Finally, this is starting to happen. I'm positive.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's just an opinion being expressed.
If expressing opinions is "going too far", then I don't know what isn't too far.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not some random person on the street it's a minister, and doesn't pretty much anything starts with someone's opinion before it becomes action?
And if fact gender neutral toys are already made, Mattel made a genderneutral Barbie.
Comment has been collapsed.
Offering something that wasn't available before and doesn't hurt anyone can't be a bad thing. If it doesn't sell, it won't be offered too long. Or only for PR. Do I think it's necessary? No, because kids have fantasy and already can play however they like. Stereo-typed advertising may probably have impact on one or another though.
I don't see any scrapping "order" or any prohibition attempts yet, so I don't get what could be bad about it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, what do you think politics is? Our systems are literally created to elect representatives that have their opinions. Politics is ultimately built on opinions. Every single law is about an opinion. If everyone's opinion suddenly became "all tables are dangerous and evil", trust me, they'd be banned. It's how it's been since Ancient Greece.
Opinions don't necessarily become action and if we're a free society, which I personally would want (again, political belief being an opinion since I could also want a total dictatorship or whatever else). Vermin Supreme wanted to give people ponies for free for the methane gas.
And if fact gender neutral toys are already made, Mattel made a genderneutral Barbie.
Which makes me ask, do you want a closed market and no freedom in businesses? If so, I get it. But I guess that's where we disagree. I want companies to be able to decide what they create instead of having the government dictate them what they make and how much of it they make.
Comment has been collapsed.
No i have nothing against companies making those toys, or them existing.
Many have been growing up with boys having cars and swords and girl dolls and my little pony etc and i don't think anyone really got a bad childhood out of it or a messed up career afterwards what some are trying to make it now.
https://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2019/08/do-gendered-toys-lead-to-gender-stereotyping/ Like all girls really want to become a cook or housewife because they played so much with their oven as a kid.
But if some want to have such speficic toys, who am i to stand in the way with that.
My point exactly is that a goverment shouldn't butt in such things, like so many other things or atleast as a minister keep such opinons to herself, i don't know honestly though how far stuff is going in france with this, i only know the dutch part.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's a minister voicing her opinion, asking toy makers to consider what they're making and the impact it may have. What's the issue with it? No one in the government is legislating what toys can and cannot be made, it's just one minister calling on toy manufacturer's to evaluate themselves and their products.
In France, the pact to make toys that don't promote stereotypes was undertaken by the toy makers themselves.
Comment has been collapsed.
My point exactly is that a goverment shouldn't butt in such things, like so many other things or atleast as a minister keep such opinons to herself
But they're not. It's a politician saying what they think. It's what they do. It's their job. You can't just say that you don't care about the issue at hand and only about the government intervention when you completely ignore how governments and politics work in a democratic system.
Either you have an actual agenda that's about the social politics of those toys (which you deny) or you're just ignoring the base function of what a government even is. Either you're not being completely honest here or you're so unaware of what a government even is that you honestly should start from "How do basic functions of society work 101" instead of talking about specific issues. But I know you're not that unaware. You've continuously shown that you know what you're talking about, even if I might disagree or agree at some points or others. We're talking at an uneven ground here due to the dishonesty from the very base of the argument.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would assume that Dutch toy manufacturers are free to make whatever they think will sell. The point being made, as I see it, is precisely about the government potentially mandating what toys can and can't be made. See e.g. how the official quotes the French pact to '... scrap games or toys that promote stereotypes for girls and boys.'
Comment has been collapsed.
But there's no government intervention, no mandate. The pact to "scrap games or toys that promote stereotypes" was undertaken by the toy manufacturers themselves.
This seems like making a toy mountain out of a plastic mole hill.
Comment has been collapsed.
The pact to "scrap games or toys that promote stereotypes" was undertaken by the toy manufacturers themselves.
In France. Here we've got a Dutch government official bringing it up. So it sounds like a possibility of a top-down directive in this case.
Comment has been collapsed.
The Dutch minister said that there's no legislation, no mandate, just her asking toy manufacturers to look at themselves and their products and consider their impact. You can put the pitch-forks down. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Yet. But she does think that there's a problem there. And her argument doesn't seem to be based on the (presumably) exploding French toy sales figures. So you have to take the hint.
Because at some point, 'No, thank you, we're good' stops being an option. And you, a typical Lars coming from a family of toy manufacturers, are hit with a quota and a bunch of new fines. And you find yourself scrambling to make new toy designs, and repurpose your back catalogue, and reorganise your production facilities - all because you never thought they'd mandate such a thing. Or you could be a clever boy and start doing all this right now, wink-wink.
Comment has been collapsed.
But you're making such leaps here.
"An opinion was expressed, therefore it might happen". Yeah, technically, of course. But that's politics. Politics has always been opinions. People express dozens of opinions. Actually, there are multiple new opinions expressed by elected officials on a daily basis in almost every government. Yet, as you can see, they're not put into action. That's why there's a government to begin with and why we're not currently talking about a dictatorship.
