Gender-neutrality @ Harrod's

[Taxel]

Ok: mlp is predominantly pink. So is Barbie. However it sounds like there's a problem with the 'pink '

Just to clarify: you want everything to be gender neutral in the toy stores....so does that include 'pretty pink princess sparklepants Barbie' or pinkie pie .....do the actual toys need to change, or you just want a neutral section to be able to buy your pink toys from?

Good luck with telling Hasbro and Mattel to make their colours neutral.

Why is it such a problem to take into account other peoples' feelings on this? It's just great if some people like pink and fit in with gender stereotypes but you know a lot of people don't. "PINK AISLE" = "GIRL AISLE" and "BLUE AISLE" = "BOY AISLE." What Harrod's is doing is putting toys together by TYPE not by stupid colours. And MLP are most certainly in the blindingly pink aisle at my TRU, right along with Littlest Pet Shop, fakies and other random stuff. It's not just the colour PINK. If it was the colour GREEN it would be the same thing. Society has built up gender like it essential, BUT IT ISN'T... People need to stop being shoved into boxes and dumb categories. I'd rather not be assaulted by the ridiculous, stupid and damaging gender binary/stereotypes everywhere I go, and starting with kids' toys is a great idea. Because kids put pressure on each other from Day 1. You become a "freak" if you think 1) there is nothing essential about the colour [WHICHEVER in this case pink] and feminity; 2) you don't fit in to the stupid societal construct of what femininity even "is"/is "supposed" to mean; 2) even organising toys boy "GIRLS" and "BOYS" suggests that BOYS like those toys and GIRLS like the other ones. These put people into categories!

And why do people think that these stupid, dumb, random sets of rules are not only essential, but unchangeable? Like some sort of dumb societal jungle; you need to just 'deal with it'? 'Put your big girl panties on and go into the blue aisle if you feel like it'? Why should I even have to do that? What if I want it to be EQUAL instead of people making assumptions about others because of what sex they were assigned at birth? And why is everybody so defensive saying how BAD that is? You're sidelining a lot of people who don't fit in with that system and feel it discriminates against them and feel that it offends them. Why is it always just 'OH GROW UP AND DEAL WITH IT.' Why? Why don't we change these stupid rules so EVERYONE can feel safe and comfortable in who they are?

In conclusion, Harrod's is doing a great thing and I support this message.

Thank you!!!!

This post is just great, and is so spot-on.

[hyenacub]

And, speaking as a man who likes girl stuff...  I certainly hate people telling me it's unnatural or perverted.  >P  Stupid genders.  Changing how kids look at things is an AWESOME start!  C:

[Huscheli]

I am a girl.  I like pink, sparkles, ponies, stuffed animals, dolls, and flowers.  I wish people would stop trying to insist that it's wrong for girls like me to like girly things. 

The problem is not you being a girl and liking these things. No one says that's wrong. The problem is that they're labeled as "girly" to begin with. Because, they're not. They're just things (what's girly about a stuffed animal or a pony, seriously...?). These annoying gender specialized labels really have to go. They don't help and only make people....narrow minded, as I see daily in the toy stores: "Nono, this is for girls. You can't buy that".

Also, is it just me or did this gender segregation become worse in the last 20 years? I can't remember everything being so pink in the girl section when I was young. Sure the girl section was obviously "girly"with dolls and stuff, but today it really seems ridiculous.

[hyenacub]

I don't remember it being all pink myself. lol MLPwas blue, Rainbow Brite was yellow.  She shelves were whatever color the shelves were lol

[Zombelina]

I haven't posted again because I can't really express my opinion any better than I did earlier, but I really want to say, Mosspath, I love you for this:

In the US, I have come across a few stores that specifically label the aisles as Boys and Girls in the toy department. Just because it is a non-issue for some people doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I think it's great that many people felt and still feel comfortable no matter which section they're shopping in. I don't have a problem with it anymore, myself. However, for every person who is okay with it, there's a person or two who isn't. And that's not okay. The point isn't that we need to make it harder to find things or go on some social crusade. The point is that it's ridiculous that some kids should feel wrong becuase of what toy aisle they're looking in. Again, not every kid feels this way, but even from looking as this thread, people have expressed that they did feel awkward, even as children. I think that's proof that this does effect kids. Whether it's stores or the parents or society in general, kids are picking up on the gender divide whether you think so or not. A boy in my preschool class was often picked on because he played with Barbies. So even if this toy store idea doesn't solve the problem, maybe it'll be a step in the right direction. And where's the harm in that?

And also

Why is it such a problem to take into account other peoples' feelings on this?

