very interesting, I would not ever have thought that, in fact it runs contrary to what I would have asssumed.

    i.e. in a way I could somehow imagine a time in the less PC past when such labeling / advertising had the intention of telling granny or gandad what was an appropriate toy for a grandchild etc, but these days it would seem pretty inappropriate.

    The way I would theorise it is that there's more competition now. Chinese manufacturing has become a lot cheaper in the last three decades which means a lot more competition. And ith competition from computers and computer games it means that there's far more products actually in the toy market so it's resulted in more aggressive marketing campaigns. One of the ways marketing gets more aggressive is by targeting certain sectors and demographics and going after them much harder rather than by taking a broad campaign and looking for it to have wide effect over many people.


  • Advertisement
  • #367
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,539 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Lyaiera wrote: »
    The way I would theorise it is that there's more competition now. Chinese manufacturing has become a lot cheaper in the last three decades which means a lot more competition. And ith competition from computers and computer games it means that there's far more products actually in the toy market so it's resulted in more aggressive marketing campaigns. One of the ways marketing gets more aggressive is by targeting certain sectors and demographics and going after them much harder rather than by taking a broad campaign and looking for it to have wide effect over many people.

    Definitely, I've only seen news about removing boy/girl signage in the last few years, and I'm 90% sure I've seen age range signage in the past too (as in "Boys 7-11"/"Girls 5-7", etc.), so I'd say it's largely for marketing. It probably also speeds up sales compared to browsing times.


  • #368
    astrofool
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 17,730 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    Lyaiera wrote: »
    The people I listen to on it say it's actually a more common occurrence in the past few years than it ever was in the 80s and 90s. And that's in both toy shops and advertising. Part of the complaint is the pinkification of branding. All girls toys are pink all boys toys are blue, and the same goes for the different areas of a shop. The most famous example is the probably the lego ad that was hailed as decent advertising.

    284599_10150269909434427_28123629426_7495356_40297_n.jpg

    Just to put a dampener on it, Lego have struggled for years in the Girls market, until they brought out the friends line, which outsold expectations: http://friends.lego.com/en-us/

    Though it's nice to see Hamleys Dundrum have it set up mostly right, in that the Lego is at the top of the stairs and not decked out in blue or pink.


  • #369
    Scarinae
    Hosted Moderators Posts: 11,362 ✭✭✭✭Scarinae


    astrofool wrote: »
    Though it's nice to see Hamleys Dundrum have it set up mostly right, in that the Lego is at the top of the stairs and not decked out in blue or pink.

    Hamleys in London made a conscious decision a couple of years back to stop labelling areas as for girls and for boys, I don’t know if it is the same in other stores in the chain. I started a thread about it at the time which is here


  • #370
    Pawwed Rig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,467 ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    Did it work for them? Are the stores still gender neutral after a few years? I would wonder if it had any effect on profits.


  • #371
    Morag
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 8,446 ✭✭✭Morag


    Some days it's just not worth reading comments, there is an article on the journal.ie about PMS and I know some women suffer horribly and it's rarely talk about, bar some really good threads in here but, the comments from men made me very angry and then sad. ffs we are the majority gender in the country, pms should be understood and not used to belittle women.


  • Advertisement
  • #372
    Scarinae
    Hosted Moderators Posts: 11,362 ✭✭✭✭Scarinae


    Pawwed Rig wrote: »
    Did it work for them? Are the stores still gender neutral after a few years? I would wonder if it had any effect on profits.

    Hmmm well according to this article in the New York Times last summer:
    Eight months after Hamleys replaced “girl” and “boy” signposts following an anti-stereotyping campaign, it overhauled it again: The second floor is now demarcated with bright pink. It doesn’t say “for girls.” But the dollhouses and kiddie makeup leave no doubt who the target group is.


  • #373
    LittleBook
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,716 ✭✭✭LittleBook


    astrofool wrote: »
    Just to put a dampener on it, Lego have struggled for years in the Girls market, until they brought out the friends line, which outsold expectations: http://friends.lego.com/en-us/

    And just to put a damper on that ... :)

    The problem with Lego is that in the early 90s they stopped marketing to girls when they moved away from the traditional blocks and the "City Life" range (still their biggest seller) that my friends and I grew up with (and loved!) and into the licensed theme markets ... pirates, ninjas, Star Wars, etc.