If you want politicians to not express opinions, then you don't want a government. You don't want politics.
Companies have the right to make their own decisions. Politicians have the right for free thought and expression. If you think that this single opinion would lead to legislation, then you are missing the fundamental point of democracy. You're missing what government fundamentally even is. In this case, why are you even talking about this? It's like talking about tax laws while not understanding that you can't just print more money to make everyone rich. It's a basic rule that you're completely ignoring.
Comment has been collapsed.
I beg your pardon? A politician expressing their opinion is fine, but me expressing concern about said opinion is missing the point of democracy? What rule am I ignoring, again?
Comment has been collapsed.
"The point being made, as I see it, is precisely about the government potentially mandating what toys can and can't be made. See e.g. how the official quotes the French pact to '... scrap games or toys that promote stereotypes for girls and boys.'"
This is two thirds of your entire statement. It's not an opinion. Saying something is sexist or not is an opinion in most cases since most things aren't black and white. Your opinion isn't an opinion since they're literally just saying assumptions that are based on falsehoods. That's why social politics is so difficult. Because there are no right or wrong answers a lot of the time. This is the case. A single opinion won't lead policies and that's not an opinion, but a literal fact since it's not how governments work to begin with.
We can say "Well, that's your opinion, man" to me saying that democratic governments don't have one-man leaderships, but okay, whatever.
What rule am I ignoring, again?
"If you think that this single opinion would lead to legislation, then you are missing the fundamental point of democracy. /.../ It's a basic rule that you're completely ignoring.". I'll clear it up. The rule being that the entire democratic system is based on the fact that it's the rule of the people, in this case representatives of the people.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why does it look like Bin Laden is riding a skateboard
Comment has been collapsed.
Sigh.. maybe an education minister should focus on important tasks rather than commenting on non-issues
Comment has been collapsed.
Government in general is really overstepping its purpose. They must be getting bored and inventing new problems to "fix".
Comment has been collapsed.
I misread the headline and thought this was about sextoys (￣▽￣*)ゞ
Comment has been collapsed.
French and Dutch governments insert sextoys too far in the crack.
Comment has been collapsed.
I seen that same....
and to be honest it would be more "news" as this stupid thing to regulate toys for childs because of gender stereotypes that only mature people have in their heads.
Girls don't play only in the kitchen with their barbies ... they take over the world with it when they want.
And they don't play with a male toy only tough stuff.
Comment has been collapsed.
Girls don't play only in the kitchen with their barbies ... they take over the world with it when they want.
And they don't play with a male toy only tough stuff.
Yeah, but who's offering them those toys if not "mature people" as you say.
Maybe that's mentality that should be changed and not the toys... but the more options, the better. Usually.
Hum, a few years ago, my best friend's oldest sister told her... how old was he? Seven years old, maybe. So she told her young son that he could not wear the beaded necklace he had just made because it was purple. And that's a "girl color"
I was fucking flabbergasted.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sure the adults buy, normaly, the toys. And yes a good bunch of them buy barbies and stuff for the girls and cars for the boys to take a few examples.
But all my nephews and my son play(ed) with puppets, barbies, cooking kitchens too and my niche with cars. It's normal to share toys, it's normal to play together, it's normal to play with which toy you want that is available.
Each adult that come around with "you can't play with a barbie because you are a boy/you can't play with a car because you are a girl" are dumb/limitate themself and their childs and no law/rule will change that.
As example, Girls and females like, much more often, pink as males do.
I don't think it is because of pink "girls toys".
So it give partly differences that fit for the most, not all, childs and adults. And differences are ok TOO.
Sure it should be a "changed" thinking if a adult person put a label at "purple" as a girls color.
Special because i like purple, turquoise and black :-D kill the heretic
Oh an my room was, at age 9-12 mostly in a soft pink and partly with pink rabbit wallpaper. My dad looked a bit dumb as i choosed that color because he expected a other one but it was ok for my parents.
and yes i was a very sweet boy :-D
Comment has been collapsed.
and yes i was a very sweet boy :-D
LIES!!! And you know it Vicky!!!
Comment has been collapsed.
You and half the site. If it wasn't for that misread, I would never have clicked.
Comment has been collapsed.
I misread it as sexy toys and I was a bit confused. Barbie in too revealing clothes or the infamous play-doh cake-accessory ?
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, if Barbie looked like this, I wouldn't mind playing with her :3
Comment has been collapsed.
If girls wanted knights, they'd ask for knights (they are usually gender-neutral and covered in armour anyway). And if your first instinct - when your baby girl asks for a cute doll in a pink dress with a cute doll house and a cute doll family, and the cutest porcelain little dog to boot - is to wave it off as something she saw on the telly instead of listening to what she actually likes, there's no government that can fix that.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not that simple. Sometimes adults don't listen to what their child wants simply because according to them they're the wrong gender. I definitely never got any action figures because I was a girl and I was supposed to play with dolls.
