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

[Guest makapaka]

1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

No, the sign in the shop is something that children see and absorb.  The pictures on the packaging of the toys, the toys that their friends are typically playing with.  All these things have a small impact.

Good parenting can go someway to avoiding this bias, but without the bias being removed it's impossible to avoid entirely.

No this isn't proving any point except that you still haven't understood the point.

Nobody has claimed that girls can't be given toys that are marketed as "boys toys".  The problem is that the very marketing impacts on those girls, and they are less likely to choose those toys for themselves because children have a high desire to conform.  They are aware of their own gender from about the age of 5 and will choose an "appropriate" toy if the toys are labelled.

It's bizarre actually.  They deny it despite having no evidence to offer against it and in the face of a mountain of evidence that supports this opinion.

I can't actually figure out why though, are they just conditioned to argue with any change to the status quo, do they see this as some bizarre attack on masculinity?  It's not like they've presented a single counter argument to what's actually been said in the studies, so far it's all just outright denial or a complete lack of understanding of the issue.

The problem is - you can’t think past what you read on the internet.

 

You deny actual stories where people explain they weren’t affected, you confirm that you were not affected, you tell us that it’s impossible to measure if a child is affected, you tell us that boys aren’t affected when the very nature of your argument means they must be - and then after all this you tell us that everyone is affected and “read the link”.

 

you can patronise with your faux exasperation as much as you like - it doesn’t mean everyone has to agree with you.

 

Not everything is a “strawman” by the way - sometimes it’s imprtant to contextualise - people keep using this when they don’t want to answer a question on here it’s tiresome.

 

Edited December 28, 2018 by makapaka

[WiseOwl182]

1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

 

You're desperate to try to derail this into personal issues instead of the topic in hand, and makapaka refuses to understand and continues to put up strawman arguments.

 

Just answer the question. You're desperate to avoid it. 

1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

 

Are you personally threatened by the idea that children suffer harm from gender targeted toys or something?  Why are you so against the idea of toys just being toys?

No, I just disagree with you. Coming from a point of view of having first hand experience in raising children (unlike you) I just don't see it.

1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

Monarchy is inherited, she's not there through any kind of personal achievement or competition.

Within the rein of this single monarch there have been 13 male and 2 female prime ministers.

 

The fact is that you can hold these up (and you know about them) specifically because they are unusual.  Unusually successful individual women don't somehow prove that children aren't harmed by gender targeted toys.  No amount of random facts will prove that.  Find a study that shows it to counter the numerous studies that show that it does cause harm, and you might have a point.  But at the moment, you're just flapping in the wind.

 

I can hold them up as examples because they're the current reality. Some countries don't let women drive and stone them to death for adultery, but people like you expend your energy on a country with female leaders throughout but gender toy labels that you disagree with. Strange. 

[SnailyBoy]

16 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

No, I just disagree with you. Coming from a point of view of having first hand experience in raising children (unlike you) I just don't see it.

 

Do you disagree with the findings of the University of Michigan study posted earlier?

 

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

 

Here's another one too.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11199-017-0883-3

 

do you disagree with that?

Edited December 28, 2018 by SnailyBoy

[Guest makapaka]

27 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

Do you disagree with the findings of the University of Michigan study posted earlier?

 

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

 

Here's another one too.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11199-017-0883-3

 

do you disagree with that?

Disagree with what - they aren’t concluding or proving anything in terms of tangible impact.

[SnailyBoy]

7 minutes ago, makapaka said:

Disagree with what - they aren’t concluding or proving anything in terms of tangible impact.

Really?

 

"Conclusion

Exposure to gender counter-stereotypic peers in a magazine format increases gender flexibility among young children. Specifically, children exposed to counter-stereotypic peers were more flexible in their attitudes toward what other children could play with and were more likely to choose an other-gender playmate, using play style as a guide more so than the playmate’s gender. Moreover, boys’ stronger endorsement of social exclusion in the stereotypic condition was attenuated in the counter-stereotypic condition. The results of the present study not only underscore the impact of media (specifically print media) on children’s early understanding of gender and conformity to gender stereotypes, but also highlight the potential use of media to challenge and disrupt gender-typed toy choices and playgroups in young children. In particular, this research highlights the potential use of counter-stereotypic same-age peers in children’s print media to normalize counter-stereotypic attitudes, and perhaps behaviors, as an important avenue for future research and intervention. On the whole, these results suggest that the observed play style and toy preferences of others could be used as a gateway to gender desegregation in children. We hope the present study will inspire further investigations of this possibility in children."

 

Do you disagree with the conclusion?

[Guest makapaka]

“On the whole, these results suggest that the observed play style and toy preferences of others could be used as a gateway to gender desegregation in children. We hope the present study will inspire further investigations of this possibility in children."“

 

 

[SnailyBoy]

1 minute ago, makapaka said:

“On the whole, these results suggest that the observed play style and toy preferences of others could be used as a gateway to gender desegregation in children. We hope the present study will inspire further investigations of this possibility in children."“

 

 

Did your confirmation bias get tested at all by the research, or did it hold firm?

 

I'm guessing by resorting to cherry picking it wavered a little, but came back strong in the end.

 

It'll be interesting to see your own research and conclusion.

 

 

[WiseOwl182]

56 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

Do you disagree with the findings of the University of Michigan study posted earlier?

 

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

 

Here's another one too.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11199-017-0883-3

 

do you disagree with that?

Where does it say it is harmful to girls into adulthood then?

[SnailyBoy]

3 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

Where does it say it is harmful to girls into adulthood then?

Who said it is?

 

Do you disagree with the findings of the study?

Edited December 28, 2018 by SnailyBoy

[Guest makapaka]

8 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

Who said it is?

 

Do you disagree with the findings of the study?

Previous posters said it is.

 

i didn’t cherry pick anything. That is the author’s  summary.

 

Did you not read it or did you interpret that summary differently?