Hasbro: We've Released "Plenty" of Female Star Wars: Rebels Toys - Update

[Ihateregistering1]

I love how in these threads, all the people who are apparently geniuses and are smarter than the entire marketing and sales departments combined of several multi-billion dollar Corporations suddenly come out of the wood work.

A few things:
-You do not have an inherent right to have the characters you want be made into more toys (or into toys period), regardless of what their gender, race, religion, etc. is.

-Companies will do pretty much anything they can to make more money (legally speaking), so this idea that these thousands upon thousands of employees are all part of some giant conspiracy to suppress young girls by not releasing more Princess Leia action figures is barmy on par with "we're all being controlled by the Lizard People". BTW, those referencing the Princess Leia thing are missing the point: people wanted a Princess Leia toy, they demanded it, the company made it. Supply and demand.

-Likewise, the idea that anyone on this board is smarter than the collective brains of thousands of employees who collect and analyze sales data, trends, and conduct research on what kids are looking for, and that they do this for a living, is insane. And no, saying "well I want more female 'Rebels' toys, therefore they are in high demand!" isn't an argument. You (or your daughter, or whomever) are individual cases, you don't represent the entire marketplace.

 

[DrOswald]

So there are a lot of people commenting on the lack of princess Leia toys Disney got slammed for recently.

Frankly, Leia is not a marketable character. This is because she isn't actually cool or important in any of the Star Wars movies. No, I am serious. To sum it all up, in the climax of the first movie Luke flies an X-wing and takes the shot that destroys the death star. Han flies the Falcon and saves Luke at the last second from Vader. Leia stays back at base to coordinate communication and never makes a dramatic or even visible contribution to the fight.

Leia's role in the original trilogy is entirely as a plot device for the far more interesting characters of Luke and Han. Her only importance is her relation to Luke and Han, the main characters of Star Wars. In fact, with one exception, Leia never does anything interesting on screen where she isn't playing second fiddle to Luke or Han. And that one exception is her wearing a sexy slave girl outfit. Leia was not some fantastic female character. She was a plot device in the story of two far more interesting and important characters.

Frankly, I am not surprised Leia isn't well represented among the toys. If you are playing with toys do you want the space wizard, the space outlaw, or the space radio operator?

As far as all that relates to the topic at hand, Star Wars has always been a property for boys. I think this is one of the reasons why. Rebels is a side show, it doesn't really matter if it has good female characters. Until one of the primary Star Wars movies has a female character that makes little girls want to swing around a light saber or fly a space ship Star Wars will remain a franchise primarily for boys.

 

[visiblenoise]

I love how in these threads, all the people who are apparently geniuses and are smarter than the entire marketing and sales departments combined of several multi-billion dollar Corporations suddenly come out of the wood work.

Winning sentence. It seems disingenuous to mask some desire for absolute gender equality with the suggestion that these companies are so grossly incompetent so as to neglect an apparently untapped market.

 

[rgrekejin]

Leia's role in the original trilogy is entirely as a plot device for the far more interesting characters of Luke and Han. Her only importance is her relation to Luke and Han, the main characters of Star Wars. In fact, with one exception, Leia never does anything interesting on screen where she isn't playing second fiddle to Luke or Han. And that one exception is her wearing a sexy slave girl outfit. Leia was not some fantastic female character. She was a plot device in the story of two far more interesting and important characters.

Frankly, I am not surprised Leia isn't well represented among the toys. If you are playing with toys do you want the space wizard, the space outlaw, or the space radio operator?

...my thermal detonator-holding Leia in Boushh costume (with removable helmet!) would like a word with you.

That said, I don't know anything about the Star Wars: Rebels line, but I had a lot of regular Star Wars toys when I was a kid. Sure, I think I only had 4-5 women toys, but I didn't have that many more men, either. Most of the toys were Droids, aliens of nonhuman physiology, or armor-wearing individuals of unknown sex.

The ones that were people, anyway. I had way more spaceships than I did people. The spaceships are the real stars of those movies anyway, if you ask me.

