|
Post by gmcwife1 on Aug 12, 2015 16:05:31 GMT
It wouldn't be right since my breeders are black and they are the ones that chose to use a black collar and call the puppy black boy. I know that you will say it won't matter that they themselves are black, which is part of what makes this whole PC thing crazy, confusing and over the top silly at times They obviously see no offense in it and it's part of dog breeding. All breeders put some type of color marker on the puppies - a collar or ribbon or spot. My breeder had a large litter and used blue, green, red, yellow, etc, including a black collar to color code her puppies. So would the same people be offended if it was a black woman (my breeder) discussing black boy to white woman (other breeders/owners) at a table at a restaurant? Hard to say. I think it really would depend on a lot of things at the moment, most importantly, the frame of mind of the person hearing it. Calling a dog Blackie (especially if the dog was Black) would be different than calling him Black Boy. For the most part, people could readily understand the obvious. You wouldn't get very far explaining that when your dog was a puppy he wore a black color to tell him from his littermates, and now that he's your dog, apart from the litter, this is an appropriate name to call him in public. You might suggest more unique names: Green collar - Hammie (for Green eggs and) Red collar - Mac (for McIntosh apple) Black collar - Miner (for coal) Then people might actually be interested in why you sometimes refer to your dog Spot as Hammie. And this is exactly why people don't like the overly PC movement - why should anyone have to explain or as you are trying to suggest have to change something that is innocent just because it MIGHT offend someone?? Are you truly suggesting that an entire segment of the population (dog breeders) should change how they color code their puppies just so some random someone doesn't get offended? And people don't understand the backlash against everything being politically correct
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Aug 12, 2015 16:42:01 GMT
My point is, there's nothing wrong with the cultural assignment either. it is what it is. Assigning negative connotations where there is none is a good example of overly PC. You're using 'cultural assignment' as a euphemism for stereotype and, yes, it's negative - maybe not for those who actually fit the stereotype, but for the rest of us, most definitely. And that is what is meant by Politically Correct, because the random person finds it negative, then it must be for everyone. There is nothing inherently negative with blue standing for boys and pink standing for girls. It is only negative by those people who view it negatively, and usually that is simply because they are looking to be offended by something.
|
|
Dalai Mama
Drama Llama
La Pea Boheme
Posts: 6,985
Jun 26, 2014 0:31:31 GMT
|
Post by Dalai Mama on Aug 12, 2015 16:47:39 GMT
You're using 'cultural assignment' as a euphemism for stereotype and, yes, it's negative - maybe not for those who actually fit the stereotype, but for the rest of us, most definitely. And that is what is meant by Politically Correct, because the random person finds it negative, then it must be for everyone. There is nothing inherently negative with blue standing for boys and pink standing for girls. It is only negative by those people who view it negatively, and usually that is simply because they are looking to be offended by something. Yeah, sorry - you lost me. You're talking about colours and I'm talking about roles.
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Aug 12, 2015 16:57:32 GMT
And that is what is meant by Politically Correct, because the random person finds it negative, then it must be for everyone. There is nothing inherently negative with blue standing for boys and pink standing for girls. It is only negative by those people who view it negatively, and usually that is simply because they are looking to be offended by something. Yeah, sorry - you lost me. You're talking about colours and I'm talking about roles. Sorry, I was using the colors as an example of cultural assignments. I've always been one to buy trucks for girls and dolls for boys to break down cultural barriers, so don't get me wrong on this one. I just feel that Target could have quietly made the change without any fanfare and no one would have noticed the difference. Heck, look at the number of people who never noticed the signs to begin with. It is their intent in doing that is overly politically correct. They are looking to score brownie points. With who I'm not sure, but obviously with someone.
