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

[WiseOwl182]

51 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

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.  

 

 

Forced financially, yes. Our parents' generation had the choice, but the days of being able to afford a decent house in a decent area of Sheffield with good school catchment on a single income are long gone. For most families now, there isn't the choice, and that push on house prices is at least in part due to the increased demand arising from the higher purchasing power of dual income families - it's circular.

 

All this is an aside, but does go to show that feminism isn't universally good for, and accepted by, all women.

[Guest makapaka]

9 hours ago, Cyclone said:

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

 

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.

You haven’t thought of anything beyond that tho.

 

youve just read something and are repeating it ad infimum. 

 

For example you are unable to evidence that children are prevented with them playing with toys of choice and assume the actions of business are doing so.

 

you can’t explain why If this wasn’t happening in the early 80s we haven’t seen a measured benefit.

 

if your argument is that preventing children from playing with certain toys is unfair I agree.

Edited December 26, 2018 by makapaka

[BrexitGuy]

27 minutes ago, makapaka said:

You haven’t thought of anything beyond that tho.

 

youve just read something and are repeating it ad infimum. 

 

For example you are unable to evidence that children are prevented with them playing with toys of choice and assume the actions of business are doing so.

 

you can’t explain why If this wasn’t happening in the early 80s we haven’t seen a measured benefit.

 

if your argument is that preventing children from playing with certain toys is unfair I agree.

You may be wasting your breath. It's a simple thing putting the toys separate and hasn't had any effect on either of my children, despite what this know-all thinks. 

I expect it's just overthinking something to create a problem that's not there in the first place x

 

[woodmally]

Ok I have come to the party late unfortunately and have not fully read all of the posts but forget the psychological debates and discussions here can anyone answer a simple question. What is the point of gender segregation of toys. Why not just label them toys.   I'm not being a snowflake feminist by any means but it seems a waste of space having two distinct areas for boys and girls toys if we just labeled them toys that would be the end of it. Why is it such an issue to segregate.

Edited December 27, 2018 by woodmally

[SnailyBoy]

They are labelled as 'toys' as per Tesco policy. The branch of Tesco in question made an error in signage.

 

There's also a university study here.

 

https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/dangers_of_gender_based_toys

[Cyclone]

13 hours ago, makapaka said:

You haven’t thought of anything beyond that tho.

Haven't thought beyond the fact that it's harmful, directly impacts their wellbeing and development.  Is there much more to think about?

Quote

youve just read something and are repeating it ad infimum.

 

Read multiple studies, from multiple different sources, all of which agree.  I'm repeating it because you keep claiming it's not true.

Quote

For example you are unable to evidence that children are prevented with them playing with toys of choice and assume the actions of business are doing so.

 

 

I can't evidence something that nobody has claimed is the case...  That's a strawman.

 

 

Quote

you can’t explain why If this wasn’t happening in the early 80s we haven’t seen a measured benefit.

 

 

Haven't tried to explain, in fact that's the first time you've mentioned it.  Feel free to investigate it yourself.

Quote

 

 

 

if your argument is that preventing children from playing with certain toys is unfair I agree.

 

 

 

No, nobody made an argument about preventing children playing with anything.

13 hours ago, BrexitGuy said:

You may be wasting your breath. It's a simple thing putting the toys separate and hasn't had any effect on either of my children, despite what this know-all thinks. 

I expect it's just overthinking something to create a problem that's not there in the first place x

 

How on earth can you claim that it hasn't affected your children?  What are you benchmarking against?  On what basis could you possibly make that claim?

Edited December 27, 2018 by Cyclone

[Guest makapaka]

39 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Haven't thought beyond the fact that it's harmful, directly impacts their wellbeing and development.  Is there much more to think about?

Read multiple studies, from multiple different sources, all of which agree.  I'm repeating it because you keep claiming it's not true.

 

I can't evidence something that nobody has claimed is the case...  That's a strawman.

 

 

 

Haven't tried to explain, in fact that's the first time you've mentioned it.  Feel free to investigate it yourself.

 

 

No, nobody made an argument about preventing children playing with anything.

How on earth can you claim that it hasn't affected your children?  What are you benchmarking against?  On what basis could you possibly make that claim?

Surely you’re whole argument is based on the impact of toy labelling is preventing children playing with certain toys - because if it doesn’t what is the problem?

[Cyclone]

Nope, you've apparently managed to miss the entire point of twelve pages whilst arguing about it.

 

The problem has literally been spelled out to you several times now.  I can't force it into your head if you simply refuse to understand.

21 hours ago, WiseOwl182 said:

Forced financially, yes. Our parents' generation had the choice, but the days of being able to afford a decent house in a decent area of Sheffield with good school catchment on a single income are long gone. For most families now, there isn't the choice, and that push on house prices is at least in part due to the increased demand arising from the higher purchasing power of dual income families - it's circular.

 

All this is an aside, but does go to show that feminism isn't universally good for, and accepted by, all women.

That's pretty much the definition of a choice.  You weren't forced, you decided that you wanted a "decent house in a decent area of Sheffield with good school catchment".  Nobody made you choose those things.

23 hours ago, WiseOwl182 said:

 

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.

 

Perhaps if you go back and read some of the many links to studies that have been provided you'd stop asking inane question...

I'm not speaking on behalf of your wife or any other women, what made you think I was?

[Cyclone]

Makapaka - go back to post #98 and post #96, follow the links.  Read them.  You'll actually understand what we're talking about then.

On 12/24/2018 at 5:27 PM, makapaka said:

What are the “gender stereotyping issues” caused by purchasing toys?

And when I answered this with "see post #59", perhaps you could have gone and looked?

[Guest makapaka]

2 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Makapaka - go back to post #98 and post #96, follow the links.  Read them.  You'll actually understand what we're talking about then.

And when I answered this with "see post #59", perhaps you could have gone and looked?

I’ve read them thanks.