 

[ZiggyE]

It's not about a shortage of star wars figures, not really. It's about toy companies not wanting to sell, or sell to girls.

Hasbro does sell to girls. In fact it has many female orientated properties. The issue is girls don't want to buy star wars. That isn't sexism.

You're completely missing the point, here. It is not that there aren't any popular licenses for girls, it's that merchandisers don't want to sell originally male-oriented properties to girls because they have an unfounded fear of losing their money.
While not really sexism, it's more of a chicken and egg concept; aren't girls buying the toys because they just aren't interested, or aren't they buying because no one is making them?

It's not about a shortage of star wars figures, not really. It's about toy companies not wanting to sell, or sell to girls.

Hasbro does sell to girls. In fact it has many female orientated properties. The issue is girls don't want to buy star wars. That isn't sexism.

You're completely missing the point, here. It is not that there aren't any popular licenses for girls, it's that merchandisers don't want to sell originally male-oriented properties to girls because they have an unfounded fear of losing their money.
While not really sexism, it's more of a chicken and egg concept; aren't girls buying the toys because they just aren't interested, or aren't they buying because no one is making them?

... Or (as I pointed out below) are all the toys being bought out so fast that the girls just can't reliably find any in the course of regular shopping.

You both seem so confident in your conclusions. Surely you have some source to back them up?

Also "no one is making them" isn't a valid excuse, I'm afraid, because they are making female figures, and they have to bundle them with male stormtrooper figures to get them to sell in the first place.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

I love how in these threads, all the people who are apparently geniuses and are smarter than the entire marketing and sales departments combined of several multi-billion dollar Corporations suddenly come out of the wood work.

I'll make sure to remember that for the next Ubisoft or EA thread.
Corporations are dumb. Corporations have always been dumb. Marketing is an inherently idiotic and morally worthless portion of doing business.

A few things:
-You do not have an inherent right to have the characters you want be made into more toys (or into toys period), regardless of what their gender, race, religion, etc. is.

So clearly Hasbro is free from all criticism regarding what they make then? So we all just should have shut up and taken 4th edition like the cheep whores Hasbro knows we are?

-Companies will do pretty much anything they can to make more money (legally speaking), so this idea that these thousands upon thousands of employees are all part of some giant conspiracy to suppress young girls by not releasing more Princess Leia action figures is barmy on par with "we're all being controlled by the Lizard People". BTW, those referencing the Princess Leia thing are missing the point: people wanted a Princess Leia toy, they demanded it, the company made it. Supply and demand.

For years nobody thought that it would be a good idea to market to children at all. For years nobody thought it would be a good idea to market to teens. For years nobody thought it was a good idea to market to teen girls. Businesses will do anything that requires virtually no risk to attain money. They will do anything that was already done.

-Likewise, the idea that anyone on this board is smarter than the collective brains of thousands of employees who collect and analyze sales data, trends, and conduct research on what kids are looking for, and that they do this for a living, is insane. And no, saying "well I want more female 'Rebels' toys, therefore they are in high demand!" isn't an argument. You (or your daughter, or whomever) are individual cases, you don't represent the entire marketplace.

So anything we say is worthless? Then of what value is the demand side of supply and demand? After all, we are simply individual consumers voicing our ideas, not the powerful grouped minds of conglomerates. So one of the two foundations of the free market is worthless.

 

[Gorrath]

However, it lacks sense to act as if representation in commercial products is an issue of justice or ethics.

Nope, because it works if you tie it to that. Remember the girl who wanted a non-pink easy bake oven for her brother?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/boy-friendly-easy-bake-oven-teen-girl-bat/story?id=18003828

If she'd just griped about wanting more design options, I doubt she would have gotten results. But setting up the company to look like a good guy by publicizing a gender neutral or "boy colored" oven? Free marketing. Interview a couple of male chefs, interview the kid, you've got a slow news day covered as well. The company gets to tout their progressive attitudes as well.

People loudly decry sexism in toy marketing because it works better than just grumbling that they want more variety.

I fail to understand on how this article trying to say it's a problem. Are we in some kind of bizarre USSR state demanding that there must be full female representation in everything?

