Harrods gender-neutral toy department

astrofool

Dolbert wrote: »

Nobody is saying that boys don't get doll toys too. The point is that girls don't get the likes of the 'mechablox' above, unless their parents are prepared to stray away from the pink aisle.

Why did Lego need to introduce girls' lego in the first place though? Not only pinker, it was also less technical and challenging. Doesn't that, by default, suggest that 'regular' Lego isn't for girls?

And boys don't get most of the art and craft toys that girls get as their parents don't wander over from the blue aisle. (do these aisles even exist anymore, Smyths certainly don't have them, Hamleys Dundrum have one floor, Lego in the middle with other construction toys, action toys on the left, computer games and fashion stuff on the right).

Because they wanted to increase their market share, I don't see anything less technical about the girls ranges at the moment than their equivalent boy ranges. Technic is fairly gender neutral.

Morgase

newport2 wrote: »

Fair enough, but surely up to the age of 12 shapes don't vary that much purely based on gender? Should we have gender neutral stores for pre teen children?

I'd see the pre-teen ages as a bit of a grey area, and at that stage kids probably have a bit more input on what clothes they wear. I just think it's odd to label clothes for small children i.e. babies/toddlers as for girls or for boys.

Morag

Boys don't get 'dolls' they get 'Action Figures'.

krudler

astrofool wrote: »

That image really annoys me.

Boys get just as many "doll" toys as girls.

Girls generally get much more art and craft toys then boys.

Lego have for years been trying to crack the "girl" market with different lines, most of them have silently gone away.

Thats actually true, I had TONSof toys that did nothing more than be action figures, my sister had lego, arts and craft stuff and those fashion designer and pretend hair design things (she was a hairdresser, works in childcare now). must have been the toys that moulded her into a stereotypical girl. or she liked all that stuff, I cant remember.

krudler

Dolbert wrote: »

Nobody is saying that boys don't get doll toys too. The point is that girls don't get the likes of the 'mechablox' above, unless their parents are prepared to stray away from the pink aisle.

Why did Lego need to introduce girls' lego in the first place though? Not only pinker, it was also less technical and challenging. Doesn't that, by default, suggest that 'regular' Lego isn't for girls?

one google search shows lego ads with both boys and girls in them,both playing with various shapes and constructions. if lego is seen as a boys toy (which it isnt) its not lego's fault. obviously if they find girls dont tend to be as interested they'll try make more "girly" lego, so its a no win situation for them.

Morag

That is how lego used to be advertised for girls.
This is how it is 'now' advertised for girl

http://shop.lego.com/en-US/Butterfly-Beauty-Shop-3187


Lego went from being Universal building blocks to sets with city's with cops, firemen,
and lots of active roles which traditionally are seen as men's jobs.
Most of the minifigs were men with the odd token female one so no wonder it can be hard for girls to be interested.

Dolbert

krudler wrote: »

Thats actually true, I had TONSof toys that did nothing more than be action figures, my sister had lego, arts and craft stuff and those fashion designer and pretend hair design things (she was a hairdresser, works in childcare now). must have been the toys that moulded her into a stereotypical girl. or she liked all that stuff, I cant remember.

For the last time no-one is saying girls don't like that stuff. What we are talking about here is a shop changing it's layout so that it no longer dictates what is a boy's/ girl's toy. That's it. Nobody is saying children can't play with X or Y, it's giving the kids more freedom to choose. Why some people (not you specifically) are up in arms about that is genuinely baffling.

krudler wrote: »

one google search shows lego ads with both boys and girls in them,both playing with various shapes and constructions. if lego is seen as a boys toy (which it isnt) its not lego's fault. obviously if they find girls dont tend to be as interested they'll try make more "girly" lego, so its a no win situation for them.

It is being advertised as a boy's toy in some quarters, in fact I wrote my initial blog post upon seeing the latest Argos ad.

