Signs in a Toy shop changed after accusations of Sexism

Otis Driftwood

Deleted User wrote: »

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"

I dont know what age your son is Whoopsa but do you think if he was aged or that if he is aged say 7 or 8 and he asked for a Barbie playset for example for Christmas or birthday,whatever,would you be happy to buy it for him?

That also goes to anyone that has kids.

Id also like to say thanks to those that have made an effort to contribute to the thread in an adult and meaningful manner,its made some interesting reading for me so cheers.

Otis Driftwood

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

I dont know what age your son is Whoopsa but do you think if he was aged or that if he is aged say 7 or 8 and he asked for a Barbie playset for example for Christmas or birthday,whatever,would you be happy to buy it for him?

Well he died just before he turned 4 so I can't answer that. But he was big into both girls and boys toys, his favourite colour was pink. That was his personality and I don't think any parent should mess with that.

(sorry, I know I implied that I actually have a son, I meant hypothetically in my original post!)

Otis Driftwood

Im really sorry to hear that,I had no idea.

Otis Driftwood

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

Im really sorry to hear that,I had no idea.

Don't be! It's not your fault

strobe

sharper wrote: »

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.

Of course they are always full of kids and of course they are layed out that way for the parents.

"Mammy, mammy I want a Teddy Bear!"

*Mammy looks at the sign, sees where it says 'G - Soft Toys' and knows the G means ground floor and that the ground floor is the floor she entered on and that's where all the Teddy bears will be.*
Kids don't know that the G stands for ground floor. They probably don't know that 'B' stands for basement and that 'Interactive' is where the 'Donny Dino Teaches the Alphabet toy will be either.

Similarly a blue sign with a big '5 Boys' will probably mean very little to kids either. Parents know that's where the plastic M-16's will be.

Of course it is for the parents.

Like you say, lots of kids be running around toy shops. In a run of the mill toy shop in your experience do many of them stand right at the edge of where the boys section ends, unable to go any further, staring forlornly at the 'My First Kitchen' set? Do they ****, if they see a toy kitchen and they like it they take off like Ussain Bolt straight for it.

Clearly the sign and layout is for the parents. They are the ones that understand the concept of grouping products together. Most kids wouldn't even notice it.

sharper

strobe wrote: »

Like you say, lots of kids be running around toy shops. In your experience do many of them stand right at the edge of where the boys section ends staring forlornly at the 'My First Kitchen' set?

No of course not but that's why the whole situation varies wildly depending on the actual layout.

If you have two different floors (like the one in the original article) one for boys and one for girls then they have to make a conscious choice to go the "boy's floor" or the "girl's floor" to see whatever it is they want to see. It's not about them stopping dead at the point of separation or them being physically prevented going from one to the other: It's about the message we (as in society) send to kids about who they are and what they're supposed to do.

If you have an aisle for dolls next to an aisle for action figures it's quite a different thing, kids are going to run up and down looking at whatever they want. If boys have to go to the girl's floor to look at the toys they want it's probably not going to happen.

Put it another way, a boy living out in the countryside sees an ad for Easy Bake Oven. Him + family go into the city and to the toystore for the first time ever. Do you think he'd feel a bit odd that he has to go to the girl's floor (instead of the boy's) and go through aisles of pink and fluffy stuff to get a look at his oven?

We're talking about a subtle thing either way but I think it would make him feel like he's doing something wrong and that boys should go to the boys section and buy army men. He'd do this not because he likes playing with army men but because he likes the unconformable feeling of everyone knowing he likes "girl things" even less.

There are a thousand more subtle signals just like that built into the world telling people how to act and what to like. My argument is that this one signal is not all that significant but part of a greater whole that takes time to change.

I googled Easy Bake Oven to make sure I was using the name correctly and the ad for it sends a far stronger signal than any toy store layout http://www.hasbro.com/easy-bake/en_US/

Maybe someone will make enough of a stink to get Hasbro to change their advertising and there'll be another round of "Why does it matter?" but you see the problem: No one thing is all that important and someone has to make a lot of noise before it'll change.

strobe

Well Sharper, like I said, all I'm arguing is that the layouts in toy shops (and the signs explaining the layouts), whether that is on different floors in the case of massive stores like the one in the OP (massive multi level music instrument stores tend to put drums, guitars and pianos on separate floors, where as smaller ones put them in different sections of the same floor. Loads of types of shops follow the same pattern, it's not a toy shop thing) or different aisles in the case of smaller ones, is done so for the benefit of the parents. To make stuff easier for them to find.