Comment has been collapsed.
I feel you. I quite enjoyed word-based puzzle games as a child, but those were usually delegated to the Girls section along with the colouring books.
At the same time, though, I recognise that this is not exactly the fault of the stores or toy manufacturers. They only classified stuff into categories that the majority of kids fell into. Parents often joke that their kids are special - but they never seem to mean it when it comes to respecting their child's own wishes and likes. When a child explicitly asks you for a specific something, why would you refuse? Because it's unsafe (a knife)? Sure. Because it's irreversible and the child might later regret it (a tattoo)? Yeah, I can see that. Because it could make them a social pariah and become the bully pinata (some weird clothing)? Well, that's iffy, but maybe.
'Because the store labelled it wrong, but otherwise it's okay and fun and helps the child grow' is never on my list of reasons. I would very much support the move to stop pressuring parents into having their child be 100% society compliant. But pressuring businesses into making parental decisions doesn't seem like the right way to go about the issue.
Comment has been collapsed.
so... Don't show kids in ads (because if the kid gets recognized as a specific gender, that's stereotyping), and stick the Barbies right next to the Transformers instead of on the opposite side of the store.
And let the kids themselves decide what they want.
That just about covers it, right?
Comment has been collapsed.
Toys shouldn't be labeled "boys" or "girls." Just sell the toys. I would hope that defending gender-labeling of toys would be no one's hill to die on.
Comment has been collapsed.
They aren't, generally. There are no dolls for girls, or dolls for boys, there are Barbies and GI Joes. The labelling is usually done by the stores to minimise the time between a child entering the store and the child pointing at the toy they like. Or to minimise the chance that a hapless parent would pick a toy that their child won't like and they come back for a refund. And I do quite object to governments stripping the store owners of the right to label and group stuff however they like if it helps the business.
Comment has been collapsed.
They aren't, generally.
the labelling is usually done by the stores
That's what I'm saying. Stores shouldn't be doing this. Functional categories make so much more sense. "Board games." "Dolls." "Action figures." "Cars." "Houseplay." (Or whatever you might call it.) "Outdoor toys." I think consumers are smart enough to look at the categories and know what their kids like.
Comment has been collapsed.
They should, but they always don't. People project their own views on others and if a parent thinks girls should play with dolls then they're more likely to buy their girl a doll regardless if they want or not. I mean it's obviously not always the case, but it happens.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hey, I know all too well. I asked for the same toy Christmas after Christmas and wasn't allowed to get it because it wasn't for me. I know all too well. :(
Comment has been collapsed.
Stores shouldn't be doing this.
Why? I mean, it's their right, currently. In theory, if they've done their market research and observed first hand what kind of toys are popular with what kind of kids, why shouldn't they be able to label their sections as they see fit? If they thought that functional categories made more sense, wouldn't they already use those? If they were incorrect in their current assessment of the market, they would get lower sales and be forced to change the labelling. This doesn't seem to be happening on its own, so consumers seem to be quite on board with the current labelling system. If it works for the store owners, and for the consumers, why change it?
"Dolls." "Action figures."
Genuine question: how do you differentiate the two? Assuming Barbies are dolls, and GI Joes are action figures, what's the marked difference between them? My first instinct was to assume that action figures are supposed to do something - but then, Barbies come with cars, and baby carriages, and make-up sets, and what have you. That would mean that you'd find a plain Barbie in a 'Dolls' isle, and a Barbie with a car in the 'Action Figures' isle, and this doesn't sound convenient. How would you categorise these?
Comment has been collapsed.
If it works for the store owners, and for the consumers, why change it?
I would honestly question whether it works for store owners. Is there a tangible benefit for the "boy/girl" designation? I'm not convinced there is. If someone can prove to me that there exists some definite gain from gender stereotyping, I would listen.
As for consumers, it doesn't work for all, and that's why we're here. "Rightly" or "wrongly," consumers have objected for one reason or another. I feel like gender neutrality is a good goal to aim for because we should be celebrating how we're all [essentially] the same and promoting gender equality is a worthy goal. I feel like clinging to the girl/boy labels only promotes classic forms of exclusion that girls face ("Boys only!") and shame that some boys are taught to feel when they like something that is labeled as "girly."
Ultimately, I prefer not to have government intervention in things that are this granular, but I do have to ask what opponents are fighting so hard to protect? I put it in the same category of climate change. Man-made or not, wouldn't we still want to go green? shrug That's just my personal outlook. I don't mean to derail this into any sort of climate debate. lol
Genuine question: how do you differentiate the two?
I think the old school answer would have been the size of the toy indicates if it's a doll or an action figure, but I've seen a lot of things that destroy that argument. My current opinion is that it is based on the hardness of the plastic and other materials used with the toy and similar rules of rigidity. Action figures are built with the express purpose that they are going to "See. Some. Shit."