“We’ve got toys for boys, like Lego and Meccano (cue shot of lots of cool, interesting toys), and toys for girls like Hello Kitty (sea of pink glittering barf).”

pickarooney

melmoth77 wrote: »

Heh, I remember getting a "Crystal Barbie" when younger and had great fun with her - I flipped her bath over to make a lab bench, and her perfumes became bottles of chemicals. Probably had more fun creating her lab out of ordinary materials than if she had been a straight "Science Barbie " (probably is one these days?).
To be honest I do think it makes more sense signing things as "dolls", "footballs" etc. I actually think a girl/boy section would be a bit confusing as there is quite a bit of crossover anyway. I think Smyths in Dublin (for example) do a pretty good job, they have Fashion & Dolls, Cars & Construction, Arts & Creativity etc. and there are no boy/girl labels as such.

Heisenbarbie

Princess Peach

Oh wow its computer software engineer Barbie! Girls can work in IT as long as their computer and I-Phone are pink and they wear glasses :pac:

Posy

woodchuck wrote: »

My experience with most toy shops in recent years has been that they do already have a lot of gender neutral sections; boardgames, arts and crafts, video games, teddies; just to name a few off the top of my head.

Because I never had any interest in dolls as a child (they didn't do anything!) I never really noticed a big divide with boys and girls toys- I LOVED lego, jigsaws, colouring books, board games and soft toys like teddy bears. None of these things seemed to me as gender specific.
I don't think I ever owned anything pink- there seems to have been a lot less pink in the 1980's, or maybe it's just how I remember it!

I was frequently given dolls from distant relatives. Dolls gave me the creeps!
I would draw all over the doll and then throw it somewhere. Eventually they got the message and gave me book tokens!

Sharrow wrote: »

That is how lego used to be advertised for girls.
This is how it is 'now' advertised for girl

That makes me sad.

krudler

Dolbert wrote: »

For the last time no-one is saying girls don't like that stuff. What we are talking about here is a shop changing it's layout so that it no longer dictates what is a boy's/ girl's toy. That's it. Nobody is saying children can't play with X or Y, it's giving the kids more freedom to choose. Why some people (not you specifically) are up in arms about that is genuinely baffling.

I'm not, I actually agree with it. But having worked in a toy store and other retail places its mostly to do with mechandising. The majority of customers dont expect to find lego in the Barbie aisle, or action man in the dolls section. I dont have an issue with kids being allowed to choose their own toys.
like I worked in hmv around the time the DS came out, and the amount of people who wanted the pink ones was insane, we had a huge backlog of them, we'd offer the black or white ones to girls who didnt want them, so is that a case of letting marketing dictate what girls like, or just a case of girls liking pink? I same as all the pink hair straighteners and assorted stuff aimed at women.
Kids at a very young age dont care what they play with, its as they get older that their perceptions of what are girls and boys toys change.

pickarooney

Sharrow wrote: »

Lego went from being Universal building blocks to sets with city's with cops, firemen,
and lots of active roles which traditionally are seen as men's jobs.
Most of the minifigs were men with the odd token female one so no wonder it can be hard for girls to be interested.

It seems as though Lego are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they include hairdressers and nurses and schoolteachers (and they did have these) they're gender stereotyping and if they have firefighters and police they're being exclusive. From what I recall, the majority of minifigs have/had no gender - with overalls, spacesuits, hard hats and scrubs you couldn't possibly tell. The odd one would have a long or short haired wig but whether that means male or female is down to your own perception. You could always chop and change in any case.

southsiderosie

I'm fascinated by this thread, as I have never been in a toy store with 'girls' and 'boys' sections. As far as I remember, the small independent toy stores I grew up by just had a jumble of learning-oriented games and toys, and the large chain stores were organized by item, not gender. The only distinct aisle I remember was the Barbie aisle because it was overwhelmingly pink, but I think that was just a marketing ploy.