Well, in humans, the gender ratio is close to 1:1, so yeah, people prefer to see that reflected in representations of humans as well. The same principal is why Friends used to get a lot of flack for being set in New York and only featuring white people.

I don't care too much what works as a tactic. Lots of tactics can work if you don't care about the implications. I care about what works and makes sense from an ethical standpoint. I'm not suggesting people just grumble. Start a campaign, get people on board, show companies what you and others really want. Browbeating a company via emotional pleas that lack substance but sound good can have some very negative effects on society as a whole, and so I will oppose that whether it works or not. I'd much rather a company produce content for people because they want that content, not because thy feel a need to "look progressive". I am a progressive myself, I like and want diversity but I am not willing to support nonsensical ideas even if they would further my goals or ideals.

If one really does believe that diversity in non-essential products is a right owed to them by society, the implications of that claim are more than a little troubling. If we were to say it is a right that is owed, then everyone as individuals have an equal claim to personal representation in commercial products. This sets a precedent that companies are ethically responsible for representing everyone the way they feel they should be represented. That is an untenable position for any almost any business that produces products.

I could also go on about how products themselves are not gender specific innately but we assign gender expectations to them via cultural norms. In my view of a progressive society, a pink easy bake oven IS gender neutral. It is only those who see pink as being a "girl's color" that would say there isn't one for boys. Far better to attack THAT fallacious notion than demand a blue oven, right, since demanding the blue oven "for boys" reinforces those fallacious notions about gender norms.

 

[Karadalis]

If female character figures sell less than male character figures, then surely this would be expected? The market responds to demand. If people aren't buying female figures at the rate of male figures, then of course there will be a shorter supply of female figures. What is Hasbro supposed to do about it? If Hasbro could create demand out of thin air, they'd be the most successful company in the world.

Basicly the ultra progressives want hasbro to waste money because of political correctness and "social justice"

They do not understand capitalism and principles like demand and supply, wich has been quite aptly be shown in the last couple of months.

They never understood that in the grand scheme of things if there was a large enough demand for the things they advocate that companies would have allready picked up on it wholeheartly and not make token efforts that really go nowhere but most often lessen the quality of the product to appease the very loud ultra left minorities that weild the "guilt" club to get what they want.

Female character sell because they less advertisement.

Sorry but i have to call this out as complete and utter bullshit.

These female characters are based on a cartoon show, and most often then not nowadays are pictured just as badass/capable as their male counterparts and unlike in the past do star in every single episode and do meaningfull things.

The kids are very AWARE that these characters exist. Commercials have little to do with little timmy deciding who his favourite character is and which action figure he wants to play with. Most often advertisements are just to "inform" kids about those awesome new accesories that their favourite character comes with this time or what awesome new vehicles they can get for their favourite characters.

A kids decision to want a certain action figure is solely based on if said action figure is one of his favourite characters, and even to this day, boys will choose badass male characters over badass female characters.. and you know what... THAT IS OKAY!

Let boys be boys... they will have to deal with this liberal BS soon enough when they hit puberty. Stop forcing your political agendas down kids throats. Kids that have no fucking clue about it in the first place.

 

[DrOswald]

Leia's role in the original trilogy is entirely as a plot device for the far more interesting characters of Luke and Han. Her only importance is her relation to Luke and Han, the main characters of Star Wars. In fact, with one exception, Leia never does anything interesting on screen where she isn't playing second fiddle to Luke or Han. And that one exception is her wearing a sexy slave girl outfit. Leia was not some fantastic female character. She was a plot device in the story of two far more interesting and important characters.

Frankly, I am not surprised Leia isn't well represented among the toys. If you are playing with toys do you want the space wizard, the space outlaw, or the space radio operator?

...my thermal detonator-holding Leia in Boushh costume (with removable helmet!) would like a word with you.

That said, I don't know anything about the Star Wars: Rebels line, but I had a lot of regular Star Wars toys when I was a kid. Sure, I think I only had 4-5 women toys, but I didn't have that many more men, either. Most of the toys were Droids, aliens of nonhuman physiology, or armor-wearing individuals of unknown sex.