I think the rigidity of the limbs is also a valid argument, but honestly, I'm just talking out of my ass on a subject I'm really not qualified* to go on at length. I think back to Lalaloopsy dolls.... Those things could knock you the fuck out if you're hit in the head with one... but the limps just kind of flop everywhere.
*And who really is? Is there a toy czar who gets to make final determination?
Comment has been collapsed.
As for consumers, it doesn't work for all
Well, yeah. I'm not drawing any parallels here, but if, say, there are people who keep looking for mayonnaise in the Dairy isle, the options are many. You can very well put it in the Dairy isle. Or you could try to put up posters telling people that mayonnaise is in the Sauces. Or you could create a big isle and call it 'The White Stuff'. Or maybe you'll find out that the number of such people is too low to warrant any kind of action on your part.
It's just a question of if it actually impacts the profit in a tangible way. If it does, the store owners will change the labelling without any government intervention. If it doesn't, then I'd be wary of any government official bringing up the issue.
Sadly, I'm not familiar with any market research into profitability of gender-separated vs gender-neutral stores aimed at children specifically. Generally speaking, gender stereotyping and separate isles do make sense from the marketing perspective - see e.g. the meta paper by Kraft. As a store owner, you get to do targeted advertising, improve your customer's self-image via related products on the shelf, reinforce their sense of belonging, etc.
As far as children go, there was that tangentially related study called 'Pink Gives Girls Permission'. You can see the full study on SciHub by searching for '10.1016/j.appdev.2014.06.004'.
The finding is this: '... girls were significantly more interested in toys labeled as "for boys" that were pink than in toys labeled as for boys that were blue. Toys that were labeled as for boys and pink were significantly less interesting than both pink and blue toys labeled as for girls (which did not differ from one another).' There are two implications of this. One, the colour pink is a significant factor influencing a girl's interest in a toy. So you as a shop owner would want to categorise pink toys separately. Two, the marking 'For girls' is an even more significant factor than the colour.
Now, the study would be about 43 times better if they also introduced an unlabelled toy (which they didn't). But it does show that gendered toy labelling is a factor in purchasing decisions of girls.
Comment has been collapsed.
That is some interesting research, and an admittedly difficult topic to study. How does one reach accurate conclusions when society dictates "pink is a girls' color?" Does pink tell them it's for them or does pink just increase the odds they'll want to play with it because a lot of girls (again, thanks to society) have pink as a favorite color?
As an aside, I will always find it fascinating that pink used to be the "boy" color and blue used to be for girls. Ref:
I looked over the Marketing Implications link. I'll admit to being a little bothered by some of the assertions in it. For example:
Women act on emotion in purchasing decisions (Baker, 2012).
This always leads to a lot of questions such as "when is it right to generalize a group of people" and marginalize the outliers? Clearly there has to be a limit somewhere, otherwise you do approach issues with sexism and racism. And I suppose that limit is always going to be too much for some and too little for others. Ethically, where do we draw the line? These days, we have "outrage culture" and the blowback it has created. Both sides angry, and nobody is happy.
I'm sorry if I'm ruining a debate by turning into a bunch of ruminations.
Comment has been collapsed.
pink used to be the "boy" color and blue used to be for girls
Yeah, that's always a fun one. Although there is an argument to be made that the choice of colour was more likely to be imposed on the child those days than it is now. So it could very well be just because pink was more expensive. But I'd better shut up, I'm not familiar enough with this topic to argue this way or another.
Some studies suggest that the preference for pink amongst girls is due to the innate difference in perception of red between men and women. See e.g. Hurlbert/Ling. Stimulating the L-cones over M-cones gives you red (the opposite gives you yellow), and these cones are carried on the X chromosome, of which women have two. There was another study, by Israel Abramov, which e.g. found that colours that women classify as shades of orange are perceived as yellow by men. But back to the first study and the 'preference' part. They theorise that '... in specializing for gathering, the female brain honed the trichromatic adaptations, and these underpin the female preference for objects ‘redder’ than the background.'
Comment has been collapsed.
That's really interesting. I'm curious as to how accurate those studies are.
Assuming that is true, I wonder what mechanism in the body prompts this change. I mean, when you look at all of us at the beginning of life, we're all the same genderless start until certain hormones are released at the right time in development in the womb. It is interesting to think that our developmental cycle would essentially say "Oh, hey, there's the hormone for pink-loving eyes! Let's go with that!"
Forgive me. I find human development to be incredibly fascinating.
Regardless, I've enjoyed talking with you. Thank you for some interesting food-for-thought. I hope this has been as pleasant on your end as it has been on mind. I always enjoy a good conversation, which can be hard to find sometimes amongst the flame-wars that are any comments section on the Internet. lol
Comment has been collapsed.