Given how many people shop online for everything these days, I'm not sure how big of an issue the physical layout of of a store is anyway. The bigger issues are the idiot parents who get hysterical if their son wears a tutu or their daughter wants to play football at recess instead of jump rope. And that kind of mentality won't be changed by rearranging shop floors.

newport2

krudler wrote: »

like I worked in hmv around the time the DS came out, and the amount of people who wanted the pink ones was insane, we had a huge backlog of them, we'd offer the black or white ones to girls who didnt want them, so is that a case of letting marketing dictate what girls like, or just a case of girls liking pink? I same as all the pink hair straighteners and assorted stuff aimed at women.

I was helping my wife's friend buy a set of golf clubs recently. Her only criteria was that she did not want pink ones, with a pink bag, headcovers, etc. After a while looking with her, it appeared we had eliminated about 90% of the women's golf clubs sets on the market by not wanting pink! Too much of it out there.

krudler

southsiderosie wrote: »

I'm fascinated by this thread, as I have never been in a toy store with 'girls' and 'boys' sections. As far as I remember, the small independent toy stores I grew up by just had a jumble of learning-oriented games and toys, and the large chain stores were organized by item, not gender. The only distinct aisle I remember was the Barbie aisle because it was overwhelmingly pink, but I think that was just a marketing ploy.

Given how many people shop online for everything these days, I'm not sure how big of an issue the physical layout of of a store is anyway. The bigger issues are the idiot parents who get hysterical if their son wears a tutu or their daughter wants to play football at recess instead of jump rope. And that kind of mentality won't be changed by rearranging shop floors.

the shop I worked in went : bikes/toy cars etc, no differentiation with boys/girls. I built many a girls bike in my time in there. then action man/transformers/wwe figures, typical boys toys. Then lego/art kits which has no differentiation between boys and girls stuff, was all together. then barbie/dolls then nursery stuff. the lego aisle was between the boys and girls stuff.

Stench Blossoms

Princess Peach wrote: »

Oh wow its computer software engineer Barbie! Girls can work in IT as long as their computer and I-Phone are pink and they wear glasses :pac:

I'm a software engineer and my laptop is pink.

I don't see the problem with that.

Posy

newport2 wrote: »

I was helping my wife's friend buy a set of golf clubs recently. Her only criteria was that she did not want pink ones, with a pink bag, headcovers, etc. After a while looking with her, it appeared we had eliminated about 90% of the women's golf clubs sets on the market by not wanting pink! Too much of it out there.

I was looking for runners recently. Went to my local Lifestyle Sports- a whole wall of men's runners, for walking/running/training etc..
The women's section was a shelf down the back- about 10 pairs of runners, and they were almost all pink. I don't like pink!!!

I know lots of girls/women like pink, but it'd be nice to have a better choice!

Kooli

Posy wrote: »

I was looking for runners recently. Went to my local Lifestyle Sports- a whole wall of men's runners, for walking/running/training etc..
The women's section was a shelf down the back- about 10 pairs of runners, and they were almost all pink. I don't like pink!!!

I know lots of girls/women like pink, but it'd be nice to have a better choice!

I always feel sorry for all the red-headed kids out there who look awful in pink! (not all red-heads, but a certain colour of red hair - which I have - totally clashes with pink).
I think it's worse now than when I was a kid. To get a bike for a girl now, it's very difficult to get one that's not pink. And if you do find one, it's purple.

But I don't necessarily support a pink-backlash, or a kind of 'bragging' about not liking dolls or being a girl who preferred to play with boys toys. I don't see this as being about judgement, or about which is better/superior. It should be a neutral thing.

I just looooooove that old Lego ad above with the little girl!! You would never see that now!

cynder

If i go into symths of any toy store the babies toys are not split into boys and girls. They are all together boys/girls/ indifferent.

Toys for girls and boys are seperated after around age 2 you get boys and girls, mostly a barbie doll/baby doll asle and a cars/ action figures asle.

Then you get the tech aise (kids electronic learning equipment) which is for both boys and girls on the other side of the asle you get jigsaws and boardgames and lego, also for boys/girls and indifferent. Dress up and art is normally for both boys and girls or indifferent.

tbh its easier to find everything your looking for that way, i know to skip the dolls asle as my boys dont like dolls they like action figures. I know to skip the tech isle as everything in it is too young for my boys.