|
|
|
Post by peano on Aug 12, 2015 17:00:34 GMT
To me DT is not an example of not being politically correct, he's an example of just being a loud mouthed jerk. For me not being overly PC means not having to worry about every word that comes out of our mouths. There was a thread last week or the week before that someone on the second page was offended by something in the OP. I wish I could remember what it was because it made several people shake their heads. It was exactly what people mean when they say someone will always be offended no matter what or how you say something. I don't want to have to say 'My dog is ivory.' instead of 'My dog is white.' becuase someone might be offended by the word white. I started a thread last week about a notice on a menu and someone was extrememly offended by the term "cry baby" To me being overly PC is being afraid to say anything about a group of people for fear of saying the wrong thing. That someone was me. And I stand firm in my belief that name-calling of any sort is offensive. As sentient beings we are capable of so much better. Why couldn't the restaurant owner just say "the comfort of our customers is important to us. Please soothe your crying baby outside" or something like that.
|
|
|
Post by krc11 on Aug 12, 2015 17:09:20 GMT
I think Target could have just redone their stores, relabeled the department "building toys" and others without gender labels and then advertised their new and improved layouts. Instead, they come out with the media campaign about losing gender labels. Yes, sounds like pandering to specific vocally loud special interest groups.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Aug 12, 2015 17:18:14 GMT
I think Target could have just redone their stores, relabeled the department "building toys" and others without gender labels and then advertised their new and improved layouts. Instead, they come out with the media campaign about losing gender labels. Yes, sounds like pandering to specific vocally loud special interest groups. to me, it sounds like nothing more than a marketing strategy (although maybe it's backfired on them)-- 'look at us, we've improved something about our stores; aren't we so progressive, and doesn't it make you want to spend your money here, now?'
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Aug 12, 2015 17:24:45 GMT
I think Target could have just redone their stores, relabeled the department "building toys" and others without gender labels and then advertised their new and improved layouts. Instead, they come out with the media campaign about losing gender labels. Yes, sounds like pandering to specific vocally loud special interest groups. to me, it sounds like nothing more than a marketing strategy (although maybe it's backfired on them)-- 'look at us, we've improved something about our stores; aren't we so progressive, and doesn't it make you want to spend your money here, now?' I totally agree some PR expert told them this would be a perfect opportunity to garner attention and dollars. I think they have since been fired.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 5, 2024 21:56:22 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2015 17:30:03 GMT
I totally understand. But they didn't have to make it a big deal by announcing it to the world. They could easily have just made the change, and I guarantee most people would never have noticed. By making the press release and the news, they offended people by making it seem there is something wrong with gender roles. It just pushes buttons where it doesn't need to be pushed, no one was complaining. They did it simply to appear more tolerant than other department stores, and that is PC and that is the fake PC that people can't stand. That's it. In a nutshell.
|
|
Dalai Mama
Drama Llama
La Pea Boheme
Posts: 6,985
Jun 26, 2014 0:31:31 GMT
|
Post by Dalai Mama on Aug 12, 2015 18:04:37 GMT
I think Target could have just redone their stores, relabeled the department "building toys" and others without gender labels and then advertised their new and improved layouts. Instead, they come out with the media campaign about losing gender labels. Yes, sounds like pandering to specific vocally loud special interest groups. to me, it sounds like nothing more than a marketing strategy (although maybe it's backfired on them)-- 'look at us, we've improved something about our stores; aren't we so progressive, and doesn't it make you want to spend your money here, now?' They're a business with shareholders - of course it's a marketing strategy. They aren't going to pay a cent to change their store labelling if they don't think it's going to have monetary benefit. The question is why they thought it would be effective and the answer, IMO, is that they understand that our view of women's place in society is changing, not fast enough for some and, obviously, too fast for others.
