Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't like it - if I need a girl's birthday gift, I want to be in the 2 aisles that make it easier, not have to look through all 4 or 5. I'm male, so I'm a buyer, not a shopper.
As it stood before, most of the girls toy packaging were pink or purple already and it was obvious it was the girls' section. Please don't move them around randomly with boys stuff.
I just see Target's decision as more of a convenience issue. I think people are reading too much into it. If you look at toys these days so many more can be classified as "either or" for boys or girls. Sure, there are the traditional toys or rather the toys people think of as traditional as dolls for girls and toy guns for boys but these are kind of in the minority when you look at what kids play with today.
When I ask my nieces and nephews what I should get for their kids' birthdays and special occasions often they tell me the kids want gender neutral things like video games, sports equipment or books. They all seem to like action figures too. Sure some girls like Barbies. But it's not difficult to find Barbies in the dolls section of the toy department It doesn't have to say "Girls toys - Dolls." All it has to say is "Dolls." Same for whatever the boys might like. Label the departments, not the kids.
I just imagine if the store labels it's toy section so people know that's where the toys are and then further categorizes the toys under dolls, games, stuffed animals and what-have-you that's all that's necessary. The kids and parents can decide for themselves what they want. I don't think it's up to the stores to make the decision what is for girls and what is for boys any longer. Basically, that's what they have been doing all these years and that's not their job.
Yes, we've all heard of the Slippery Slope Fallacy. Some of us even recognize it for the nonsensical fallacy that it almost always is. Slippery slope - RationalWiki
Case in point - not too long ago, a coworker of mine informed me that allowing women to vote (way back in 1920) might well eventually mean we have to let dogs vote. Think about that for a moment - but then, for all I know you agree with such an absurdity. Do you?
Basically, the slippery slope drivel is invariably put forth by people who despise a particular change in society but can't actually think of a substantive reason to oppose that change, so they insist that it will lead to all manner of ills. Expand the rights of consenting adults to marry? OMG, people will soon be marrying trees and chairs and octopi! Raise the minimum wage to $10? OMG, then you'll have to raise it to $100 just because, and the economy will fall apart! Decriminalizing marijuana? OMG, then it's inevitable that crack and meth and heroin will be legalized!
Think. Just, for once, think. Take speed limits. Just because we decide that the speed limit can be raised to 75mph on some freeway, that doesn't mean we're flying down some horrible slippery slope to 150mph speed limits. Or increased sentencing. Just because the maximum punishment for a particular offense is increased from 10 to 20 years doesn't mean that pretty soon we'll be drawing and quartering people for it.
So, yeah, the slippery slope babble - we know. Now, got anything to say that, you know, actually makes sense?
The Slippery Slope isn't meant to be Logic. It's really a fairly common social phenomena. When the 1st anti-smoking laws passed, the slippery slopers predicted it would lead to a virtual ban. Not quite there yet, but we've sloped to where many said wouldn't happen. Same with seatbelts, drug testing, the income tax, safety net social programs, and other legal and social policies. Old enough people can even remember the slippery slope of Viet Nam.
I have no idea what the new Target policy is a slippery slope to. 'It's A Boy' on a pink balloon ? Customers can't buy a GI Joe unless they also buy a Barbie ? Frankly, if my Target has Girls vs Boys aisles, I've never noticed them.
I just see Target's decision as more of a convenience issue. I think people are reading too much into it.
Then you are being very naïve. Many of these kneejerk corporate decisions are made by PR/damage control firms so as to not upset the vocal minority who expresses displeasure. Many a time, corporate America has been shaken down by race merchants like Jackson & Sharpton.
In this case, it is a new front with sexual orientation and gender neutral types pushing their agenda. Heck some times all it takes is one person to complain, frame their grievance in a way that is sure to incite others to "join the cause" on social media, and the firestorm starts.
To think otherwise is to bury your head in the sand.
I don't like it - if I need a girl's birthday gift, I want to be in the 2 aisles that make it easier, not have to look through all 4 or 5. I'm male, so I'm a buyer, not a shopper.
As it stood before, most of the girls toy packaging were pink or purple already and it was obvious it was the girls' section. Please don't move them around randomly with boys stuff.
The packaging of individual toy items is not Target responsibility. It will not change unless the manufacturer decides to change it. Toys will not be randomly placed. If you are looking for Barbies, they are still together, in an aisle blindingly full of pink, glittery packaging. It will not have a sign telling you these are "girl toys". There will be a sign that says "Barbies". Similarly, of you are looking for Hot Wheels, they are together on an aisle labeled "toy cars" or even "Hot Wheels", not "boys toys".
Not much of a change and in fact pretty much aligned with most other retail establishments.
I don't like it - if I need a girl's birthday gift, I want to be in the 2 aisles that make it easier, not have to look through all 4 or 5. I'm male, so I'm a buyer, not a shopper.
As it stood before, most of the girls toy packaging were pink or purple already and it was obvious it was the girls' section. Please don't move them around randomly with boys stuff.
What if the girls you are buying for really wanted an action figure or Legos or a Nerf gun? Would you be able to figure out where to go?
From the early days in human development, men and women have been different to be able to survive as a species. Whether it be hunter/gathers vs. nurtures/childrearing, those differences helped us evolve into the dominate species.
However in todays controlled PC society, just the mere mention or implication that men are better at anything, brings derision. Yet say women are better at things(which is true of course), and it is accepted due to a liberal PC hypocritical standard.
`
Really?!?!?! GENDER differences allowed us to evolve into the dominate (sic) species? Find me a reputable source that says our success as a species is based on gender differences. I double dog dare ya!
Wait a minute. Can anyone explain the origin of the "pink is for girls and blue is for boys" concept? Who invented that concept? A color is a color. I would imagine that some clever person many years ago decided it would be a good idea to dress baby girls in pink and baby boys in blue because when they are infants, people can't tell the difference when babies are wearing diapers. Not that the babies give a hoot. All they care about is being fed, changed and cuddled.
So maybe some clever marketing genius decided that those colors would be a good idea to delineate toys by gender and people have been sheepishly following the trend ever since because that's what people do. I cannot for the life of me figure out why tiny ovens are more for girls than boys considering some of the best chefs in the world are men. Or why guns are considered boys' toys when there are plenty of female sharp-shooters.
Remember the slogan for "Slinky?" The last words of the song?
"......It's Slinky, it's Slinky; made for a girl and a boy."
Now they had the right idea about that toy. And they sold a lot of them I bet because Slinkies were targeted towards both genders. And for those of you who do remember, now you can't get that song out of your head. You're welcome.
Historically, boys were dressed in pink (up until the 1900's anyway) and blue was seen as the more delicate color for girls - pink was "passionate" for boys!
So yes, all this color stuff is completely arbitrary, made-up, b.s.....and yet people are VEHEMENT that we not mess up our kids by letting them wear certain colors!
Frankly, if my Target has Girls vs Boys aisles, I've never noticed them.
I noticed, but I didn't give a crap then and don't give a crap now.
Toys are toys.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