True, it's all fascinating stuff. You live your perfectly good life of a Schrödinger-gendered individual for some good eight weeks, and then boom, sorry, you've got the SRY thingy on your Y thingy, and the testosterone and the AMH kill off your female parts. In a sense, though, it's nice to think that there's a part of my parents that nagged me about my colour choices even before I was born. Makes me doubly proud about my coffee-coloured walls that everyone thought would look terrible.
Or, wait, are they cocoa-coloured?
Ta for the conversation. ;j
Comment has been collapsed.
As a side note on the Dolls/Action Figures bit, GI Joes were originally dolls (regardless of what they may have been called at the time). They looked like Ken dolls in army fatigues; same size and everything. It wasn't until the 1980s, I believe, that GI Joes were made much smaller and out of hard plastic with the little black rubber bands inside to hold their torsos to their hips (I liked taking them apart and making new Joes from the bits and pieces). I also think the early '80s was when the term "Action Figure" came about or started getting used a lot, but I may be wrong on that point.
Comment has been collapsed.
That would be my hunch, aye. The original GI Joe had at least some articulation, had accessories (much like a Barbie), but Hasbro made a conscious effort to market it as an 'action soldier' at the very start of its market run, back in 1963-4. Which implies that the distinction was originally purely based on the target demographic, meaning calling things 'action figures' or 'dolls' is pretty much calling them 'for boys' or 'for girs', using different words.
But I think we could make a case for drawing a more or less functional distinction nowadays, if such need arises.
Comment has been collapsed.
"She complained that only one in 10 women went into computer coding, leaving men making up 90% of workers focusing on the algorithms of the future."
That statement makes no sense. If that is truly what the French Economy Minister said and not just a terrible translation, I wonder about the French economy.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd assume it's supposed to say that 90% of the people working on algorithms are men, which is probably right tbh.
I study informatic/computer engineering and the 9 to 1 gender relation is roughly accurate, that said I'd blame that supposed imbalance on the fact that most people that pick the career sorta fit the same vague stereotypical way of being (girls included), it just happens that women seem to be less likely to share those characteristics, if that's to blame on society's influence or just random chance it scapes me.
Comment has been collapsed.
I was only looking at the comparison itself.
Each set of numbers may or may not be accurate on their own. I haven't looked into it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I played with barbies when I was a kid. The ones that lost their arm or leg and my sister didnt used ended up as mutants against my manly "action man" toy.
Boys can use toy kitchen sets as swords and use pans as helmets, girls can play with toy cars and do whatever they do, gender has nothing to do with it. Going around doing this gender neuteral bullshit is just misunderstanding childrens, thinking they are morons without thinking capabilities.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think you may be missing the issue. The issue is not just what toys someone plays with, it's toys promoting stereotypes. Here's an example:
You want to play with dolls, because dolls are awesome. But all the female dolls are nurses, waitresses, secretaries, teachers, etc, while all the male dolls are doctors, chefs, lawyers, fire fighters, etc. This creates a problem because you and your sister, young and impressionable as all children are, are internalizing that you can't be a nurse because you're male and your sister can't be a doctor because she's female. This absolutely shapes children's mindsets as they grow up and think about what careers they want to pursue.
Comment has been collapsed.
How many doctors, chefs, lawyer dolls do you know of? Most boys have/had is just gi joe, he-man, does that mean boys want to become a master of the universe?
What women decide for a career is now being dumped on that they have grown up with such dolls, while there just is a lot more too it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't know if it's still the case, but it used to be that Barbies were all in stereotypical female jobs (i.e. nurses) while Kens were all in stereotypical male jobs (i.e. doctors).
A surprising number of people form their future career goals based on what they watch and play with growing up. Toys, shows, and movies during childhood have a huge impact on the professions that people pursue when they grow up.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think it's worth including in the discussion is a lot of these jobs (nurses, waitresses, secretaries) involve being subordinate to males who tell them what to do or guidelines written by males. What you see in a lot of these "boy professions" is they'll be decision-makers... and in a lot of the media surrounding them, even when they refuse to play by the rules, they're always rewarded in the end.
My concern is more for reinforcement of subordination of women versus free-thinking and the entitlement we give young men.
*** Let it be known that as far as television goes, I think we've come a really far way in how that is all portrayed. Even Barbie has held a lot of jobs that wouldn't have been options for her in the past.
Comment has been collapsed.
Boom. Nailed it. I don't want my daughter learning that she can't be the boss someday. And I don't want her learning that if she thinks freely / doesn't play by the rules that she's being a b*tch, whereas a male counterpart might be seen as "taking initiative" or "fighting for something he believes in." I just hope that by the time she's old enough, society has come along a bit farther.
Comment has been collapsed.
But Barbie and Ken never had real genitals, so they were always gender neutral.:p
Joke.
Comment has been collapsed.
I wanted to be a hobo when i was a kid, I'm pretty sure I didnt get that from the commercarials, also the medical field in the universities have a majority of woman attendants around here (like 65-35%), so I think they didnt got the memo.