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Aug 12, 2015 18:41:02 GMT
to me, it sounds like nothing more than a marketing strategy (although maybe it's backfired on them)-- 'look at us, we've improved something about our stores; aren't we so progressive, and doesn't it make you want to spend your money here, now?' They're a business with shareholders - of course it's a marketing strategy. They aren't going to pay a cent to change their store labelling if they don't think it's going to have monetary benefit. The question is why they thought it would be effective and the answer, IMO, is that they understand that our view of women's place in society is changing, not fast enough for some and, obviously, too fast for others. Now I'm lost, how did this become about women, I thought it was about gender neutrality?
|
|
Dalai Mama
Drama Llama
La Pea Boheme
Posts: 6,985
Jun 26, 2014 0:31:31 GMT
|
Post by Dalai Mama on Aug 12, 2015 18:53:33 GMT
They're a business with shareholders - of course it's a marketing strategy. They aren't going to pay a cent to change their store labelling if they don't think it's going to have monetary benefit. The question is why they thought it would be effective and the answer, IMO, is that they understand that our view of women's place in society is changing, not fast enough for some and, obviously, too fast for others. Now I'm lost, how did this become about women, I thought it was about gender neutrality? It became about women because I am a woman an that is the perspective from which I come.
Point taken - both women's and men's place in society is changing and this decision is just a reflection of that.
|
|
|
Post by gmcwife1 on Aug 12, 2015 19:11:00 GMT
They're a business with shareholders - of course it's a marketing strategy. They aren't going to pay a cent to change their store labelling if they don't think it's going to have monetary benefit. The question is why they thought it would be effective and the answer, IMO, is that they understand that our view of women's place in society is changing, not fast enough for some and, obviously, too fast for others. Now I'm lost, how did this become about women, I thought it was about gender neutrality? It's funny, I'm a woman and I don't like pink. I'm not offended that tools are offered in pink, I just don't buy that color, I buy the blue or whatever other color I want. But I'm still not offended. I have several scrapping friends that love everything pink and every tool they could buy in pink is in their scraproom. It truly goes back to not being able to please everyone because someone is always going to find fault
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Aug 12, 2015 21:12:21 GMT
Now I'm lost, how did this become about women, I thought it was about gender neutrality? It's funny, I'm a woman and I don't like pink. I'm not offended that tools are offered in pink, I just don't buy that color, I buy the blue or whatever other color I want. But I'm still not offended. I have several scrapping friends that love everything pink and every tool they could buy in pink is in their scraproom. It truly goes back to not being able to please everyone because someone is always going to find fault I don't think that's it exactly. Ending unnecessary gender references takes nothing away from you or anyone else. You can stick to pink and sparkles, or head straight for what's traditionally considered "boy" toys if you prefer, no matter how the aisles are labeled. On the other hand, continuing to label aisles "girl" or "boy" toys makes some people uncomfortable. Lots ignore it, a few apparently revel in it, but some are intimidated or made to feel bad about preferring the "wrong" toys. So what you dismiss as misplaced political correctness, I see as just opening up minds and opportunities for everyone. I don't see what's wrong with using kindness and common sense, rather than sticking to old habits that may hurt someone unnecessarily.
|
|
|
Post by gmcwife1 on Aug 12, 2015 21:58:16 GMT
It's funny, I'm a woman and I don't like pink. I'm not offended that tools are offered in pink, I just don't buy that color, I buy the blue or whatever other color I want. But I'm still not offended. I have several scrapping friends that love everything pink and every tool they could buy in pink is in their scraproom. It truly goes back to not being able to please everyone because someone is always going to find fault I don't think that's it exactly. Ending unnecessary gender references takes nothing away from you or anyone else. You can stick to pink and sparkles, or head straight for what's traditionally considered "boy" toys if you prefer, no matter how the aisles are labeled. On the other hand, continuing to label aisles "girl" or "boy" toys makes some people uncomfortable. Lots ignore it, a few apparently revel in it, but some are intimidated or made to feel bad about preferring the "wrong" toys. So what you dismiss as misplaced political correctness, I see as just opening up minds and opportunities for everyone. I don't see what's wrong with using kindness and common sense, rather than sticking to old habits that may hurt someone unnecessarily. I'm sorry, if you are using that one mini discussion to loop back to Target changing the aisles, you are missing that for me what you bolded was in direct response to being offended there are pink and blue tools. I have not commented on Target changing the aisles as I never noticed they had boy and girl aisles. If you notice most of my discussion on this thread including an example and question has been specific to overly political correctness. Which is not the same as using kindness and common sense. Common sense tells you that a picture of a childs desk that is black, labeled black childs desk does not mean that desk is only for black children. I personally think that common sense needs to be used both ways. And again, if my black breeder refers to my white puppy as black boy on both her website, on Facebook and in discussion with others, is she now unkind because that might offend someone? This is where I feel political correctness is not the same as kindness and common sense. It kind of annoys me that someone would even think my breeder is unkind because she is one of the nicest and yes kindest people I'm now lucky enough to get to know. She is also not offensive and most certainly wouldn't do something she felt would offend her race!