    When they realised in the early noughties that they were losing shítloads of money for the first time in years they started doing some market research which they never made public.

    What they found was ... shock horror ... girls were no longer playing with Lego. So instead of correcting the mistake they'd already made by making it gender specific, they perpetuated it with their Friends range.

    They actually had a Lego "Homemaker" set which they discontinued in 1982.

    "Friends" was successsful but I suspect that was more to do with lazy purchasing by adults than actually being chosen by kids ... I'd be interested to see what their sales figures are for this year, if this set is anything more than a well marketed flash-in-the-pan, I'll eat my Lego Hogwarts.

    There's little or no actual construction involved and they aren't even compatible with their other products, the whole point was to buy sets and build up!

    I've no doubt some girls like it but this "oh we did everything right but girls just weren't interested in Lego" they bandy about is cráp. This is pure and simple gender marketing by a company who've gone from that little red-headed girl to this:

    Lego%20Stickers.jpg


  • #374
    newport2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,642 ✭✭✭newport2


    wallycharlo wrote: »
    Lyaiera wrote:
    The people I listen to on it say it's actually a more common occurrence in the past few years than it ever was in the 80s and 90s

    That's very interesting, I would not ever have thought that, in fact it runs contrary to what I would have asssumed.

    i.e. in a way I could somehow imagine a time in the less PC past when such labeling / advertising had the intention of telling granny or gandad what was an appropriate toy for a grandchild etc, but these days it would seem pretty inappropriate.

    It does seem to go against current trends like you say, but I'd say a lot of it is down to marketing. The more they divide girls toys from boys toys, the more individual toys for each will be bought. Less bought for both and shared, handed down from sister to brother, etc. Making people (and children) feel that boys and girls toys are two separate things leads to more toys being purchased.


  • #375
    fits
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 14,350 ✭✭✭✭fits


    Morag wrote: »
    Some days it's just not worth reading comments, there is an article on the journal.ie about PMS and I know some women suffer horribly and it's rarely talk about, bar some really good threads in here but, the comments from men made me very angry and then sad. ffs we are the majority gender in the country, pms should be understood and not used to belittle women.

    comments can be a hellhole for misogynism at times. the Irish Times website suffers from this too a lot.

    https://subscriptions.boards.ie

    Subscribe and save boards.ie



  • #376
    newport2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,642 ✭✭✭newport2


    wallycharlo wrote: »
    That's very interesting, I would not ever have thought that, in fact it runs contrary to what I would have asssumed.

    i.e. in a way I could somehow imagine a time in the less PC past when such labeling / advertising had the intention of telling granny or gandad what was an appropriate toy for a grandchild etc, but these days it would seem pretty inappropriate.
    LittleBook wrote: »
    And just to put a damper on that ... :)

    The problem with Lego is that in the early 90s they stopped marketing to girls when they moved away from the traditional blocks and the "City Life" range (still their biggest seller) that my friends and I grew up with (and loved!) and into the licensed theme markets ... pirates, ninjas, Star Wars, etc.

    When they realised in the early noughties that they were losing shítloads of money for the first time in years they started doing some market research which they never made public.

    What they found was ... shock horror ... girls were no longer playing with Lego. So instead of correcting the mistake they'd already made by making it gender specific, they perpetuated it with their Friends range.

    They actually had a Lego "Homemaker" set which they discontinued in 1982.

    "Friends" was successsful but I suspect that was more to do with lazy purchasing by adults than actually being chosen by kids ... I'd be interested to see what their sales figures are for this year, if this set is anything more than a well marketed flash-in-the-pan, I'll eat my Lego Hogwarts.

    There's little or no actual construction involved and they aren't even compatible with their other products, the whole point was to buy sets and build up!

    I've no doubt some girls like it but this "oh we did everything right but girls just weren't interested in Lego" they bandy about is cráp. This is pure and simple gender marketing by a company who've gone from that little red-headed girl to this:

    Lego%20Stickers.jpg

    Why do you think they did it? (genuine question) They obviously thought that this route they took was going to lead to more sales, that's all they are interested in. At a very young age, girls do not think boys are cool and vica versa. Is the concept of gender neutral toys possibly less cool to kids? (not necessarily my opinion, just curious and wondering why).