The ones that were people, anyway. I had way more spaceships than I did people. The spaceships are the real stars of those movies anyway, if you ask me.

Ok, you are right. I did undersell Leia, especially Jedi Leia. The thermal detonator moment was pretty good, And her killing Jabba was good too. And I want to make it clear, I don't think Leia was a bad character by any means. She was great, a perfect fit for what they needed and given excellent depth for the role she was given. She was not your typical damsel, to be sure, and the fact that people tend to rank her as an equal to Luke and Han is a testament to that fact. It was clear she was their equal, even if the focus was not so much on her.

But I do think the point still stands. She is second fiddle to Luke and Han, and is largely less interesting.

Also, I agree the ships are awesome.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Let boys be boys... they will have to deal with this liberal BS soon enough when they hit puberty. Stop forcing your political agendas down kids throats. Kids that have no fucking clue about it in the first place.

Yes, let boys be boys, let girls be girls, let people be people, let rapists be rapists, let Nazis be Nazis. Demand nothing of your fellow man, because that's just dumb liberal progressivism.

Fuck, the very foundation of raising children is to not just let children be children. That is tantamount to neglectful parenting. You must guide them to be more than what they currently are, even if it seems trivial, because what we see as trivial today may be seen as heartless in a more enlightened era.

 

[Gorrath]

Let boys be boys... they will have to deal with this liberal BS soon enough when they hit puberty. Stop forcing your political agendas down kids throats. Kids that have no fucking clue about it in the first place.

Yes, let boys be boys, let girls be girls, let people be people, let rapists be rapists, let Nazis be Nazis. Demand nothing of your fellow man, because that's just dumb liberal progressivism.

Fuck, the very foundation of raising children is to not just let children be children. That is tantamount to neglectful parenting. You must guide them to be more than what they currently are, even if it seems trivial, because what we see as trivial today may be seen as heartless in a more enlightened era.

I feel that you are misrepresenting things badly here and I see these sorts of arguments from my fellow progressives a lot. I find the cognitive dissonance bizarre. On the one hand, the progressive claims that letting "boys be boys" is a bad thing, because they should be taught that liking to play with certain toys is what they should want. The kids should like the female figures just as much as the male figures because the "gender" of the toy shouldn't matter.At the same time, progressives argue that kids should not be taught to play with specific toys because it reinforces gender norms.

So which is it? Is it okay to let the kid play with the toy they want to, or is okay to tell your kid they should play with the toys you want them to? We can't have it both ways. What progressives who say these things want is to be able to tell kids what they want the kid to play with, regardless if the kid wants it or not while demonizing their conservative counterparts for the exact same thing. Now one can argue that the progressive is trying to mold the kid "properly" but it doesn't change the fact that it undercuts their own argument against the conservative since the conservative views their ideas as "proper".

Edit: I want to clarify something a bit here too. I see a strong distinction between telling a kid what they should play with and why and doing some basic guidance. There is nothing wrong with telling a boy who wants a Bobba Fett Luke and Han toy that playing with the Leia toy is fine too and that the toy can be just as fun. What I would take issue with is, if the boy still says "Nah, don't want it" to try and force it on him. Guiding children is necessary. Trying to make children who we want them to be is not.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Let boys be boys... they will have to deal with this liberal BS soon enough when they hit puberty. Stop forcing your political agendas down kids throats. Kids that have no fucking clue about it in the first place.

Yes, let boys be boys, let girls be girls, let people be people, let rapists be rapists, let Nazis be Nazis. Demand nothing of your fellow man, because that's just dumb liberal progressivism.

Fuck, the very foundation of raising children is to not just let children be children. That is tantamount to neglectful parenting. You must guide them to be more than what they currently are, even if it seems trivial, because what we see as trivial today may be seen as heartless in a more enlightened era.

I feel that you are misrepresenting things badly here and I see these sorts of arguments from my fellow progressives a lot. I find the cognitive dissonance bizarre. On the one hand, the progressive claims that letting "boys be boys" is a bad thing, because they should be taught that liking to play with certain toys is what they should want. The kids should like the female figures just as much as the male figures because the "gender" of the toy shouldn't matter.At the same time, progressives argue that kids should not be taught to play with specific toys because it reinforces gender norms.

