• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

are toy stores sexist?

N

nageov3t

Lifer
or am I just being irrational?

I was in Toys R Us today, shopping for a birthday gift for my niece, and I noticed that the "girls" half of the store (eg: brightly decorated in pink with smiling girls on the covers of most products) had an entire subsection labeled as Cooking and Cleaning.

wtf is that shit? why do girls have toys that emulate grueling household labor while I can go over to the "boys" half and get her something fun instead, like a lightsaber or legos?
 
Crono said:
Not that I'm against girl toys, but LEGOs are awesome for everyone. Get her those.
Click to expand...

she's not really old enough for Legos yet, but I got her some "Cars" toys since she loved that movie (even though I had to trek into the boys section to find anything related to it)
 
My 3 year old girl has no interest in Barbie but enjoys Lego's, Thomas the Train, Lighning McQueen, butterflies and PlayDough. I don't think she's a tom boy but she just doesn't dig dolls. We don't keep buying Barbies in the hope that it'll eventually "take", we just get stuff that she's expressed an interest in.
 
Lightsabers and legos come in pink, too. There's also a game somewhere called Ballet Hero (or something like that) where the star of the game is a ballerina who kills the bad guys by kicking them with her toe shoes. (Toe shoes are lethal, if you've never been up close to them)

BTW, the Easy-Bake oven is a really awesome toy - or used to be, until they upgraded it and removed the light bulb. It went really well with a My First Chemistry Kit. Great explosions.

The answer to your question - why do girls, etc - is Marketing. Evidently male relatives prefer to purchase pink toys for their little girls.
 
loki8481 said:
wtf is that shit? why do girls have toys that emulate grueling household labor while I can go over to the "boys" half and get her something fun instead, like a lightsaber or legos?
Click to expand...

Actually, isn't it you being sexist? What makes one section for boys and the other for girls? You are looking at those sections and making that distinction.

Besides, girls are genetically predisposed to be the cookers and cleaners. It may be sexist, but it is also evolution.

-KeithP
 
They have boys' toys that emulate grueling manual labor...

plastic wood shop toys
construction site vehicles and pretend tools.


Just let kids play with whatever they want to play with. If a boy wants to play house; get him a toy stove. If your girl wants to play soldier; get her a toy gun. If you have no idea what toys the kid likes; get them: crayons, markers, clay, legos, silly putty, a calculus book, etc...
 
Toy stores are capitalist, not sexist. They sell what people buy. Maybe people buy sexist toys.

Kids emulate what they see. Little boys AND little girls like playing with toy kitchens. Making, serving and eating food is something they see every day and they want to copy that; it's part of the learning process.
 
keird said:
My 3 year old girl has no interest in Barbie but enjoys Lego's, Thomas the Train, Lighning McQueen, butterflies and PlayDough. I don't think she's a tom boy but she just doesn't dig dolls. We don't keep buying Barbies in the hope that it'll eventually "take", we just get stuff that she's expressed an interest in.
Click to expand...
Man, you should probably slap her if she DOES show interest in Barbie. That shit is more damaging to their brain than huffing paint.
 
Welcome to gender programming / gender role training, or whatever technical term they use nowadays.
 
loki8481 said:
or am I just being irrational?

I was in Toys R Us today, shopping for a birthday gift for my niece, and I noticed that the "girls" half of the store (eg: brightly decorated in pink with smiling girls on the covers of most products) had an entire subsection labeled as Cooking and Cleaning.

wtf is that shit? why do girls have toys that emulate grueling household labor while I can go over to the "boys" half and get her something fun instead, like a lightsaber or legos?
Click to expand...

Boys have toy tool sets and such.
 
Toys today need to teach them to have fun with cooking and cleaning.


You would only be making things harder for them in the long run, otherwise.
 
keird said:
My 3 year old girl has no interest in Barbie but enjoys Lego's, Thomas the Train, Lighning McQueen, butterflies and PlayDough. I don't think she's a tom boy but she just doesn't dig dolls. We don't keep buying Barbies in the hope that it'll eventually "take", we just get stuff that she's expressed an interest in.
Click to expand...

kids grow in phases.

My nephew (now 6), wanted a pink unicorn pillow pet for Christmas last year. D:
It was his main request.

Now, only a year later, he's all "WTF is this girl's shit--Now defend yourself from a Nerf dart barrage!"

😀
 
KeithP said:
Besides, girls are genetically predisposed to be the cookers and cleaners. It may be sexist, but it is also evolution.

-KeithP
Click to expand...

There is ZERO evidence of a genetic component to that. Best there is, so far, is a tendency for < 1 year olds to show preferences for gender-biased activities.

These studies amount to measuring the amount of focus time (time that a baby plants their eyes on a physical object) to gender-related items/symbols.


Basically, until we find a "sandwich making" gene, claims of genetic hard-wiring are a bit spurious.
 
zinfamous said:
There is ZERO evidence of a genetic component to that. Best there is, so far, is a tendency for < 1 year olds to show preferences for gender-biased activities.

These studies amount to measuring the amount of focus time (time that a baby plants their eyes on a physical object) to gender-related items/symbols.


Basically, until we find a "sandwich making" gene, claims of genetic hard-wiring are a bit spurious.
Click to expand...

well they've even found gender toy preferences with chimps and stuff, so its genetic.


look at atot, pen0r party..
 
zinfamous said:
There is ZERO evidence of a genetic component to that. Best there is, so far, is a tendency for < 1 year olds to show preferences for gender-biased activities.

These studies amount to measuring the amount of focus time (time that a baby plants their eyes on a physical object) to gender-related items/symbols.


Basically, until we find a "sandwich making" gene, claims of genetic hard-wiring are a bit spurious.
Click to expand...

Women have less testosterone. Testosterone is directly linked to aggressive, less subservient behavior.
 
AreaCode707 said:
Necessary versus sufficient.

It is necessary for a subservient person to lack aggression.
Lacking aggression is not sufficient to say that someone is subservient.

Logic much?
Click to expand...

I never argued that lacking testosterone made you necessarily subservient.

I simply argued that increased testosterone made it less likely you would be subservient.

And yes, I do logic quite a bit.

see:
Women have less testosterone. Testosterone is directly linked to aggressive, less subservient behavior.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing a totality (which you seem to think I am) I am explaining one of many causes for the differences about the mean.
 
My 13 year old has hated pink for years, refuses to wear anything pink. But, she's a girl, she can't stand boys right now 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top