If you want to buy a boy a doll then go into the dolls aisle. simple! I dont see many kids going into buy their own xmas pressies, the layout makes it easier for parents to know where everything is.

saa

Things like this have never bothered me, I've always just made up my mind, a mix of gendered items but it wasn't until someone else made it into an issue it became an issue.

Some boys toys I liked as a child, some girls toys but I didn't really think of it as all the toys in my school were neutral and multicoloured, come on I think this boys colours verse pink things is a bit simplistic. Also the clothes were children's clothes and were all the same basically and interchangeable not mini adult versions but mad jumpers, jeans, plain runners, polo shirts, shorts and well I suppose us girls did have the pait skirts and tights but there is nothing wrong with that, nowadays jeans and (non zip) jumpers just don't suit my hips and bust.

I didn't think about girly clothes until I was in 6th class and that involved find a normal tee shirt with a girl design on it, and then tank tops and skirts for teen discos later, other wise I wore a lot of musical hoodies and strange granny like dresses and it wasn't until I was 17 and living in Dublin my french next door neighbour in the flat beside me told me I must get some new clothes and lose weight in order to be sexy!

I'll also never forget my parents arguing over my dad getting me a boy's toy (massive thunderbird ship) when I was three on Christmas, yes having a present taken away because it was marketed to the wrong gender, I didn't even notice I just thought hey I like that show, I like things that make noises and have little compartments..

Its the quality of the toy not the colour that counts regardless of what demographic the company aims it at.

melmoth77

pickarooney wrote: »

Heisenbarbie

Love it! :pac:

MadsL

Just on the hello kitty/pink thing. It is seriously getting out of hand in the US.
You can even get your AR-15 in pink.

Squ

MadsL wrote: »

Just on the hello kitty/pink thing. It is seriously getting out of hand in the US.
You can even get your AR-15 in pink.

Where there's demand, there's supply.

inmyday

Sharrow wrote: »

Lego went from being Universal building blocks to sets with city's with cops, firemen,
and lots of active roles which traditionally are seen as men's jobs.
Most of the minifigs were men with the odd token female one so no wonder it can be hard for girls to be interested.

I agree with your point Sharrow....

But if we take a step back and look away from the toys for children. Take Films for example, some films are aimed at females, and some for males. Also Tv shows, clothes, footwear etc. Men and women are divided is some ways.

And about, the lack of female engineers caption. It is not the fault of toy shops, but of parents. Same can be said for lack of males working in creches, male nurses, sectaries, receptionists etc.
The great thing about ireland right now is that a woman can do anything a man can do. An engineer, maths teacher, a labourer, a boxer etc.

Also why dont we have gender neutral public bathrooms? Why cant men wear pink skirts? Its just the way society is. As Society as a whole, the majority of adults will show their daughters one way and their sons another.


After reading that back, i dont think im making much sense, but im trying to make some points. Me no good at english! sorry. O and yes Im a male.

newport2

inmyday wrote: »

Why cant men wear pink skirts?

Cos we'd be lumped in with Mick Wallace and his pink-collar crime :eek:

LegacyUser

awec wrote: »

You are right, I probably shouldn't have quoted the post as it wasn't quite a direct reply to that specific one.

My point is:

1. Boys and girls are different
2. Boys and girls do like different things
3. Boys playing with prams and girls playing with boy toys is not the norm (I am not saying they are abnormal - they are just in the minority)
4. Some people try to pretend this isn't the case
5. Why are we changing what clearly isn't broken and has never been broken to accomodate the small minority?

Boy and Girls are not as different as you like to think. Toys for kids up to a certain age should be genderless because toys for young kids should be about teaching them how to use their bodies. How to hold things, how to pick things up, how to interact with objects. Gender makes no difference at a young age.

For older kids there are only a handful of toys that are really super gender focused, some considerable more then others, like Barbie and in the last few years lego. Lego is very interesting as for the 70's and 80's it was very much marketed as a toy for everyone but in the late 90's and onwards it became more and more focused on boys. There are a few great videos on youtube going through the development. Why is a toy that is about creativity being marketed to one gender? Toys should be divided up by age group not gender much like kids books sections are in book stores.