Your child doesn't choose what toys you buy them, especially infants or toddlers, but you will hardly ever see a 1 year old boy with a dolly now will you? And I don't see how saying kids should like toys targeted towards both genders conflicts with the idea that you should not push your kids towards one gender's toys.

So which is it? Is it okay to let the kid play with the toy they want to, or is okay to tell your kid they should play with the toys you want them to? We can't have it both ways. What progressives who say these things want is to be able to tell kids what they want the kid to play with, regardless if the kid wants it or not while demonizing their conservative counterparts for the exact same thing. Now one can argue that the progressive is trying to mold the kid "properly" but it doesn't change the fact that it undercuts their own argument against the conservative since the conservative views their ideas as "proper".

It is okay to buy toys such that you don't push any gender role, and let your child decide for themselves what they like when they are old enough. Further, I Would argue that teaching your children to view men and women as equal is paramount (which is what my comment was largely about), even if the particular case seems minor.
Finally, I would argue that instilling decent morals in children is important, which I suppose a conservative would say as well. So I am in no way surprised that my argument resembles a conservative's in this case. However, the morals I would instill would in many cases be quite different from that of a conservative. No sane progressive should call for an end to ethics, or an end to raising children to be ethical. They would call for better ethics.

Edit:

Edit: I want to clarify something a bit here too. I see a strong distinction between telling a kid what they should play with and why and doing some basic guidance. There is nothing wrong with telling a boy who wants a Bobba Fett Luke and Han toy that playing with the Leia toy is fine too and that the toy can be just as fun. What I would take issue with is, if the boy still says "Nah, don't want it" to try and force it on him. Guiding children is necessary. Trying to make children who we want them to be is not.

Making a child eat their vegetables is hardly making them be what you want them to, and I could see that as an analogous situation. I do largely agree with this sentiment though. If a boy just wants to play with guns and hammers, and this is in no way something you pushed them towards in the first place, go ahead and let them play with guns and hammers. As long as they fully understand that there is nothing wrong with dolls or baking, then I don't personally see the issue. After all, I still don't like "feminine" things like fashion or dolls, and I certainly don't think I should have to.

 

[Maze1125]

Then again, this is the only state in history that people give two flying fucks about sexism at all.

Yep, that's right. America is the only state in the world where people care about sexism.
In fact, in the whole of Europe men are still allowed to whip their wives and only men above 30 are allowed to vote...

Only on the Escapist would someone bring their mindbogglingly tedious gender politics into the kids' toys arena and pompously claim that they get to control the market because of "equality".

Nope, I don't think a single person said that.

But, hey, they you go again, claiming that capitalism and "freedom" justify sexism.

Companies may be legally entitled to do this, it may even be the most profitable choice (though probably not), but neither of those things mean that it's right.

 

[Gorrath]

Your child doesn't choose what toys you buy them, especially infants or toddlers, but you will hardly ever see a 1 year old boy with a dolly now will you? And I don't see how saying kids should like toys targeted towards both genders conflicts with the idea that you should not push your kids towards one gender's toys.

That's the thing though, I don't believe toys push a gender. Expected social norms push a gender. A blue oven is gender neutral and so is a pink gun. It's what society associates with pink and blue that reinforces split gender norms, not whether a toy is either of those colors. (It's more complex than this, I concede, but for the sake of some brevity this holds true.) It's not that we need to teach boys and girls that they should play with the pink gun or the blue oven, but that they can play with whichever they like best because neither toy is wrong to play with whether it is traditionally associated with their gender or not.

The conflict in your statement is that both stances imply that pushing your kids toward any toy is a good thing rather than letting them choose which toys they like best and identify with. Obviously a 1 year old isn't going to articulate this, so parents should buy whatever they want to buy their kid, I am speaking of the stage of childhood development where they have some notion of what speaks to them and what they enjoy.