There are limitation about this free spirit mentuality though, woman firefighters are not ideal job opportunity because you need strenght for it, and male nurse is disgusting (shove a catheter into some other dude's dick and such pleasant things).
You need to educate the childrens what they can do to society which actually would help it and not go to a happy fairyland where everything can become everything. Thats how you make broken shells of a person when they realise they lived a lie.
Comment has been collapsed.
While I agree with you on the toys...
"Male nurse is disgusting" Hah, do you think women enjoy doing those things more? They really don't. They just become desensitised to it. I have a cousin who is a male nurse and he loves his job. That's what he always wanted to do and he isn't a broken shell. His sister is a nurse as well. If you are a very kind person and you actually like helping people, being a nurse is an ideal job.
Your attitude right there is part of the problem. Just let people have whatever career they want that makes them happy.
Comment has been collapsed.
Exceptions exist. I'm not saying things like a woman firefighter cant exist, but there is a reason why coal mining is a male oriented job, while a kindergarden teacher is more of a female role.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, but I wasn't talking about firefighters or coal mining... I was referring specifically to your comment on male nurses being disgusting.
Also, I have male friends who teach primary school students from ages 4 to 12 depending on what class they are given on a specific year. That's just you stereotyping the roles again. Doesn't make them any less manly lol.
Comment has been collapsed.
Look, I never seen a male nurse before, but the mental image sounds horrible for me. I'm sure its not as bad as what I image it it would look like, but for me male nurse is just a really foreign concept. I'm not trying to disrespect your buddy or anything.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not about my cousin at all. I just brought him up as an example.
I just see a problem with the attitude as a whole. Like, would you put someone off going to university to be a nurse because they are male? It could be the line of work that would make them happy. When people are happy doing what they are doing, they are generally really good at it. :P
Surgeons/doctors have to deal with people's privates and have disgusting things to deal with as well. It's not all down on the nurses. XD If you're in that line of work, you just become used to it.
Comment has been collapsed.
male nurse is disgusting
One of my friends is a male nurse, and a damn good one. And putting a catheter into someone's penis is not pleasant for anyone, regardless of gender, and is also far from the grossest thing you encounter as a nurse (colostomy bags are up there). But you do it because want to help people, and save lives, and thus you're willing to put up with the grossness and the crap.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, wonder what archeologist would say to you...
Comment has been collapsed.
Probably something like, "Look at this fascinating artifact we found during our last excavation. It's just been cleaned, and now we're in the process of classifying it based on its typology. It looks similar to one we found at another site, but we'll know more once we properly date it and examine the composition."
Comment has been collapsed.
Eh, I only wish this had happened sooner. Maybe then instead of buying dolls for me I would have been allowed to play with all the cool actions figures I always coveted. Gender labeling does suck sometimes. At least when it's shoved down your throat.
Comment has been collapsed.
I see it in clothing too - the boys clothes feature cars, robots, space ships, dinosaurs, and dragons, while the girls clothes feature nothing but flowers, ponies, and unicorns. :/
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah I loved dinosaurs as a kid, but I never got a single clothing with dinosaurs. Just flowers and cute animals everywhere and oh god all the dresses...
Comment has been collapsed.
Everything is sexist these days. Even if they change all advertising so it only features sexless, amorphous robots someone will complain about it being sexist somehow. Just let companies sell toys to the demographics that overwhelmingly buy those kinds of toys. If a boy wants to buy a barbie there is nothing stopping him from buying one just because the packaging is pink and there are girls in the adverts.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think you greatly underestimate the amount of insecurity, peer pressure, and stigma experienced by a boy wanting to play with a barbie due to the packaging being pink and there being only girls in the adverts. All of which is greatly reduced by just having the packaging come in a variety of colors and showing both girls and boys playing with the toys.
It's generally a societal issue - I experienced a store attendant giving a father a hard time because the father's son wanted to ride in a pink shopping cart instead of a red one - but changing the toys and advertising will help change society to be less rigid and more accepting.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, the pink thing is complete BS.
As an adult one can wear a pink shirt and nobody gives it a second thought but if a young boy does it he gets laughed at and bullied.
Comment has been collapsed.
I had a red knee-length winter parka when I was 7 (I'm a boy). And on a few occasions adults thought I was a girl.
To be fair, with a hat and the hood on all you could see was a face and it's probably hard to tell with kids. And I think it was a girl's parka after all as it had buttons on the other side.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think this is a good thing. Make toys gender neutral - so if you show kids playing with cars or dolls, it's both boys and girls playing with each rather than just boys with cars and just girls with dolls - and stereotype free - so that there's a Doctor Barbie and a Nurse Barbie, a Doctor Ken and a Nurse Ken, rather than just Nurse Barbie and Doctor Ken - and let kids play with whatever they want.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think this is mostly positive, as long as it doesn't cause yet another open battle between the parents that agree and the ones that are against it like sometimes happens, kinda tired of those circular discussions (good thing I don't live in europe and won't see it if it happens).
