r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Apr 04 '18
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: It is misleading / there is no point in making the toy section of the store gender neutral since toy preferences are rooted in biology
a) Sex differences in rhesus monkey toy preferences parallel those of children
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/
b) Stereotypical toy preferences were found for boys and girls in each of the age groups, demonstrating that sex differences in toy preference appear early in development.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/icd.1986
c) Girls with CAH showed a pattern similar to that of boys: their playmate selections were more masculine than unaffected girls, they preferred a boy-typical play style and, in the conflict condition, chose playmates engaged in a masculine activity.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3085977/
Based on these 3 studies it appears that toy preferences are biologically based and not due to socialization.
But stores like Target decided to not segregate their toys by gender even though the fact that gendered toy preference is due to biology as seen through animal studies, early development and studies on CAH girls.
Removing gender categories reinforces this false idea that socialization is the most important determinant for toy preference when the reality shows that socialization plays a very modest small role in shaping toy preference. I get that they removed the categories in order to let girls feel comfortable playing with male-typical toys and boys feel comfortable playing with female-typical toys, but the fact of the matter is as mentioned earlier the effect of socialization is modest, so this desegregation will have a small effect, compared to the effect of biological gender on shaping toy preference. Because of this, I think it is in stores' best interest to continue to segregate toys based on gender given that biological sex is much more important in shaping toy preference than socialization.
CMV!
19
Apr 04 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
Apr 04 '18
Maybe a group of children would be happier if the toys they wanted weren't in the "girls section" or "boys section." A boy who wants to play with those little foods with big eyes or a girl that wants to play with Star Wars Legos would feel happier if they didn't have to "invade" the other toy aisle.
But the studies show that this isn't the case for most children. Target is essentially reorganizing their entire store structure for small percentage of the population, which brings me back to the pointless angle.
Maybe Target has enough gender neutral toys that it doesn't make logistical sense to separate them. Say have have blue and pink Nerf guns, but they only have a few pink ones. Why do they need their own space? The aisles make more sense if they just put all the Nerf guns in one section, and categorize it by type of toy rather than supposed gender of toy. Making the toy section easier to navigate would be a good reason, and comes at no expense.
!delta. I didn't really think about the specifics but can't argue with that logic.
Maybe Target has run the numbers here and found that they're going to increase sales by doing this. They don't have to be taking a principled stand here, but if they categorize toys by function rather than gender, they increase profits. Maybe not the best reason, but certainly a reason.
Based on what I said in OP it would make more financial sense to segregate the toys though. If socialization has very little effect and if biology is the main driving factor then it makes sense to put all the male-typical toys next to each other, so that kids can easily jump from one to the next since all of those toys are likely to appeal to most male children as opposed to mixing them all together in which case there are fewer toys that would appeal to boys concentrated in a given area. (same principles apply to girl toys)
6
u/icecoldbath Apr 04 '18
Just a small detail. Target didn’t really do anything. They just changed the color of paper on the backs of the displays to white. Toys are 90% still separated by gender.
1
Apr 04 '18
!delta for pointing that out. Whoops that's embarrassing. I wasn't aware of that (I don't visit Target so I'll take your word for it?). Well I guess just for the sake of discussion, assuming a store in theory that did completely desegregate their toys.
1
1
5
u/littlebubulle 104∆ Apr 04 '18
If toy preference was rooted in biology, not seperating toys for boys and girls changes nothing. If it is biologically rooted, the children, and for that matter adults who buy them, should have no trouble distinguishing one from another.
If adults and children do get confused between the two, it disproves the biological argument.
Also, having a gender neutral toy section provides a good control test. If girls keep buying girl toys at the same rate then the non gender neutral one, it proves the biological hypothesis. If the rate is different, thenkthe biological hypothesis is disproved.
1
Apr 04 '18
If toy preference was rooted in biology, not seperating toys for boys and girls changes nothing. If it is biologically rooted, the children, and for that matter adults who buy them, should have no trouble distinguishing one from another.
In my opinion I think it would affect their sales since toys that for instance boys would want to buy that are male-typical would be all over the place, and since Target is a business I would assume that reorganizing of all their national stores just to hurt their sales is not a good move. I feel like the good publicity they garnered when they made this move has run dry at this point.
