Quote:
Originally Posted by WheelieStrong
i don't like the fact that product advertisers especially with kids stuff seem to tell parents they have to buy a certain product for there son and a different one for there daughter by plastering a little girl all over the advert and boxing of say a model kitchen.
What upsets me so much more is that parents and society in general seem to think that this is the way things have always been, should be now and shoud stay in future.
i don't think i'd be thinking too far out of the box to say that if products and society in general was less gender based, there could be a lot less trans folk because they could just be people and not be judged so much by what they expected to do and be like
|
Your post reminded me that it was only ten years ago (2000) that Toys R Us decided to separate their stores down the middle into a blue "boys" side and a pink "girls" side.
When I was a kid the toys were grouped by type, not gender. My sister shopped for her Barbies a few feet away from me as I shopped for my GI Joes. I liked the GI Joes because they had articulated limbs which allowed them to move more realistically than barbie who could not even bend her legs. All the figures with bendable limbs were male.
What's even more alarming about the recent gender division is that all the "gender neutral" toys I loved so much (erector sets, etc) and the science/tech toys (microscopes, chemistry sets) are now in the boy section!
What you said about marketing reminded me of a lawsuit a few years ago where someone in Sweden sued Toys R Us (successfully) for gender discrimination over their catalog because all the pictures of boys were in active poses and all the pics of girls were of them standing or sitting inactively. Lol maybe the girls legs didn't bend...