It is okay to buy toys such that you don't push any gender role, and let your child decide for themselves what they like when they are old enough. Further, Iwould argue that teaching your children to view men and women as equal is paramount (which is what my comment was largely about), even if the particular case seems minor.
Finally, I would argue that end tilling decent morals in children is important, which I suppose a conservative would say as well. So I am in no way surprised that my argument resembles a conservative's in this case. However, the morals I would instill would in many cases be quite different from that Ida conservative. No sane progressive should call for an end to ethics, or an end to raising children to be ethical. They would call for better ethics.

Teaching children to view men and women as equals is fine but expecting them to play with toys they don't really like or don't prefer in order to teach them this is, I think, misguided. Just as expecting a son who exhibits what the parents think are "femanine" traits to become more "masculine" by buying him toy guns is foolish. The child's self identity and moral values don't need to be molded by forcing toys on them they don't care for. If the boy likes barbies, buy him barbies, if he likes he-man, buy him he-man. My parents didn't teach me to think of people as equals by buying me barbies I wouldn't have liked. When I exhibited a love of toy guns, they bought me toy guns. When I exhibited a love of fashion, they bought me fashion magazines. I'm not arguing that a parent should just do anything a child wants either, but in the specific case of choice of entertainment appropriate for their age, there's no reason to not let the child be themselves. Neither the progressive nor the conservative should be trying to force an identity on the child through buying them toys they don't like, or reinforcing gender norms by telling them specific toys are boy's toys or girl's toys, even if the toys are marketed that way.

I hope that better illustrates what I mean. Cheers!

 

[rgrekejin]

Your child doesn't choose what toys you buy them, especially infants or toddlers, but you will hardly ever see a 1 year old boy with a dolly now will you? And I don't see how saying kids should like toys targeted towards both genders conflicts with the idea that you should not push your kids towards one gender's toys.

My Uber-feminist mother had four sons (of which I am one) and no daughters (because I like to think God has a sense of humor). As we were growing up, she insisted on this sort of gender-blind toy buying, and so we always had Barbies and My Littlest Petshops and the like around when we were kids.

We fed them to our giant-size Jurassic Park T-Rex, with his hollow stomach and real action-figure-devouring action.

 

[Gorrath]

Edit: I want to clarify something a bit here too. I see a strong distinction between telling a kid what they should play with and why and doing some basic guidance. There is nothing wrong with telling a boy who wants a Bobba Fett Luke and Han toy that playing with the Leia toy is fine too and that the toy can be just as fun. What I would take issue with is, if the boy still says "Nah, don't want it" to try and force it on him. Guiding children is necessary. Trying to make children who we want them to be is not.

Making a child eat their vegetables is hardly making them be what you want them to, and I could see that as an analogous situation. I do largely agree with this sentiment though. If a boy just wants to play with guns and hammers, and this is in no way something you pushed them towards in the first place, go ahead and let them play with guns and hammers. As long as they fully understand that there is nothing wrong with dolls or baking, then I don't personally see the issue. After all, I still don't like "feminine" things like fashion or dolls, and I certainly don't think I should have to.

Yes, but we're talking about self-identity here, not nutrition. That's why I called your original comment off-base. It seems we both are actually mostly in agreement on this issue though.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Your child doesn't choose what toys you buy them, especially infants or toddlers, but you will hardly ever see a 1 year old boy with a dolly now will you? And I don't see how saying kids should like toys targeted towards both genders conflicts with the idea that you should not push your kids towards one gender's toys.

My Uber-feminist mother had four sons (of which I am one) and no daughters (because I like to think God has a sense of humor). As we were growing up, she insisted on this sort of gender-blind toy buying, and so we always had Barbies and My Littlest Petshops and the like around when we were kids.

We fed them to our giant-size Jurassic Park T-Rex, with his hollow stomach and real action-figure-devouring action.

Good for you? You say this as if I care. Your one personal experience is hardly representative of all society. Further, while your "uber-feminist" mother tried to be gender neutral to some extent in what toys she bought you still existed in a society where boys are told to play with dinosaurs rather than dolls. Further still, I see no reason why I should just take your word on this. For all I know you're just lying, or dramatically overstating your situation.