Musical toys, art and creative based toys, board games, video games, sports toys - there is no need for these to be super focused on one gender. After all Katie Taylors success were should any boxing focused toys be placed? Popular series like Harry Potter are focused on both genders. If a little girl wants to pick up a football why should she have to walk down an aisle painted blue and covered with pictures of boys playing football? Why can't it show kids of both genders playing football? A question also needs to be asked why so many "girls" toys are coloured pink. Why can't you find green, blue, yellow dolls? It's not just about making toys open to both genders but also about stopping this re-enforcment of set "rules" and notions of gender. Girls get pink doll at 4, gets pink pink at 8, gets pink phone as teen etc etc. If someone likes pink then let them pick the pink one but there should be choice there for those who aren't into bloody pink.

This little girl sums it up best - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3mTTIoB_oc

LittleBook

Sharrow wrote: »

Lego went from being Universal building blocks to sets with city's with cops, firemen, and lots of active roles which traditionally are seen as men's jobs.
Most of the minifigs were men with the odd token female one so no wonder it can be hard for girls to be interested.

Interesting. I've read about the years (and millions) Lego have spent completely re-designing in order to get girls more interested, when maybe all they had to do was expand the mini-figs to include a few more girl-ish mini-figs.

As it is, the new Friends lego mini-figs aren't even ... well ... mini-figs. They're mini-dolls in Lego sets which aren't even compatible with the traditional ones.

yawha

inmyday wrote: »

Its just the way society is.

Do you think this is a good reason for anything being a certain way?

inmyday

yawha wrote: »

Do you think this is a good reason for anything being a certain way?

Well no

I personally dont mind men wearing what they like, and women wearing and doing what they like. But as I said society is just a certain way.

Like for example, men cant wear shorts and sandles into pubs/clubs, but women can(robbed from a TGC thread). Its just the way it is.

yawha

But what's your point? We shouldn't try to change or challenge anything?

inmyday

yawha wrote: »

But what's your point? We shouldn't try to change or challenge anything?

No at all. We should. I made my point in post#125.

i just said its the way society is, didnt mean that it shouldnt be changed.

borderlinemeath

I do think it's the parents that push the gender divide rather than the kids themselves. My parents when I was small bought me dolls and prams but I was far more interested in my brothers dinky cars and trains.

One memory that stands out for me was Christmas when I was 5 - I got a very fancy dolls pram that had proper wheels and it even collapsed down to fold away. By lunchtime myself and my brother had decided that it worked better as a go-kart in it's folded position and we were pushing each other down the garden in it. I got given out hell to but we always had much more fun with it as a 'boys toy'.

cynder

cant log in now wrote: »

awec wrote: »

You are right, I probably shouldn't have quoted the post as it wasn't quite a direct reply to that specific one.

My point is:

1. Boys and girls are different
2. Boys and girls do like different things
3. Boys playing with prams and girls playing with boy toys is not the norm (I am not saying they are abnormal - they are just in the minority)
4. Some people try to pretend this isn't the case
5. Why are we changing what clearly isn't broken and has never been broken to accomodate the small minority?

Boy and Girls are not as different as you like to think. Toys for kids up to a certain age should be genderless because toys for young kids should be about teaching them how to use their bodies. How to hold things, how to pick things up, how to interact with objects. Gender makes no difference at a young age.

For older kids there are only a handful of toys that are really super gender focused, some considerable more then others, like Barbie and in the last few years lego. Lego is very interesting as for the 70's and 80's it was very much marketed as a toy for everyone but in the late 90's and onwards it became more and more focused on boys. There are a few great videos on youtube going through the development. Why is a toy that is about creativity being marketed to one gender? Toys should be divided up by age group not gender much like kids books sections are in book stores.