The "boys are doctors and girls are nurses" is an overused example but it's sadly true, specially among older people. I've seen how my grandma doesn't trust some doctors just because they're women and gives weird looks at the male nurses.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's a load of bullshit, to be quite honest.
When I was a little girl, I was very much a girly girl while my sister was the "tomboy." Yet, I was the one that played with remote control cars, farm sets, train sets, I was obsessed with the A-team, and I played with dolls too. My sister, on the other hand, liked her barbies and my little ponies. She was the tomboy because she was the one climbing trees and playing with boys. I was the one who was out playing with the girls. I even had some Star Wars action figures because I went through a Star Wars phase. My parents didn't think it was going to "make me gay" or some other idiotic ideas of bigoted times. They didn't think I had a gender identity disorder either. They just let me be a child. Even my younger brother joined in with us when we were playing with dolls and tea sets. XD.
People read way too much into all this gender shite because they create it themselves. Kids will still play with whatever toys they want to play with if they are allowed to. That's always been the case to be honest... and I was born in the 80s. It's the parents who need educating on not pushing their kids into specific roles, or making them feel like it's not ladylike or boylike to do certain things or play with certain toys. It's not necessarily the fault of toy manufacturers, it's ignorant parents.
Also: It is a small minority of kids who present with gender identity issues. If that happens, one can only cross that bridge when they come to it, not dance around issues that aren't there, to begin with. They should give it a rest. Let babies be babies.
Also, boys can be nurses too. =)
Comment has been collapsed.
It's the parents who need educating on not pushing their kids into specific roles, or making them feel like it's not ladylike or boylike to do certain things or play with certain toys. It's not the fault of toy manufacturers.
It kind of is their fault, though.
We have been so conditioned by toy manufacturers and their advertising to associate certain toys and colors with certain genders that it's difficult to go against it. As soon as a baby is born in the hospital, the color divide stars being enforced with boys getting the blue clothes, ribbons, bears and the girls getting the pink. When all of society is enforcing such gender norms - that pink is a girl's color - it becomes very difficult to buy your son a pink toy even if he wants one.
I don't see it as a gender identity so much as a stereotype issue. If all the advertisements only show girls playing with dolls, than the boy who wants to play with dolls will feel embarrassed and will be ridiculed by other kids. If toy manufacturers make doll packaging in a variety of colors rather than just pink, and show boys and girls both playing with dolls, that makes it much easier for society to accept that a boy playing with dolls is fine just as a girl playing with action figures is fine.
Likewise, I remember when all the Barbie dolls were in stereotypically female professions (nurse, waitress, etc) while the Ken dolls were in stereotypically male professions (doctors, lawyers, etc), and the teaching and reinforcement of those gender stereotypes can easily be avoided by just making both Barbie and Ken dolls for each profession.
Comment has been collapsed.
The meaning of colours change drastically over history. Purple for instance was considered manly and regal back in the day because the difficulty of creating it, so does pink in the early 20. century.
Also if you want to become really specific, there are woman oriented professions within even doctors, like pediatrician. You woulnt argue about nuns being all female and yell about that the world need more male nuns or midwife
Comment has been collapsed.
You're right, colors are not inherently masculine or feminine - the gender color division is an artificial construct that we impose, and is formed by the marketing, advertising, and toys that we see.
I'm not sure how pediatrician is female oriented, and the local pediatricians' office has both male and female doctors.
And while nuns are an entirely different matter - being more of a religious calling rather than a profession - there are actually male nuns - they're called monks. But the fact that only monks can receive holy orders and become priests, bishops, and deacons is indeed an issue, as many nuns will attest, which leads to sexism and sexual assault within the Church.
Comment has been collapsed.
I dunno about the whole profession barbies to begin with. We just had some prince and princess dolls. We had this set of mini dolls in all kinds of professions. But... I don't ever remember a time where I stereotyped only boys as doctors and girls as nurses. At my GP (doctor's) practice when I was a child one of the two doctors there was a lady. I guess I just find it a little hard to imagine that people stereotype boys into doctor roles when every second doctor I meet, even today, is female. Being a nurse, on the other hand, is a very stereotyped role where most are women.
But, perhaps manufacturers could make more of an effort to neutralise the pink and market some of those toys to anyone. Although, on saying that, Baby Born did bring out a boy doll at some point. They even show a little boy playing with the doll on the box. I saw another doll that was dressed just like a real little boy with his school back pack and lunch box. It was so cute. They had a girl version of it too. Those kind of dolls are out there and they are marketing them toward boys. It's just not so easy to change society's mind.
Comment has been collapsed.
In a FREE MARKET country, where PEOPLE CHOOSE what to buy, seems pretty stupid impose what companies make. Are we in the 20's USA, but instead alcohol are your market choices who are being vanished?
