Would you say a sign saying 'girls toys' is inappropriate?

[Halibut]

2 minutes ago, carosio said:

Nevertheless, we do have differences (apart from physical) and should these be enhanced or suppressed?

What are you saying the non physical differences are?

[Cyclone]

3 minutes ago, carosio said:

Nevertheless, we do have differences (apart from physical) and should these be enhanced or suppressed?

People have differences, they exist along a spectrum.  Why would you try to either enhance or suppress those differences, and why do it with toys?  Why not just have toys that are labelled toys?

[carosio]

5 minutes ago, Halibut said:

What are you saying the non physical differences are?

Well, I admit I can't be specific, but there are natural tendencies which lead us into being masculine and feminine. Men do want to be different from women, and vise versa.

[Vaati]

Back on topic

[carosio]

6 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

People have differences, they exist along a spectrum.  Why would you try to either enhance or suppress those differences, and why do it with toys?  Why not just have toys that are labelled toys?

If you try to eradicate the differences then I would say that some kind of unisex or monosex would result, which I think is undesirable.

[Guest makapaka]

1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

See the subsequent posts to that one, where it's pointed out that boys are disadvantaged by the stereotyping of toys (although not as much as girls).

 

It's not that traditional female roles are worth any less.  It's that girls are disadvantaged educationally and then subsequently in the workplace, and although I don't consider care giving or home making to be worth less than earning, society does.

 

Fortunately when I was a child the gender stereotyping of toys wasn't very prevalent.  It had a resurgence in the mid to late 80's.

The marketing of girls and boys toys isn’t the issue - it’s like arguing that if you Wednesday played Man U and swapped kits Wednesday would be more advantaged.

 

i mean if this resurgence only occurred 30 years ago as you state - presumably we should currently have a generation of people unaffected by it shouldn’t we?

 

It’s about skills as a parent - not how the toy shops label aisles.

[Cyclone]

36 minutes ago, carosio said:

If you try to eradicate the differences then I would say that some kind of unisex or monosex would result, which I think is undesirable.

Nobody said anything about eradicating differences.  This is about not gender stereotyping children's toys unnecessarily.

 

31 minutes ago, makapaka said:

The marketing of girls and boys toys isn’t the issue - it’s like arguing that if you Wednesday played Man U and swapped kits Wednesday would be more advantaged.

 

i mean if this resurgence only occurred 30 years ago as you state - presumably we should currently have a generation of people unaffected by it shouldn’t we?

 

It’s about skills as a parent - not how the toy shops label aisles.

It is an issue.  The studies show that it is, I've no idea why you want to deny it.

 

It influences which toys children feel comfortable playing with, which directly impacts their wellbeing and how they develop.

[Halibut]

47 minutes ago, carosio said:

If you try to eradicate the differences then I would say that some kind of unisex or monosex would result, which I think is undesirable.

I think that's a really unrealistic and highly unlikely outcome you're worrying about there - no one is suggesting uniformity or that everyone should be the same, the notion is to make things more equal. Gendered signage for toys just reinforces the unhelpful idea that there are interests, activities and jobs that are the preserve of either males or females. 

[WiseOwl182]

2 hours ago, Cyclone said:

See the subsequent posts to that one, where it's pointed out that boys are disadvantaged by the stereotyping of toys (although not as much as girls).

 

It's not that traditional female roles are worth any less.  It's that girls are disadvantaged educationally and then subsequently in the workplace, and although I don't consider care giving or home making to be worth less than earning, society does.

 

Fortunately when I was a child the gender stereotyping of toys wasn't very prevalent.  It had a resurgence in the mid to late 80's.

 

Do you agree that you would have benefitted from playing with dolls, prams, etc? If so, why were you not disadvantaged? 

 

Where is your evidence that gender specific toys became more prevalent in the 1980s?

 

My wife, a female who you assume to speak on behalf of, always complains that modern society has forced her into working more and therefore having less time for children (financially if nothing else, since, with the exception of rare cases, today's mortgages require double incomes which is at least partly due to dual incomes pushing up prices). She wishes we lived in the days of a single breadwinner and a housewife.

 

Edited December 26, 2018 by WiseOwl182

[ECCOnoob]

Modern society forced her?  How? 

 

There was nothing to stop her choosing to stay at home and being a housewife.  The single breadwinner concept still exists it's just that these days (thank god) the world has moved on to allow BOTH sexes to choose to be the one who stays at home or for BOTH sexes to choose to keep pursuing a career.  

 

If your wife is so archaic that she really harks of going back to men having supremacy due to being the sole people who go out to work and earn a living - then quite frankly she is part of the problem.  It as if 1975 never happened! 

 

Toys should quite rightly reflect  a modern day approach.   Why should nursery dolls, baby simulators and play kitchens still be default categorised as 'for girls' 

 

Why shouldn't a woman be able to go out to work as a plumber, builder, soldier, trucker and young girls be able reflect that by playing with toys emulating such roles without the stigma of breaking the 'boys toys' categorisation. 

 

Edited December 26, 2018 by ECCOnoob