Musical toys, art and creative based toys, board games, video games, sports toys - there is no need for these to be super focused on one gender. After all Katie Taylors success were should any boxing focused toys be placed? Popular series like Harry Potter are focused on both genders. If a little girl wants to pick up a football why should she have to walk down an aisle painted blue and covered with pictures of boys playing football? Why can't it show kids of both genders playing football? A question also needs to be asked why so many "girls" toys are coloured pink. Why can't you find green, blue, yellow dolls? It's not just about making toys open to both genders but also about stopping this re-enforcment of set "rules" and notions of gender. Girls get pink doll at 4, gets pink pink at 8, gets pink phone as teen etc etc. If someone likes pink then let them pick the pink one but there should be choice there for those who aren't into bloody pink.

This little girl sums it up best - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3mTTIoB_oc

Most ballls are in the outdoor section for mixed genders/ gender neutral , they are not in a boys section. Yes you will get girls who want a pink ball and they normally have a variety of colours.


Music equipment has its own area and is also mixed genders/ gender neutral.


Children's toys under 3 are also mixed genders / gender neutral. They don't have a boys section or girls section for under 3s


( going by smyths, wow and toymaster layouts)


My own daughter loved cars at age 3 and I used to get her one car a week and guess what I went to the car/ action figure aisle to get it. I knew just where to find them, they had cars of every colour including fluorescent pink.

newport2

cant log in now wrote: »

Lego is very interesting as for the 70's and 80's it was very much marketed as a toy for everyone but in the late 90's and onwards it became more and more focused on boys.

Interesting point you make above, but what drove this? It surely wasn't Lego themselves, they want to sell the most Lego possible so why would they eliminate 50% of their potential clients? Did they determine they were going to sell more this way?

PrincessLola

Dolbert wrote: »

What's wrong with it is that if you look at the girl's aisle, it's nothing but vapid glittering pink crap. Which is fine if you're the type of little girl who enjoys that stuff. What's not fine is that being the only option marketed to girls.

Pro-tip: traditional femininity is not traditional masculinity's inferior

Okay, I agree with your post in general, there's just one little issue: pink and glittery does not equal "vapid"
I mean, I like certain things to be pink and glittery and I'm not vapid, I'm a total bamf. true facts. :cool:

Dolbert

PrincessLola wrote: »

Pro-tip: traditional femininity is not traditional masculinity's inferior

Yeah, I never said it was. Please don't put words in my mouth.

PrincessLola wrote:

Okay, I agree with your post in general, there's just one little issue: pink and glittery does not equal "vapid"

I didn't say that either. I said that that toys that I saw advertised for girls happened to be glittering, pink and vapid. I did not say they were vapid because they were glittering and pink.

LegacyUser

I don't have anything against what Harrods are doing, but just wondering if it really makes a difference at all. I think kids should play with whatever they want regardless of sex.
I have to say I haven't really noticed entire aisles being painted in separate pink and blue blocks, or any big signs saying girl's toys and boy's toys, but then again I guess I haven't been to every toy shop.

I never found very young children's toys being segregated, they all appear to be brightly coloured plastic crap that is unisex. Boardgames, teddy bears, electronic consoles, and art and craft appear to be unisex too. I have seen sections of baby dolls, and dress up dolls, and sections of monsters, and fire trucks but as far as I see it they could also be classed as being separated according to theme.
The baby dolls with a theme of playing pretend family, or playing bit of dress up with the dolls, the trucks and monsters if a kid wants to indulge in a bit of action themed make believe. But definitely nothing strongly suggesting that they were only for one sex.(in tv ads yes, but in shops no.) I think the separation of what sex a toy is for is sometimes more in a parent's mind than in the child's. I think left to their own devices a kid will pick up any toy they want if they have not been told by outside influences that there are girl toys and boy toys.

I will agree that certain toys are definitely advertised on TELEVISION as been more for a specific sex, but as this thread is about a shop's new layout, I will again say I just don't see how a layout will make any real difference.