If people want to put forward theories that this has negative knock on effects, and as to why they believe the effects are negative, I'm more than happy to listen. But that's not what I was talking about.

Dudess

I just don't see the point in categorising toys along gender lines as it's really quaint, but I certainly don't think it's offensive. As sexism goes, it's fairly benign and simply propagating an existing construct which is as old as the hills and will take a huge amount to deconstruct.
More practical though to categorise toy by type - although if the gendered floors remained and a boy wanted a Barbie, nothing to stop someone from getting it for him. Some girl's toys are very feminised - I think it's pretty disingenuous to say a gender has been thrust upon them, but some toys are gender neutral yet associated with one gender more than the other, e.g. train sets, hence my preference of a non gendered toy floor.
Reminds me of a social experiment involving chimps I once saw - girl chimps went for the dolls, boy chimps went for the toy cars. :pac:
Lol at the woman in the OP - fairly crackpot stuff that plays into the hands of feminist-haters. Despite her concern about stereotyping, she's seriously stereotypical herself.
There really are forms of sexism that are far more worth getting worked up over.

Zulu

sharper wrote: »

It's about the message we (as in society) send to kids about who they are and what they're supposed to do.

Hang on a min sharper: I don't think its fair to dismiss my previous point on the basis that we are only discussing one store, yet then go on to make the point that one toy shop is a talisman of how we as a society communicate with kids!

I think it's reasonablely safe to say that the original postesters "gripe" isn't that the toy store had hit a "sweet spot" in terms of size where it could accommodate toys marketed at a particular sex on a devoted floor, but rather she wanted toys to be available to both sexes in such a way as that the toy couldn't be considered a "boys" toy or a "girls" toy.

I can only guess that she'd prefer the shelves to be mixed in a "soilders/dolls/ben10/bratz/nerf guns/my little ponies" type fashion. This however wouldn't mitigate against her fears though, as the toy manufacturer markets their toys completely differently. For a start, every second item on that list is going to be primarily pink, while the other is going to have images of destruction. So assuming her crusade progresses, will she next cry for the colour pink to be banned from girls toys?

It could be argued that pink, or indeed any colour that dominates toys marketed to one sex in particular, warrants attention that would subliminally communicate that the toy was for one sex above another; that it would negatively influence a particular sex from wanting it; that it would act as a tool to segregate children.

...but the same could be said of absolutely any product for sale or otherwise today. Isn't the fundamental principle of marketing to make a product more appealing to its intended market? In fact, isn't that also a massive factor in product design?? So it boils down to designing toys.

Do we design toys for boy & girls, or for sexless children? On that point, all i can say is I'm glad I got to grow up playing with Snake Eyes, Quick Kick, Hit & Run, BBQ, and that SAS frogman that couldn't bend his arms & legs, but the plastic went matt in the bath and he looked like he was in a real wetsuit. And I’m guessing, as my wife still has her raggadieann doll, that I’m not the only one.

Maguined

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. 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.

I respectfully disagree, I think when kids are very young they don't care or notice such a division between boys or girls toys and just want what they want, I think it is only when they start getting older that they notice a distinction between the goups and it is at this stage that the parental influence comes into play as most parents come out with the usual "you are a girl you like pink stuff and barbie dolls, you shouldn't like boys things".

Parents are the overwhelming most influential force in a young child's development, if a parent explains to their child they are free to choose whatever toy they want I do not believe the child will bow to some "societal pressure" when in a toy store just because some sections are blue and others are pink.

sharper

Maguined wrote: »

I respectfully disagree, I think when kids are very young they don't care or notice such a division between boys or girls toys and just want what they want

I agree with this which is why I think external messages which tells kids "These are for boys, these are for girls" are unnecessary and unhelpful.