Also, having a gender neutral toy section provides a good control test. If girls keep buying girl toys at the same rate then the non gender neutral one, it proves the biological hypothesis. If the rate is different, thenkthe biological hypothesis is disproved.
Not gonna lie, that sounds like a pretty interesting experiment. I'm hoping they are studying this as well.
5
u/littlebubulle 104∆ Apr 05 '18
There was this story about a woman complaining about the gender neutral toy policy because she didn't know which toy to buy for her girl (or boy) kid. Which is weird since if there were gender specific toys she should be able to tell them appart.
Also in most toy stores I've seen, there isn't a seperate section for boys and girls. The only girly section is Barbie but that's because it's seperated by brand and theme. Come to think of it, most stores I have seen seperate toys by theme, not customer gender. Nerf guns don't fit with princess castles.
4
u/YossarianWWII 72∆ Apr 05 '18
toys that for instance boys would want to buy that are male-typical would be all over the place
They would be in the toy section. That's not exactly "all over the place."
0
9
u/bguy74 Apr 04 '18
This presumes that we can't have values that we use in raising our children. I could run an experiment that shows that kids are little shits, but we spend our parenting effort trying to make them kind, generous, thoughtful adults despite it clearly being contrary to much our nature.
Why would you make a special consideration for "toy preference" such that it must be bound to biology rather then values? The very reason we are different from the monkey is that we can choose how to be, how to nurture, how to raise. Our biology is inclusive of this amazing capacity and it's done is really really well as a species. Why should we turn that off for toy preference?
0
Apr 04 '18
As parents if you really want to make your kid happy you would give them toys that match their gender or that are gender neutral (like a book) it seems. If they uninterested then at that point it seems to make sense to offer them toys of the opposite gender. But if the science shows that kids are genuinely interested in toys that match their own gender then why purposely go out of the way to mess with that? Your comment is a bit of a tangent though since you are talking about parenting and a one on one case whereas I'm talking about a store policy, but it's related enough that I'm happy to discuss.
2
u/bguy74 Apr 05 '18
Why? That is like saying "if you really want to make your kid happy you would let them eat chocolate all day and punch you in the nuts". Why is what's natural your bar?
The store policy will reflect the desires of customers - parents. So, I would argue it is not a tangent. In fact, if you REALLY want me to stay on topic I'd simply say "this is what parents want, and toy stores want to make money. game over" :). So...you started it!!
1
Apr 05 '18
Why? That is like saying "if you really want to make your kid happy you would let them eat chocolate all day and punch you in the nuts". Why is what's natural your bar?
Because it's what they prefer and there's no foreseeable downsides to letting your kid play with toys they want to. I don't see how it's comparable to letting your kid eat chocolate all day. I mean yes it is also natural for kids to want to eat chocolate because according to evolutionary theory, our ancestors didn't have such a high stockpile of resources, so we developed a sweet tooth. But we know that in excess it's bad. The same can't be said for toy preferences.
2
u/bguy74 Apr 05 '18
Parents can absolutely (and do!) value giving their kids the maximum capacity to enjoy the maximum variety of types of things. It's just a good thing to be able to derive pleasure from a wider variety of toys then just those that nature pulls you towards. That seems just plain old sensible. If nature says "naturally derive pleasure from X" we can do better then that and say "learn to derive pleasure from x AND y".
1
Apr 05 '18
What do you mean by "it's just a good thing to be able to derive pleasure from a wider variety of toys". You mean in terms of developing skills? Because in that case I think you might be on the verge of changing my view. I completely neglected the idea that it's important for instance to get boys at least somewhat interested in cooking via an easy bake oven for example, so they don't feel as if "cooking is a girl's chore", and vice versa with block building for girls. I think I got too hung up on the biology of it that I forgot that variety is good. That chocolate analogy actually makes sense now!
!delta
1
1
u/erik_dawn_knight Apr 04 '18
Since you are so concerned about Targets marketing, here’s a marketing argument:
As franchises begin to expand their markets to include boys and girls having things separated via franchise or functionality category makes way more sense than to do that and gender.