  • #377
    LittleBook
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,716 ✭✭✭LittleBook


    newport2 wrote: »
    Why do you think they did it? (genuine question) They obviously thought that this route they took was going to lead to more sales, that's all they are interested in. At a very young age, girls do not think boys are cool and vica versa. Is the concept of gender neutral toys possibly less cool to kids? (not necessarily my opinion, just curious and wondering why).
    LittleBook wrote: »
    I've no doubt some girls like it but this "oh we did everything right but girls just weren't interested in Lego" they bandy about is cráp. This is pure and simple gender marketing by a company who've gone from that little red-headed girl to ["Hey Babe" Construction Worker]

    I agree with you. I disagree with Lego's explanation as to why girls drifted away from Lego and why they started producing this product, I find it completely disingenuous ... which is no more than I'd expect from any multi-billion dollar company but I ain't buying it. :)


  • #378
    newport2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,642 ✭✭✭newport2


    LittleBook wrote: »
    I agree with you. I disagree with Lego's explanation as to why girls drifted away from Lego and why they started producing this product, I find it completely disingenuous ... which is no more than I'd expect from any multi-billion dollar company but I ain't buying it. :)

    True, I wouldn't buy that excuse either. But I think it's possible that aiming a toy specifically at girls or at boys may be more effective in terms of sales than aiming at both. Doesn't justify it or make it less annoying, but a reason all the same.

    It doesn't change when you get older either. For example (though maybe a bad one :)), I'm sure a lot of shower-gel, shampoo, etc on the market is pretty much the same, but it's nearly all aimed at either women or men. Very rarely both. I think women are probably more likely to buy a product that proclaims to be exclusively for women that one that is for "everybody", and vica versa with men. Likewise, girls may be more likely to buy toys that are claimed to be exclusively for girls, boy for boys. After all, when they walk into any shop with their parents, they see women's sections and men's sections. Nearly everything is divided.

    I would hope that if you plonk a box of lego in front of your daughter that she would end up playing with it anyway, irregardless of whether she asked for it or not!


  • #379
    IvyTheTerrible
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,949 ✭✭✭✭IvyTheTerrible


    newport2 wrote: »
    True, I wouldn't buy that excuse either. But I think it's possible that aiming a toy specifically at girls or at boys may be more effective in terms of sales than aiming at both. Doesn't justify it or make it less annoying, but a reason all the same.

    It doesn't change when you get older either. For example (though maybe a bad one :)), I'm sure a lot of shower-gel, shampoo, etc on the market is pretty much the same, but it's nearly all aimed at either women or men. Very rarely both. I think women are probably more likely to buy a product that proclaims to be exclusively for women that one that is for "everybody", and vica versa with men. Likewise, girls may be more likely to buy toys that are claimed to be exclusively for girls, boy for boys. After all, when they walk into any shop with their parents, they see women's sections and men's sections. Nearly everything is divided.

    I would hope that if you plonk a box of lego in front of your daughter that she would end up playing with it anyway, irregardless of whether she asked for it or not!
    Another one I noticed is that razors are often dearer for "women's" versions than for men.


  • #380
    rainbow kirby
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,928 ✭✭✭✭rainbow kirby


    IvyTheTerrible wrote: »
    Another one I noticed is that razors are often dearer for "women's" versions than for men.

    And of poorer quality too!


  • #381
    Pawwed Rig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,467 ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    IvyTheTerrible wrote: »
    Another one I noticed is that razors are often dearer for "women's" versions than for men.

    Can a woman use a man's razor? Or are there differences with the functionality?
    I have found the branded razors in general to be way over priced so use the cheap disposables. I find no difference with the end result other than it is harder to get at the bit just under my nose.


  • Advertisement
  • #382
    IvyTheTerrible
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,949 ✭✭✭✭IvyTheTerrible


    Pawwed Rig wrote: »
    Can a woman use a man's razor? Or are there differences with the functionality?
    I have found the branded razors in general to be way over priced so use the cheap disposables. I find no difference with the end result other than it is harder to get at the bit just under my nose.
    Of course! :) Which is why I buy men's disposable razors.


  • #383
    Scarinae
    Hosted Moderators Posts: 11,362 ✭✭✭✭Scarinae


    The Gilette razor blades for men fit onto the Venus handle, so I will buy them if they’re cheaper (they often are). It might be the same with other brands too, I don’t know! I find I’m much more likely to accidentally cut myself with disposables


  • #384
    LittleBook
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,716 ✭✭✭LittleBook


    newport2 wrote: »
    True, I wouldn't buy that excuse either. But I think it's possible that aiming a toy specifically at girls or at boys may be more effective in terms of sales than aiming at both. Doesn't justify it or make it less annoying, but a reason all the same.