Parents are the overwhelming most influential force in a young child's development, if a parent explains to their child they are free to choose whatever toy they want I do not believe the child will bow to some "societal pressure" when in a toy store just because some sections are blue and others are pink.

I also agree with this, the effect of toy store layout in general is minor and obviously the effect of a single store is going to be very very small. Yet they won't change until there's some reason for them to.

ballsymchugh

reminds me of this case where parents are raising a genderless child

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389593/Kathy-Witterick-David-Stocker-raising-genderless-baby.html

it'd be interesting to see this kid tear around hamleys looking for whatever it wants to play with.

have hamley's said anything about this, or do they even know about that keyboard warrior? they may have just changed the sign as part of a refurbishment and it's all coincidence.

ballsymchugh

oh, and i'll just leave this here!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBmw_dvhnpk

LeeHoffmann

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?

OK. The protection element wasn't clear from your OP (or perhaps I didn't read it properly). I understand what you're saying about wanting to protect your (potential) kids - but you telling your kids 'those are girls toys - boys don't play with them' is just keeping the issue going - i.e. your children will then slag other children mercilessly if they see them playing with the 'wrong' toys because their Daddy told them.

There really is no such thing as boys toys, girls toys. We decide. I think boys and girls mostly play with stereotypical gender toys because those toys are the ones they're supplied with before they even have a chance to choose - e.g. I know so many people who put little dolls in the cots of female newborns. Studies have been done on how people react to female and male newborns - I don't have the links but I'm pretty sure I found out about them on a boards thread - when people thought the baby was male, theycommented on how strong the baby was, and speculated as to it's future career; when people thought the baby was femaqle, they commented on how pretty the baby was, very few people mentioned future career and the only one who did suggested the baby would become a beautician. It was the same baby. The point I'm making is that we steer kids in whatever direction we think correct. Boys (as young children) are encouraged to be active, to build structures, to be forceful; girls are encouraged to talk, be calm and reserved, and co-operate.

Other small points:
- both boys and girls play with dolls (girls have barbies, boys have action-men).
- I wasn't insinuating you were sexist Otis. You asked the question - I thought your action of telling kids not to play with the other gender's toys was sexist. I thought you were asking a genuine question - but I guess you meant it to be rhetorical?
- I agree with you about 'tomboy' being acceptable, while the male equivalent 'sissy' is not. Why is it so unacceptabel for a boy/man to have stereotypically feminine characteristics, while it's fine the other way around? What's so unacceptable or demeaning about being female?

Zulu

ballsymchugh wrote: »

reminds me of this case where parents are raising a genderless child.

or if you're interested this sad story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2000/boyturnedgirl_transcript.shtml
TL;DR: A boy suffers an accident & is reassigned a girl. Has the operation, and is raised as a girl. This is heralded as a success for the first 10 years. The girl has massive identity problems during teens and reverts to living as a man. Sadly commits suicide in the end.

Zulu

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

I think boys and girls mostly play with stereotypical gender toys because those toys are the ones they're supplied with before they even have a chance to choose - e.g. I know so many people who put little dolls in the cots of female newborns.

This is an interesting point, & I'm not sure I agree. Take my niece, she has two older brothers, so she's surrounded by traditionally "boys" toys (or toys designed & marketed for boys). So, while she may have been given a doll prior to being able to talk (I'm not sure on this), she has FAR more "boys" toys at her disposal. She still opts to ask santa for "girls" toys, and asks for "girls" toys for her birthday. When she play, she plays - mostly (although it's a mix & mash) - with her "girls" toys.

I don't believe her parents, or us (her extended family) "encourage" her in any way with her play. In fact, she very definatly "encourages" us in how we should play if we wish to join her.

strobe

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

Other small points:
- both boys and girls play with dolls (girls have barbies, boys have action-men).

:eek:

They are action figures!! :mad:

Dudess

BigDuffman wrote: »

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.

Isn't that in agreement with the blogger though?

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)

What would be feminazi about that? God I hate that expression.

Why would some here be concerned about their son wanting a girlie toy or their daughter wanting a masculine toy? Is it because it could make them gay?

Galvasean

Dudess wrote: »

Why would some here be concerned about their son wanting a girlie toy or their daughter wanting a masculine toy? Is it because it could make them gay?