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 5, 2024 21:56:22 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2015 22:27:24 GMT
Now I'm lost, how did this become about women, I thought it was about gender neutrality? It's funny, I'm a woman and I don't like pink. I'm not offended that tools are offered in pink, I just don't buy that color, I buy the blue or whatever other color I want. But I'm still not offended. I have several scrapping friends that love everything pink and every tool they could buy in pink is in their scraproom. It truly goes back to not being able to please everyone because someone is always going to find fault This brings to mind the banned words and phrases on some college campuses, “America is the land of opportunity”, “I believe the most qualified person should get the job”, “melting pot” are just some of the terms they have labeled micro-aggressions and banned. And then there's the problem some people have with anyone acknowledging that all lives matter. Never in the million years before the moment these offended someone, could you have predicted they would be offensive to anyone. They're just not offensive sentiments, and yet based on the reaction from some, people now feel the need to apologize for saying them. That's why people hate political correctness and feeling obligated to try to keep up with the inappropriate word and phrase of the minute, because it goes beyond just being kind and thoughtful, it's absurd and unnecessary, in far too many instances.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Aug 13, 2015 4:11:16 GMT
I don't think that's it exactly. Ending unnecessary gender references takes nothing away from you or anyone else. You can stick to pink and sparkles, or head straight for what's traditionally considered "boy" toys if you prefer, no matter how the aisles are labeled. On the other hand, continuing to label aisles "girl" or "boy" toys makes some people uncomfortable. Lots ignore it, a few apparently revel in it, but some are intimidated or made to feel bad about preferring the "wrong" toys. So what you dismiss as misplaced political correctness, I see as just opening up minds and opportunities for everyone. I don't see what's wrong with using kindness and common sense, rather than sticking to old habits that may hurt someone unnecessarily. I'm sorry, if you are using that one mini discussion to loop back to Target changing the aisles, you are missing that for me what you bolded was in direct response to being offended there are pink and blue tools. I have not commented on Target changing the aisles as I never noticed they had boy and girl aisles. If you notice most of my discussion on this thread including an example and question has been specific to overly political correctness. Which is not the same as using kindness and common sense. Common sense tells you that a picture of a childs desk that is black, labeled black childs desk does not mean that desk is only for black children. I personally think that common sense needs to be used both ways. And again, if my black breeder refers to my white puppy as black boy on both her website, on Facebook and in discussion with others, is she now unkind because that might offend someone? This is where I feel political correctness is not the same as kindness and common sense. It kind of annoys me that someone would even think my breeder is unkind because she is one of the nicest and yes kindest people I'm now lucky enough to get to know. She is also not offensive and most certainly wouldn't do something she felt would offend her race! I'm sorry, I was posting in the wrong thread. However, as a (retired) marketing copywriter, I'm not going to use a term like Black Child's Desk in ad copy. It's just a poor choice of words when Child's Desk - Black would serve the same purpose without sounding weird about it. And if (collar color)(sex) is the standard used in the dog breeding field to identify individual animals, then go for it, when you're in the dog breeding world. If you're sitting in Denny's talking loudly about Black Boy, yeah, chances are someone is going to overhear, misunderstand, and take it the wrong way. If you know that Black Boy is a demeaning term to the general public, why would you want to use it in public? It's nice that your breeder is black and not offended by the term, but I believe she would not be the norm within the black community. Sure, the world is full of people dreaming up things to be offended by. Some of that we can ignore. But I don't get the need to use terminology that is known to be offensive or upsetting to the general public.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Aug 13, 2015 4:35:32 GMT