People can say that it will make a child more comfortable/less judged buying a toy where everything seems to be more mixed, but as I can't imagine any child being able to afford to buy their own toys in Harrods, and their parent is there with them paying, it will still depend a lot on the parent on what gets bought.
If it is a parent who enforces gender stereotypes then they are not going to suddenly start encouraging their child to play with different toys, just because the shop has a different layout. The kid will still get a toy similar to toys they have always previously gotten.
If it is a more open minded parent who allows their child to play with anything that interests them, then I still don't see how a new shop layout will make a difference, as a parent like this would have always bought a mixture of toys regardless of sex for their child anyways, they won't just suddenly start doing it because of a shop layout.

For older kids who may shop on their own, a simple layout change is not going to suddenly make them forget that certain toys are seen as boys or girls, if when they go home they have mum or dad saying "that's a boy/girls toy", and they then turn on the telly to see adverts directing their toy to one sex, or if they hear similar from their friends.

Guess what I'm saying is that this move by Harrod's although well intentioned, is not really as big a deal as it's been made out to be. Tv advertising and the way a parent raises their child have a far bigger role to play. Changing the location of a few toys on shelves will not in my opinion change much at all, although I guess it is a small step in the right direction.

woodchuck

^ Well said

yawha

difference? wrote: »

Guess what I'm saying is that this move by Harrod's although well intentioned, is not really as big a deal as it's been made out to be.

Where was it made out to be a big deal?

DublinWriter

yawha wrote: »

Where was it made out to be a big deal?

...we're currently on page ten.

LegacyUser

yawha wrote: »

Where was it made out to be a big deal?

It was classed as a big enough enough deal that it is actually making several news articles online, and also this discussion thread for a start . Being described by a few people online (not just here on Boards) as "brilliant", "wonderful", "a massive step forward", and some people seeming to think that store moves like this could either completely solve gender stereotyping of children's toys, or else make a huge difference to what toys kids will have.
Maybe these people are right, just I personally can't see it having a huge impact at all. Don't think it is a bad idea at all though, just seems to be a bit overhyped imo. I know it's not like it's on every news station or anything, it's just that the opinions I have been reading relating to it seem to be investing too much expectation of what this new layout will actually achieve. As I said myself, I personally just don't see it as that revolutionary because imo it doesn't get to the root of the problem so won't be getting that excited about it.

Wibbs

difference? I approved your last anon posts, but normally we wouldn't as this is not the purpose for which the anon facility was introduced to the forum. It was specifically for regular users who wished to remain anonymous because they didn't want to be associated with their usernames because of very personal posts and the like.

The upshot being that I'll not be approving any more as it's against the spirit of the facility and we'd prefer if you registered and joined in.

FWIW I doubt I'd be alone in thinking you'd be an asset to the place, hence I approved your posts(I normally wouldn't TBH). So join in(sounds cultish:D).

yawha

difference? wrote: »

It was classed as a big enough enough deal that it is actually making several news articles online, and also this discussion thread for a start . Being described by a few people online (not just here on Boards) as "brilliant", "wonderful", "a massive step forward", and some people seeming to think that store moves like this could either completely solve gender stereotyping of children's toys, or else make a huge difference to what toys kids will have.
Maybe these people are right, just I personally can't see it having a huge impact at all. Don't think it is a bad idea at all though, just seems to be a bit overhyped imo. I know it's not like it's on every news station or anything, it's just that the opinions I have been reading relating to it seem to be investing too much expectation of what this new layout will actually achieve. As I said myself, I personally just don't see it as that revolutionary because imo it doesn't get to the root of the problem so won't be getting that excited about it.

No one company, and in fact, no one move by any organisation is going to eradicate the gender stereotyping of anything.

This is just another step in the gradual shift towards a society with less rigid gender roles. It's also a high profile department store, which gives it some additional significance. It's not a big deal, in that it's not going to single-handedly bring about massive change, but it's certainly noteworthy.

Also, in a way, exaggerations of how important it is are actually a positive thing, as it gets more people thinking about these things and moving towards making changes in how they raise their hypothetical children. The media coverage is much more important than the change itself.