Ottis mentioned for fear of their child being bullied over it, which I think is a fair enough concern to be honest.

Zulu

Dudess wrote: »

Why would some here be concerned about their son wanting a girlie toy or their daughter wanting a masculine toy? Is it because it could make them gay?

How does the toys a child plays with reflect their sexaulity?

Galvasean

Galvasean wrote: »

Ottis mentioned for fear of their child being bullied over it, which I think is a fair enough concern to be honest.

You know why this is though? because some people are unable to raise their kids properly, to raise them to accept and respect others. So the kids who are raised to be themselves are the ones who suffer!

Telling your son he isn't allowed to play with barbies because they're for girls is actually why he is probably the one who'll turn around and slag off the kid who's parents actually let him play with what he wants!

I know I'm probably not explaining myself properly

Zulu

Deleted User wrote: »

Telling your son he isn't allowed to play with barbies because they're for girls is actually why he is probably the one who'll turn around and slag off the kid who's parents actually let him play with what he wants!

I don't think thats not a justified comment or is fair. Protecting your kids causes them to bully?? I think a parent can both protect their children & raise them not to bully.

I know I'm probably not explaining myself properly

I'll give you the benfit of doubt so

Dudess

Zulu wrote: »

Dudess wrote: »

Why would some here be concerned about their son wanting a girlie toy or their daughter wanting a masculine toy? Is it because it could make them gay?

How does the toys a child plays with reflect their sexaulity?

It doesn't, but I'm wondering whether some believe it does.

Tony EH

Why is always women that raise a stink about these so-called issues? Really? It's not like female toys have actually changed in any significant way over the years. But male toys have to a huge degree. When I was a kid, you could get accurate representations of M-16's and pretty good die-cast tanks that looked like the real thing. My friend had this Tonka truck that was bloody brilliant and totally metal. It was as hard as nails and could take all the abuse we could give it. We loved it. But, "boys" toys have changed considerably down through the years,

At the end of the day, the kid will let you know what they want to play with.

When I was a boy, I LOVED action man, war, tanks, bombs, guns, Star Wars figures...blah blah, ad naseum.

However, I also wanted a Barbie or a Cindy (I didn't care). The reason being was my "playing world" lacked a female entity. It was an all male world which didn't reflect the reality I drew influence from. I lived in a world where females existed and my playing was based on films and life, etc. So women were needed, hence the "need" for a barbie and I couldn't have cared less what "section" it was bought in.

However, I object wholeheartedly to this type of nonsense that's typified in the OP. It's ridiculous and quite damaging in my honest opinion.

Bottle_of_Smoke

I think its a good thing. Boys and girls will get to come across things they like the look of that may have been in a section they previously never bothered with.

Hopefully this will lead to fewer women in the future being obessed with looking like barbie dolls....

Hey a a gorgeous brunette from my class has ruined herself in the last year with hydrogen peroxide. Forgive me if I'ma tad bitter :pac:

Zulu

Dudess wrote: »

It doesn't, but I'm wondering whether some believe it does.

now that is interesting! Mod or op, perhaps we could get an anonymous poll going?

Poll: Do you believe children can catch the gay from playing with the wrong toys?

It'd be very interesting

JuliusCaesar

Kev.OC wrote: »

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 outright sexist tendencies" O.D. mentioned.)

LOL

FYP


Barbie and Action Man are both dolls....

PseudoFamous

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Barbie and Action Man are both dolls....

No, action man is an action figure, Barbie is a doll.

Bottle_of_Smoke

PseudoFamous wrote: »

No, action man is an action figure, Barbie is a doll.

Its that kind of logic that has men wearing aftershave balm moisteriser

citytillidie

After visiting my local smyths i have noticed they changed then name of their asle names.

Gone is boys and girls and now its action and adventure, arts, crafts and construction cant remember what they called the alse with barbie and all on it

strobe

citytillidie wrote: »

After visiting my local smyths i have noticed they changed then name of their asle names.

Gone is boys and girls and now its action and adventure, arts, crafts and construction cant remember what they called the alse with barbie and all on it

I worked in Smyths 6 years ago in Tallaght and they didn't have sections labelled 'boy' or 'girl' then either.