The point is that they don't have to be culturally assigned for people to continue liking them. Men don't have to be told that working on the car is 'men's work' in order to enjoy it. Just as I don't have to be told that cooking is 'women's work' to enjoy cooking. In fact, I would enjoy it all that much more if people would just STFU and keep their gender stereotypes to themselves. My point is, there's nothing wrong with the cultural assignment either. it is what it is. Assigning negative connotations where there is none is a good example of overly PC. Eh. Frankly, I don't get the big deal. I always thought toy separation by gender was dumb and I was fortunate enough to have parents who let me choose regardless of what I was supposed to want. I hated pink until I was an adult with a girl who loved loved loved pink. I would have avoided the girl aisles at all cost if that's what I had been faced with, even though I did like the occasional doll. Boys grow up to have children and girls grow up and learn to drive. Building toys build brains, and that's not something that should be exclusive to boys. I just watched Rev Franklin Graham talk about this. I really like Rev Graham, but I don't agree with him on this. At all. I also don't understand why the criticism against Target assumes that they are caving to pressure. Does no one consider that maybe this may be a personal decision for some at the top? I sure hope the Republicans don't go with this type of thing during the campaign trail.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Aug 13, 2015 4:51:10 GMT
Hard to say. I think it really would depend on a lot of things at the moment, most importantly, the frame of mind of the person hearing it. Calling a dog Blackie (especially if the dog was Black) would be different than calling him Black Boy. For the most part, people could readily understand the obvious. You wouldn't get very far explaining that when your dog was a puppy he wore a black color to tell him from his littermates, and now that he's your dog, apart from the litter, this is an appropriate name to call him in public. You might suggest more unique names: Green collar - Hammie (for Green eggs and) Red collar - Mac (for McIntosh apple) Black collar - Miner (for coal) Then people might actually be interested in why you sometimes refer to your dog Spot as Hammie. And this is exactly why people don't like the overly PC movement - why should anyone have to explain or as you are trying to suggest have to change something that is innocent just because it MIGHT offend someone?? Are you truly suggesting that an entire segment of the population (dog breeders) should change how they color code their puppies just so some random someone doesn't get offended? And people don't understand the backlash against everything being politically correct You live in Washington State. I live in SE Texas and have watched how these simple words can be taken. If my grandfather had been a slave and he and my father had been called boy their entire adult lives, I honestly can't say that I wouldn't hear that when someone called their dog Black Boy. (Especially if the dog wasn't completely black.) I've raised dogs. It's not rocket science, and we had a 10 puppy litter of all black labs. Believe me, I get what you're saying. And maybe where you live, it would be a lot less meaningful-to-some name than it is here today. Basically, I think this particular thing comes down to common sense and not just political correctness. <Dying to know what kind of dog your cutie pie is, and what color he actually is. >
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Aug 13, 2015 13:49:47 GMT
It's funny, I'm a woman and I don't like pink. I'm not offended that tools are offered in pink, I just don't buy that color, I buy the blue or whatever other color I want. But I'm still not offended. I have several scrapping friends that love everything pink and every tool they could buy in pink is in their scraproom. It truly goes back to not being able to please everyone because someone is always going to find fault I don't think that's it exactly. Ending unnecessary gender references takes nothing away from you or anyone else. You can stick to pink and sparkles, or head straight for what's traditionally considered "boy" toys if you prefer, no matter how the aisles are labeled. On the other hand, continuing to label aisles "girl" or "boy" toys makes some people uncomfortable. Lots ignore it, a few apparently revel in it, but some are intimidated or made to feel bad about preferring the "wrong" toys. So what you dismiss as misplaced political correctness, I see as just opening up minds and opportunities for everyone. I don't see what's wrong with using kindness and common sense, rather than sticking to old habits that may hurt someone unnecessarily. It may make some people uncomfortable. Did people complain to Target about this? Was there an uproar about it or lawsuits? If not, then it wasn't done out of the goodness of their hearts, it was done in an attempt to draw customers and get people talking about how progressive they are. That is PC, and it's fake. Target could care less about gender neutrality. They did it to try to increase sales. And yes, I'm the one that argues with my brother and sister in law because my nephews are only allowed to play boy sports and my niece isn't allowed to play sports at all. She is allowed to do drama and choir, but the boys are not allowed near musical instruments. So I understand where people are coming from in tearing down the stereotypes of gender identity. I'm a huge supporter of Caitlyn Jenner. What I'm saying is that people who say they are actually in and of themselves harmful to others are being PC. When in fact they are harmless it is what people do with those that make the problems. So what if something is considered a girl's toy. The only time its wrong is when someone actually thinks its bad for a boy to play with a girls toy.