Comment has been collapsed.
that was close. they saved the world yet another time!
oh wait, what?
pathetic people do pathetic things.
as usual, nothing new here.
at the same time it wasn't the toys that caught my eye (i'm too old for that) but the example of doctor vs nurse and computer science stuff.
now isn't that funny again?
90%² of plumbers, roadbuilders, bricklayers, electricians are male. feminists: where is the problem?
30%² of engineers, doctors, managers, politicians are female. feminists: omg this needs to change!!!!!1111
²my guesstimation, most likely not that accurate at all.
it's not about gender equality and stuff. it's about money and power. easy as that.
fun fact: just saw this short clip yesterday and it was quite interesting.
Jordan Peterson Confronts Australian Politician on Gender Politics and Quotas | Q&A (well spent 4 minutes, skip to 2:18 for the job part only)
lady in red got totally exposed. love it! also the comments are comedy gold.
even the trans lady (i guess?) on the left seems quite reasonable. i need to find the full video to watch. that should turn out to be pretty interesting.
edit: here it is! (80 minutes)
looks like you actually really need to grow old to stop being an idiot.
and even that doesn't always work.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ducking Mattel not allowing women get gender neutral toys
Comment has been collapsed.
improving gender neutrality in toys
LOL, they're done with people, toys are next. Coming soon: gender neutrality in pets. What can I say, first world countries problems :).
Comment has been collapsed.
actually there is a vegetarian movement that want a law which force to separate male chickens from female chickens as male chickens rape female chickens. I guess they don't like to eat eggs.
Comment has been collapsed.
Isnt they already seperate them? I mean cows get seperated and only get inseminated by one bull which brought up from another place. Also chickens lays eggs even if not knocked up by a rooster.
Comment has been collapsed.
Isn't the reason chickens are used instead of other type of bird that they lay eggs pretty much constantly regardless of the presence of males?
Comment has been collapsed.
When I read news like that, I empathize with people who choose to ignore all news and wonder if I should do the same, for my own sanity's sake. Except it's hard to ignore this kind of BS, as I can't help but fear that if nothing is done, in a few decades, stating that men and women are different (which is nothing more than a biological truth and obvious thing) will be "hate speech".
Ms Van Engelshoven has also complained of advertising showing girls in the kitchen while boys take on tough jobs.
I do agree with that to some extent though: we need more female lumberjacks and construction workers. Something feminists rarely defend: when you listen to them, parity seems important only in well-paid, non-dangerous jobs. Strange. 🤔
Comment has been collapsed.
"Dutch Education Minister Ingrid van Engelshoven has called on toymakers to examine carefully what they create, in an attempt to end gender-stereotyping in the toy industry.
She was responding to a pact by French toymakers to scrap games or toys that promote stereotypes for girls and boys.
A French minister said many toys projected "insidious" messages.
Ms Van Engelshoven has also complained of advertising showing girls in the kitchen while boys take on tough jobs.
Their attempts to steer the debate on so-called sexist toys coincide with Barbie-manufacturer Mattel releasing a new line of gender-neutral dolls."
The Dutch minister said in a TED talk last December that the media and advertising industry continued to portray husbands as breadwinners and wives as homemakers and that this had a lasting effect on children.
What's behind the French pact?
French Economy Minister Agnès Pannier-Runacher has said the new "charter for balanced (gender) representation in toys" (in French) is intended to give girls as well as boys "access to a world that opens up a range of possibilities".
The charter, announced ahead of the Christmas toy market, covers the entire industry in France. The national toy federation said it was committed to making "quantifiable" efforts towards improving gender neutrality in toys.
Toyshop staff will also be trained to ask what a child is interested in rather than "is it for a boy or a girl?".
In a tweet, Ms Pannier-Runacher said the element of imagination conveyed by toys mattered for children. and she highlighted three new Barbie toys.
"A little girl may want to be a doctor and not to dress up in a nurse's uniform," she told French radio. "She might choose to be a knight riding into battle rather than a princess. Let's give them a far richer world that doesn't stigmatise them."
She complained that only one in 10 women went into computer coding, leaving men making up 90% of workers focusing on the algorithms of the future. Toy manufacturers would now focus on conveying messages like "act like grown-ups" instead of choosing either mum or dad, she said.
French toy manufacturers said it was too early to revise their range ahead of Christmas but there would immediately be changes to shop displays as well as how staff treated boys and girls.
Ms Van Engelshoven did not go as far as calling on Dutch companies to scrap toys viewed as gender-stereotyping, but a spokesman told the BBC she wanted companies to think carefully about the situation.
However, several politicians criticised her intervention. One MP said he was surprised she had such time for this sort of hobby as there was so much for her to do in education. Emancipation is part of the minister's portfolio."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49837450
https://youtu.be/sg0D1PpgCXs?t=71
Comment has been collapsed.