Ostrom

The false assumption in many posts seems to be that any child - irrespective of culture or upbringing - will inevitably develop an innate capacity to distinguish gender specific items; this is simply not true. Gender is an outcome of socialisation which must derive from influences beyond and preexisting the child; gender norms have a history and are subject to change, the very fact of which renders the notion of innate gendering false (as distinct from sex which has a clear biological basis).

Zulu

efla wrote: »

The false assumption in many posts seems to be that any child - irrespective of culture or upbringing - will inevitably develop an innate capacity to distinguish gender specific items; this is simply not true.

Do you have any proof to back up that assertion, or are we to take you at your word?
I'm not saying you're wholly incorrect, however, there is some evidence to suggest your assertion mightn't be a concrete as you suggest.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2000/boyturnedgirl_transcript.shtml

Zulu

Zulu wrote: »

I don't think thats not a justified comment or is fair. Protecting your kids causes them to bully?? I think a parent can both protect their children & raise them not to bully.

I'll give you the benfit of doubt so

Apologies, I've only been online on my phone so couldn't reply properly before now.

No, I'm not saying protecting your kids is causing them to bully. Not at all. But you can certainly dissuade your child from playing with things, if that's what you want to do, without telling them "only girls play with dolls" etc telling them things like that, I feel, would make them say the same to another boy seen playing with dolls.

In an ideal world of course, all kids would play with whatever they wanted to play with and noone would bat an eyelid! But unfortunately that's never going to happen in my lifetime

source

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Its that kind of logic that has men wearing aftershave balm moisteriser

You obviously don't know what you're talking about, aftershave balm has been around since the days when straight razors were the norm. Usually Bay Rum or Witchhazel.

This is aftershave:

Aftershave describes a lotion, gel, balm, powder, or liquid used mainly by men after they have finished shaving. It may contain an antiseptic agent such as denatured alcohol or stearate citrate to prevent infection of cuts. Menthol is used in some varieties as well to numb damaged skin, and it is an ingredient that shaving cream manufacturers have started including in their formulations, too. Aftershave with alcohol also usually causes an immediate burning sensation in men who apply it post-shave—with effects sometimes lasting several minutes.

aftershave balm is the same but thicker liquid and often doesn't have alcohol in it. Conversely moisturiser is:

Moisturizers or emollients /ɨˈmɒliənts/ are complex mixtures of chemical agents specially designed to make the external layers of the skin (epidermis) softer and more pliable, by increasing its hydration (water content) by reducing evaporation. Naturally occurring skin lipids and sterols as well as artificial or natural oils, humectants, emollients, lubricants, etc. may be part of the composition of commercial skin moisturizers. They usually are available as commercial products for cosmetic and therapeutic uses, but can also be made at home using common pharmacy ingredients.

They're made differently from different ingredients and designed to do a very different job. So your argument is completely flawed.

LeeHoffmann

No, action man is an action figure, Barbie is a doll.

:pac:

Bad Panda

Was browsing on Pixmania the other day and saw they have 'boys toys' and 'girls toy's under their 'toys' tab.

Quick (!) someone (with nothing else to worry about) be outraged...

sharper

Bad Panda wrote: »

Was browsing on Pixmania the other day and saw they have 'boys toys' and 'girls toy's under their 'toys' tab.

I notice that lego is in the boy's section and not the girl's...

eviltwin

I grew up with older brothers so I always played with boys toys. It didn't make me a lesbian. I can be as feminine as any woman who grew up with dolls.

I have two of my own now...my teenage daughter never once had a doll. Not a lesbian either

My two year old boy however loves his dolls and having his nails done but also loves his tonka trucks and his toy cars. Is he destined to be gay??

They are just toys...don't sweat it.

The Internet Explorer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GECl_C7chrU

Zulu

sharper wrote: »

I notice that lego is in the boy's section and not the girl's...

Well I guess that's case-closed! If Pixminia say's it's a boys toy, it must be.