 

[rgrekejin]

Your child doesn't choose what toys you buy them, especially infants or toddlers, but you will hardly ever see a 1 year old boy with a dolly now will you? And I don't see how saying kids should like toys targeted towards both genders conflicts with the idea that you should not push your kids towards one gender's toys.

My Uber-feminist mother had four sons (of which I am one) and no daughters (because I like to think God has a sense of humor). As we were growing up, she insisted on this sort of gender-blind toy buying, and so we always had Barbies and My Littlest Petshops and the like around when we were kids.

We fed them to our giant-size Jurassic Park T-Rex, with his hollow stomach and real action-figure-devouring action.

Good for you? You say this as if I care. Your one personal experience is hardly representative of all society. Further, while your "uber-feminist" mother tried to be gender neutral to some extent in what toys she bought you still existed in a society where boys are told to play with dinosaurs rather than dolls. Further still, I see no reason why I should just take your word on this. For all I know you're just lying, or dramatically overstating your situation.

...you seem to be confusing anecdote for argument, friend. Have a chill, try not to be so confrontational, and remember that you may not be the only person reading this thread. God, some people are so prickly.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Your child doesn't choose what toys you buy them, especially infants or toddlers, but you will hardly ever see a 1 year old boy with a dolly now will you? And I don't see how saying kids should like toys targeted towards both genders conflicts with the idea that you should not push your kids towards one gender's toys.

My Uber-feminist mother had four sons (of which I am one) and no daughters (because I like to think God has a sense of humor). As we were growing up, she insisted on this sort of gender-blind toy buying, and so we always had Barbies and My Littlest Petshops and the like around when we were kids.

We fed them to our giant-size Jurassic Park T-Rex, with his hollow stomach and real action-figure-devouring action.

Good for you? You say this as if I care. Your one personal experience is hardly representative of all society. Further, while your "uber-feminist" mother tried to be gender neutral to some extent in what toys she bought you still existed in a society where boys are told to play with dinosaurs rather than dolls. Further still, I see no reason why I should just take your word on this. For all I know you're just lying, or dramatically overstating your situation.

...you seem to be confusing anecdote for argument, friend. Have a chill, try not to be so confrontational, and remember that you may not be the only person reading this thread. God, some people are so prickly.

Then you seem to be wasting my time with anecdotes. That is probably a joke.

I'm in an argumentative sort of mood at the moment. Forgive me for going a bit overboard. I'm having a bit of fun with this honestly.

 

[rgrekejin]

Your child doesn't choose what toys you buy them, especially infants or toddlers, but you will hardly ever see a 1 year old boy with a dolly now will you? And I don't see how saying kids should like toys targeted towards both genders conflicts with the idea that you should not push your kids towards one gender's toys.

My Uber-feminist mother had four sons (of which I am one) and no daughters (because I like to think God has a sense of humor). As we were growing up, she insisted on this sort of gender-blind toy buying, and so we always had Barbies and My Littlest Petshops and the like around when we were kids.

We fed them to our giant-size Jurassic Park T-Rex, with his hollow stomach and real action-figure-devouring action.

Good for you? You say this as if I care. Your one personal experience is hardly representative of all society. Further, while your "uber-feminist" mother tried to be gender neutral to some extent in what toys she bought you still existed in a society where boys are told to play with dinosaurs rather than dolls. Further still, I see no reason why I should just take your word on this. For all I know you're just lying, or dramatically overstating your situation.

...you seem to be confusing anecdote for argument, friend. Have a chill, try not to be so confrontational, and remember that you may not be the only person reading this thread. God, some people are so prickly.

Then you seem to be wasting my time with anecdotes. That is probably a joke.

I'm in an argumentative sort of mood at the moment. Forgive me for going a bit overboard. I'm having a bit of fun with this honestly.

For what it's worth, that anecdote is true. I'm not sure I could prove it to you without going home and scanning my childhood photo album, but it doesn't matter, because I'm not trying to make any broader point with it anyway. It's just a story people sometimes find funny at parties that was somewhat related to what was being discussed in the thread.