    It really, really is easier, there's no denying that. It might seem easier/quicker/cheaper to market the same product to every child in one go.

    But think of every hassled, tired adult who has to buy a present for their child/niece/nephew/godchild/etc. ... who finds themselves gobsmacked by the sheer variety and numbers of toys for sale ... who finds it just so much easier to grab something from the boys section for the boys and the girls section for the girls.

    I do think that children have a certain amount of buying power, but it's nowhere near the buying power that adults have and toy companies know this very well. At the end of the day, the decision to purchase rests with the adults and this system makes it easer for them for the most part.


  • #385
    confusticated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,682 ✭✭✭confusticated


    I actually found lego great for exactly that reason when I used to buy presents for kids I babysat etc. Big box of lego between them - job done. "Unisex" toys were so much less hassle because I'd just pick up 3 of the same sets of markers or paints, or 3 similar lego things, or a board game, no worrying about which were pink or blue. And it kept them playing together a lot too, so they were easier to mind! ;)
    Gone pretty OT though, sorry!


  • #386
    Chao
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 62 ✭✭Chao


    rainbow kirby wrote: »
    And of poorer quality too!

    I have to disagree, as a man I actually find womens razors easier on the skin. I always use the same ones as the gf LOL.


  • #387
    wallycharlo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 344 ✭✭wallycharlo


    Chao wrote: »
    I have to disagree, as a man I actually find womens razors easier on the skin. I always use the same ones as the gf LOL.

    I've heard plenty of stories of girls using their man's razor, but you don't come acorss the vica versa every day, fair play :D


  • #388
    Honey-ec
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,844 ✭✭✭Honey-ec


    IvyTheTerrible wrote: »
    Another one I noticed is that razors are often dearer for "women's" versions than for men.
    rainbow kirby wrote: »
    And of poorer quality too!

    The actual blades are the exact same, it's the giant lube strips and whatnot that are different on the women's versions.

    I've been using a Mach 3 for about 12 years now. If it ain't broke, and all that...


  • #389
    Chao
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 62 ✭✭Chao


    wallycharlo wrote: »
    I've heard plenty of stories of girls using their man's razor, but you don't come acorss the vica versa every day, fair play :D

    I find them way smoother anyway!


  • #390
    miamee
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Regional East Moderators, Regional North West Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 13,109 Mod ✭✭✭✭miamee


    We had to get a plumber out to the house to fix a leaky toilet during the week. My housemate (who has dealt with him before) was working late so I was to let him in. Let him in, he had a look at the problem, fixed it and then was telling me how it happened and what we'll need to do next time (it's a temporary fix). The entire time he was standing talking to me he was looking at my boobs. I thought I was imagining it but then he'd glance up at me and back to the boobs. Looked down and my vest under my chiffony blouse had come down a little and you could see the lace of my bra peeking up a little bit. Thinking this was it, I pulled the vest up while talking and while he was still looking. I don;t think he even registered that I had done anything - kept looking. Bizarre. I found it extremely odd rather than unsettling or intimidating. We were talking about a leaky toilet for feck sake!

    Needless to say, my (male) housemate will be dealing with him next time.


  • Advertisement
  • #391
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    miamee wrote: »
    We had to get a plumber out to the house to fix a leaky toilet during the week. My housemate (who has dealt with him before) was working late so I was to let him in. Let him in, he had a look at the problem, fixed it and then was telling me how it happened and what we'll need to do next time (it's a temporary fix). The entire time he was standing talking to me he was looking at my boobs. I thought I was imagining it but then he'd glance up at me and back to the boobs. Looked down and my vest under my chiffony blouse had come down a little and you could see the lace of my bra peeking up a little bit. Thinking this was it, I pulled the vest up while talking and while he was still looking. I don;t think he even registered that I had done anything - kept looking. Bizarre. I found it extremely odd rather than unsettling or intimidating. We were talking about a leaky toilet for feck sake!

    Needless to say, my (male) housemate will be dealing with him next time.

    Next time hire someone else!!!!!!


Advertisement