|
|
Dalai Mama
Drama Llama
La Pea Boheme
Posts: 6,985
Jun 26, 2014 0:31:31 GMT
|
Post by Dalai Mama on Aug 13, 2015 14:13:23 GMT
I don't think that's it exactly. Ending unnecessary gender references takes nothing away from you or anyone else. You can stick to pink and sparkles, or head straight for what's traditionally considered "boy" toys if you prefer, no matter how the aisles are labeled. On the other hand, continuing to label aisles "girl" or "boy" toys makes some people uncomfortable. Lots ignore it, a few apparently revel in it, but some are intimidated or made to feel bad about preferring the "wrong" toys. So what you dismiss as misplaced political correctness, I see as just opening up minds and opportunities for everyone. I don't see what's wrong with using kindness and common sense, rather than sticking to old habits that may hurt someone unnecessarily. It may make some people uncomfortable. Did people complain to Target about this? Was there an uproar about it or lawsuits? If not, then it wasn't done out of the goodness of their hearts, it was done in an attempt to draw customers and get people talking about how progressive they are. That is PC, and it's fake. Target could care less about gender neutrality. They did it to try to increase sales. And yes, I'm the one that argues with my brother and sister in law because my nephews are only allowed to play boy sports and my niece isn't allowed to play sports at all. She is allowed to do drama and choir, but the boys are not allowed near musical instruments. So I understand where people are coming from in tearing down the stereotypes of gender identity. I'm a huge supporter of Caitlyn Jenner. What I'm saying is that people who say they are actually in and of themselves harmful to others are being PC. When in fact they are harmless it is what people do with those that make the problems. So what if something is considered a girl's toy. The only time its wrong is when someone actually thinks its bad for a boy to play with a girls toy. Just to be perfectly clear - I believe that marketing toys by gender can be harmful, not because it's PC but because I've seen the negative consequences first-hand.
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Aug 13, 2015 15:28:50 GMT
It may make some people uncomfortable. Did people complain to Target about this? Was there an uproar about it or lawsuits? If not, then it wasn't done out of the goodness of their hearts, it was done in an attempt to draw customers and get people talking about how progressive they are. That is PC, and it's fake. Target could care less about gender neutrality. They did it to try to increase sales. And yes, I'm the one that argues with my brother and sister in law because my nephews are only allowed to play boy sports and my niece isn't allowed to play sports at all. She is allowed to do drama and choir, but the boys are not allowed near musical instruments. So I understand where people are coming from in tearing down the stereotypes of gender identity. I'm a huge supporter of Caitlyn Jenner. What I'm saying is that people who say they are actually in and of themselves harmful to others are being PC. When in fact they are harmless it is what people do with those that make the problems. So what if something is considered a girl's toy. The only time its wrong is when someone actually thinks its bad for a boy to play with a girls toy. Just to be perfectly clear - I believe that marketing toys by gender can be harmful, not because it's PC but because I've seen the negative consequences first-hand. I'm sorry to hear that. I've not ever seen negative consequences to it so that probably has an impact on my decision. I guess part of PC is doing something on the off chance that a small percentage of people may be negatively effected. I still contend that marketing toys by gender is only harmful as a result of the people on the receiving end of the marketing and their responses to it.