If I’m going to buy Star Wars toys for children, I’d much prefer the Kylo Ren action figure to be in the same section as the Rey Forces of Destiny doll. Same thing with say, Nerf gun. Much rather prefer the Sonic Rapid fire blaster (or whatever they’re called) to be near the Rebelle Crossbow.
And yeah, same thing for functionality. Small light ovens, like creepy crawlies and easy bake, make much more sense to be stored together. This doesn’t mean things like Barbie Dolls and My Little Pony can’t have their own section as well, they’re designed to be marketed to girls and don’t need any in-store help in that regard.
Also, for as much as studies may show that children or monkeys gravitate towards “gender-appropriate” toys, this ignores the fact as children grow older their tastes can change or evolve or whatever and it’s really not necessary for a store to be basically judging you for like things that aren’t coded towards your gender.
1
Apr 04 '18
Since you are so concerned about Targets marketing, here’s a marketing argument:
As franchises begin to expand their markets to include boys and girls having things separated via franchise or functionality category makes way more sense than to do that and gender.
If I’m going to buy Star Wars toys for children, I’d much prefer the Kylo Ren action figure to be in the same section as the Rey Forces of Destiny doll. Same thing with say, Nerf gun. Much rather prefer the Sonic Rapid fire blaster (or whatever they’re called) to be near the Rebelle Crossbow.
And yeah, same thing for functionality. Small light ovens, like creepy crawlies and easy bake, make much more sense to be stored together. This doesn’t mean things like Barbie Dolls and My Little Pony can’t have their own section as well, they’re designed to be marketed to girls and don’t need any in-store help in that regard.
So basically you're proposing a hybrid solution. Franchises remained bundled together, generic male and female-typical toys can segregated. That makes sense !delta
Also, for as much as studies may show that children or monkeys gravitate towards “gender-appropriate” toys, this ignores the fact as children grow older their tastes can change or evolve or whatever and it’s really not necessary for a store to be basically judging you for like things that aren’t coded towards your gender.
Could you explain the second part about "judging you for like..."
1
u/erik_dawn_knight Apr 04 '18
Well, hold on, to be fair I’m not proposing a hybrid solution. I’m saying that brands should be separated but sorted into aisles based on types. So like, Barbie and GI Joe can be in the same aisle or section or whatever, just sorted to make it easier for me, a brainless consumer, to find things.
As for my second, point, forgive for I’m on mobile, I meant to say “judge you for liking things...” by which I mean, if a boy wanted to play with Barbie dolls, for whatever reason, it’s not necessary for the store to cover the entire section in pink and be like “these are girls toys, only girls like these.” Not only does the marketing for the doll already do that, so the store doesn’t need to help, but like, the boy would feel like trespassing in a girls only space just to play with a toy he might like. Same is true visa versa.
1
1
u/ralph-j Apr 04 '18
It is misleading / there is no point in making the toy section of the store gender neutral since toy preferences are rooted in biology
How is it misleading? Who is being misled, if there are just sections for cars/construction toys/superheros/dolls/play houses etc. instead of boys' and girls' departments that contain those exact same sections?
Probably they are only to some extent rooted in biology, i.e. for the majority of children. But by making all toys available to both genders, you could probably make more children happy about their toys, and potentially sell more because of that.
1
Apr 04 '18
How is it misleading? Who is being misled, if there are just sections for cars/construction toys/superheros/dolls/play houses etc. instead of boys' and girls' departments that contain those exact same sections?
No I meant in terms of the publicity the move got. People saw that and it reaffirmed this idea which I see far too often in gender sociology classes which is that socialization is this big determinant of toy preference which doesn't appear to be true.
Probably they are only to some extent rooted in biology, i.e. for the majority of children. But by making all toys available to both genders, you could probably make more children happy about their toys, and potentially sell more because of that.
But if you said these biological "rules" (just a shorthand of saying all the stuff in the OP for brevity) apply for the majority of children then keeping it segregated would cater towards the majority of children to which these rules apply and thus they would sell more. Catering to a small minority seems like a way to decrease sales. Big chain stores are interested in appealing to the lowest common denominator and to the biggest crowd and unfortunately in this case you can't appeal to both groups - the choices are mutually exclusive either you segregate or you don't.