...wait, whats this? Pink lego ponies, and playfull puppies???
http://belville.lego.com/en-US/default.aspx?icmp=COFranchiseUSBelville
Don't you mean war horses that shoot missiles & ninja attack dogs???
http://kingdoms.lego.com/en-US/default.aspx?icmp=COFranchiseUSKingdoms

No? Maybe it's a toy for both boys & girls?
http://city.lego.com/en-US/Products/Default.aspx

gerryo777

Zulu wrote: »

now that is interesting! Mod or op, perhaps we could get an anonymous poll going?

Poll: Do you believe children can catch the gay from playing with the wrong toys?

It'd be very interesting

Careful now Ted, I got banned from the other thread for something similar and then got banned for longer for questioning the moderator!
F***ing PC morons.....

sharper

Zulu wrote: »

Well I guess that's case-closed! If Pixminia say's it's a boys toy, it must be.

Who said it was case closed? It's just an example of lego being categorised along gender lines. Once you start trying to figure out which toys are "for boys" and which are "for girls" you're going to end up with all sorts of sillyness which is why it's a silly idea in the first place.

Zulu

sharper wrote: »

Who said it was case closed? It's just an example of lego being categorised along gender lines. Once you start trying to figure out which toys are "for boys" ...

oh right, & here was I thinking that you were posting in an attempt to support your previous assertion that lego was a "boys" toy.

Was that not your point?

Otis Driftwood

gerryo777 wrote: »

Careful now Ted, I got banned from the other thread for something similar and then got banned for longer for questioning the moderator!
F***ing PC morons.....

Anything further from you along this line will result in a ban from this forum too.

sharper

Zulu wrote: »

oh right, & here was I thinking that you were posting in an attempt to support your previous assertion that lego was a "boys" toy.

Was that not your point?

My previous assertion was that Lego was a good example of something that was perceived as a boy's toy. I highlighted it just now to show that a situation in which a girl would have to go to the "boy's floor" amidst all the "boy things" to find Lego is not outlandish.

Obviously Lego is still, in your experience, not a boy's toy but then you're not running a toyshop. Once you have a boy/girl section you're going to get the owner/manager's preconceptions of boy/girl toys in them.

Dolbert

gerryo777 wrote: »

Careful now Ted, I got banned from the other thread for something similar and then got banned for longer for questioning the moderator!
F***ing PC morons.....

gerryo777 wrote:

Sure we'll end up with more butch lezzers and nancy boys then.....

Yeah, what you said was totally reasonable alright :rolleyes:

On topic, I thought it was generally considered best for small children if parents didn't force them to stop playing with the 'wrong' toys - yet the attitude above is shockingly prevalent. Do people honestly think that letting their child choose the opposite-gendered toy will turn them gay? The mind boggles...

gerryo777

Dolorous wrote: »

Yeah, what you said was totally reasonable alright :rolleyes:

On topic, I thought it was generally considered best for small children if parents didn't force them to stop playing with the 'wrong' toys - yet the attitude above is shockingly prevalent. Do people honestly think that letting their child choose the opposite-gendered toy will turn them gay? The mind boggles...

That was said 'tongue in cheek' and it didn't take long for the PC brigade to come down on top of me like a ton of bricks as expected. But sure this is the world we live in, it wouldn't do to upset anyone.

Otis Driftwood

gerryo777 wrote: »

That was said 'tongue in cheek' and it didn't take long for the PC brigade to come down on top of me like a ton of bricks as expected. But sure this is the world we live in, it wouldn't do to upset anyone.

Banned for 3 days.Do not question mod directions on thread when your ban gets lifted.

Bad Panda

sharper wrote: »

Who said it was case closed? It's just an example of lego being categorised along gender lines. Once you start trying to figure out which toys are "for boys" and which are "for girls" you're going to end up with all sorts of sillyness which is why it's a silly idea in the first place.

In the links Zulu provided - do you really think the pink pony lego is going to end up anywhere but the girls section as opposed to the on the 'boys floor' (even though I was referring to a website).

You're saying that ALL lego is perceived as being a boys toy. That might be half right given the amount of spaceships/planes/trucks etc there is for lego. That's because that's what boys are into.

A girl can't very well make a decent sized kitchen (for example) out of lego. It's unrealistic - given what most girls seem to be into. Or a doll, how are they supposed to make lego out of those?

The thing is, it's easy to replicate things boys (mostly) like with lego than it is with what girls like.