|
|
Dalai Mama
Drama Llama
La Pea Boheme
Posts: 6,985
Jun 26, 2014 0:31:31 GMT
|
Post by Dalai Mama on Aug 13, 2015 15:48:13 GMT
Just to be perfectly clear - I believe that marketing toys by gender can be harmful, not because it's PC but because I've seen the negative consequences first-hand. I'm sorry to hear that. I've not ever seen negative consequences to it so that probably has an impact on my decision. I guess part of PC is doing something on the off chance that a small percentage of people may be negatively effected. I still contend that marketing toys by gender is only harmful as a result of the people on the receiving end of the marketing and their responses to it. Yes, but sometimes the responses are extremely subtle like the rates of girls entering engineering programs. Or the rates of teen boys committing suicide. I'm not saying that those two things are solely attributable to gender marketing but it's all part and parcel of a larger trend.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Aug 13, 2015 15:52:30 GMT
yeah, I can't believe that ANYone can say they haven't seen the consequences of gender-marketing, but then, I'm a woman who (in spite of all that) went into science, so maybe I'm extra-sensitive to it...
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 5, 2024 21:56:22 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2015 16:33:04 GMT
I'm just hoping that my Target won't be so busy now with all of the offended people not going to shop there. I call that a win!
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Aug 13, 2015 17:02:42 GMT
yeah, I can't believe that ANYone can say they haven't seen the consequences of gender-marketing, but then, I'm a woman who (in spite of all that) went into science, so maybe I'm extra-sensitive to it... It really depends by what you define as consequences in terms of gender-marketing.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Aug 13, 2015 17:03:57 GMT
As for the target situation....sounds to me like the people who don't think others should be offended are now offended because they think it means there is something wrong with them instead of something being wrong with those who were offended before? Confusing at best.
I still don't understand how Donald trump is "not PC" in a good way rather than just being downright nasty. If that is what people would prefer our country to be like, then I don't even know what to say.
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Aug 13, 2015 17:04:28 GMT
I'm sorry to hear that. I've not ever seen negative consequences to it so that probably has an impact on my decision. I guess part of PC is doing something on the off chance that a small percentage of people may be negatively effected. I still contend that marketing toys by gender is only harmful as a result of the people on the receiving end of the marketing and their responses to it. Yes, but sometimes the responses are extremely subtle like the rates of girls entering engineering programs. Or the rates of teen boys committing suicide. I'm not saying that those two things are solely attributable to gender marketing but it's all part and parcel of a larger trend. I think that those in a lot of ways at least in terms of boys committing suicide are tied more with sexuality than gender. Albeit those who are intersex have a much higher rate of suicide. I guess I've never really put a lot of thought into it. Like with science and engineering. I just chalked it up to a higher percentage of girls not being interested in those fields rather than being steered away from them.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Aug 13, 2015 17:05:38 GMT
"I guess I've never really put a lot of thought into it. Like with science and engineering. I just chalked it up to a higher percentage of girls not being interested in those fields rather than being steered away from them. "
HA!! that's funny, right there... ^^^ (read that in your best Larry the Cable Guy voice)
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Aug 13, 2015 17:06:30 GMT
As for the target situation....sounds to me like the people who don't think others should be offended are now offended because they think it means there is something wrong with them instead of something being wrong with those who were offended before? Confusing at best. I still don't understand how Donald trump is "not PC" in a good way rather than just being downright nasty. If that is what people would prefer our country to be like, then I don't even know what to say. And thus the vicious cycle of the PC world. Instead of realizing that someone is always going to be offended, and worrying about the majority, the littlest things are made big because someone cries foul. I still say that Target made a bad move, not by changing their signage, but by making it a political statement.
|
|