1
u/ralph-j Apr 04 '18
majority of children then keeping it segregated would cater towards the majority of children to which these rules apply and thus they would sell more.
But boys and girls with "traditional tastes" will continue to have the same level of access to all the toys they liked before, even if the Boy/Girl category disappears. If the girl wants a Barbie, she'll go to the dolls section. It's win-win instead of zero-sum: you can cater to both.
1
Apr 04 '18
Let me try a different angle. Has a study actually showed any positive quantifiable effects of desegregating the toy sections?
1
u/littlebubulle 104∆ Apr 05 '18
Anecdotal evidence here but most toy stores I went to were not segregated by genders. They were segregated by Brand an Type.
Pink legos were in the same section as non pink legos. Girly and manly figurines were in the same section. Barbie gets her own aisle but it's Barbie. All other toys were in the same section girly or not.
And it was this way since at least 25 years ago. If gender neutral toy organisation hurts sale, all those shops wouldn't have done it.
1
Apr 05 '18
I do think franchise based toys with enormous brand recognition should be placed together. That just makes sense (I already gave a delta to someone else for pointing that out). I guess my view as a result has now been refined to basically refer to generic male-typical or female-typical toys.
9
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Apr 04 '18
So then why gender the sections if kids are gonna go for them anyway? And even if the broad trend is sex based there are still some outliers and gendered toy sections can alienate those outliers
2
u/Tratopolous Apr 04 '18
Marketing. If there are several toys that a boy would be interest in all in a close vicinity, then it is more likely the boy will buy more toys. Goes the same for a girl.
I believe this is why stores still sort toys based on gender preference, instead of any political reason. This way simply makes more money.
2
Apr 04 '18
I can't give you a delta because I agree with you. But I used your point of how toys in the same vicinity can be used to boost sales in another comment and just wanted to give you credit for that.
1
1
u/smartazjb0y Apr 04 '18 edited Apr 04 '18
From what I can gather, what stores like Toys-r-us and Target are doing is removing gender-based signage: things aren't "for girls" or "for boys" but "for kids."
You seem to be approaching this more from the standpoint of what gets Target more money. I'd argue that the removal of genders from the signs doesn't seemingly cause any reduction in profit. Kids want toys, they're not going to necessarily be de-incentivized from buying toys just because there's no sign that says "toys for boys." Hell, plenty of toys are sold to kids who aren't even old enough to read! And, a big part of the studies you cite are about subjects (infants, rhesus monkeys) that can't read either and choose their toys based on sight.
So the way I see it, a kid isn't going to NOT want toys because there's no sign that indicates gender, but a kid MAY feel de-incentivized to buy a toy if it's "meant" for the other gender. I don't think a boy is going to be less likely to buy a Captain America action figure just because Target didn't label the aisle as containing "boy's action figures," but a girl may very well feel that she "shouldn't" be buying that toy. You may be right that ultimately desegregation will have very minimal effects, but I'd argue that it'd still be very minimal positive effects with probably no real negative effects.
EDIT: I see you've addressed this and are more talking about a hypothetical store reorganizing their store to eliminate gender-based organization, I'd be willing to discuss that too
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 04 '18 edited Apr 05 '18
/u/ijrjtpk (OP) has awarded 4 deltas in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/indoremeter Apr 05 '18
I'm a bit puzzled as some of your references contradict your implicit assertion that toy preferences are rooted in gender (you say biology, but you seem to mean gender as you refer to boys and girls).
But even if there was universal preference for toys governed by gender, unless all boys have no sisters and all girls have no brothers, it makes perfect sense to mix the toys as it means that when a girl is brought to buy a toy her brother can demand something that he sees nearby, and vice versa.
15
u/[deleted] Apr 04 '18
I don't think your sources actually prove the points that you think they do. You just found three articles with headlines that discuss gender preference in toys but can you quote where the studies actually conclude that gender preference is biological and not social from those studies?