I know no one here is intending to be hurtful, and that this is a difficult topic to discuss. We're all trying to express our opinions calmly and share our perspectives. But when I hear that someone or their kid doesn't have an issue with gendered toy stores, therefore it doesn't matter and even shouldn't matter, it hurts a bit. I and others have said repeatedly here how gender-divided toy aisles actually did matter to us when we were kids. I'm glad not all kids are bothered by it, really glad. But some are. To see their feelings and needs dismissed is very upsetting to me.

And some Canadian stores aren't just subtly coded with pink/blue either, but do have signs that explicitly say "Girls Toys" and "Boys Toys" over the aisles. Superstore is one that does this.

Just because this is not a problem for everyone, doesn't mean this is not a problem at all.

[Reverend Strone]

My eight year old daughter made the observation this weekend after we came home from a shopping trip, "Dad, why is all the girls' stuff just pink or purple? Why do boys get stuff in other colours?  Am I not supposed to like blue or red because I'm a girl?"

I thought it was insightful of her to make such an observation.  Having said that, for much of the past five years she has been all about the pink frilly dresses and pink curtains with sequins.  There's no doubting the appeal for many little girls, but I think much of it is a learned association.  Go back a few generations and pink was actually the preferred colour little boys rooms were painted. 

Anyhow, I'm proud that my daughter, who is very girly, isn't blinded by the pink thing and has an appreciattion for all kinds of colours.  She artistic too, which might help, as she is very interested in colour combinations and what looks good.  It's just interesting to me that she was resentful of the colour variety that boys' toys seem to enjoy. 

At least with the pony brand, the colour bias is largely restricted to the packaging.  The ponies themselves are delightfully polychromatic (Rainbow Dash for the win), even if Hasbro over-represents the pink ponies in their line. 

[scarletjul]

Didn't Toys-R-Us try this a few years back?  (I know I read something about it in one of the toy industry magazines.......)  I thought it ultimately hurt their sales, because consumers were more confused about where to locate items and they would give up and shop elsewhere?

Yes they did and it went so so, the Inmaganirum.  It is still around, for the most part stores are arranged by age, then gender, when you get to the older toys it is just by type. 

*quietly*. I miss the Imaginarium, just because it was a fun toy store from my childhood. 

Back on topic, I give props to Harrods for attempting gender-neutrality.  I think a lot of things come into play when it comes to kids and toys and whether or not there's a gender divide.  For example, as a kid, I loved my Barbies and stuffed animals and 2 MLPs - but I also had Hot Wheels, Legos and video games.  I actually think Legos used to be fairly gender-neutral but anyway. . .  on the other hand, my brother-in-law is very specific about what toys my nephew can play with and they definitely have to be "boy" toys.

 So, obviously, parents play an integral role.  Store set-up does, too, I think (what would my brother-in-law do if he coudn't find said boy's aisle?). But I also believe that friends, family and society expectations play a role as well.  They don't affect all kids (not me) but they do affect many and while I had no problem playing with the boy toys at home, odds were that I wasn't going to bring them to school with me and I don't remember playing anything but "girls" toys with other girls.

So, I think this is a good 1st step and I hope it is well-received. 

[BlackCurtains]

I am a girl.  I like pink, sparkles, ponies, stuffed animals, dolls, and flowers.  I wish people would stop trying to insist that it's wrong for girls like me to like girly things. 

The problem is not you being a girl and liking these things. No one says that's wrong. The problem is that they're labeled as "girly" to begin with. Because, they're not. They're just things (what's girly about a stuffed animal or a pony, seriously...?). These annoying gender specialized labels really have to go. They don't help and only make people....narrow minded, as I see daily in the toy stores: "Nono, this is for girls. You can't buy that".

This ^ is what I wanted to say when I looked at this thread earlier, but couldn't come up with a concise enough way to say it.

When I was a kid and an obscure relative would get a gift for me for birthdays or holidays, it was always Barbie. I never liked Barbie, never wanted Barbie. Had they taken a second to ask my mom or, hey, ME what I actually played with they'd have known it was dinosaurs. They just assumed since I was a girl, I'd like Barbie. That's the problem.

There are no "girl toys" or "boy toys" they're just... toys. I'm not going to comment on the color issue because I watch a lot of pro wrestling and a lot of wrestlers wear pink and/or purple, so to me the whole colors being gender specific is just weird. Even Undertaker wore purple, and so did his action figure -shrug-

[hathorcat]

This is a really interesting thread but if we can keep it to individual thoughts rather than calling out - this is the last time I am going to make this request.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and has their own thoughts and feelings on the matter - I even have my own For me it comes down to a couple of things. I don't have a problem with the concept of a gender divide - [putting aside "sexuality"] the world wouldn't exist if we didn't have "men" and "women". I understand some people don't like the idea of a division or being segregated into one sex or the other and that is their opinion, and a good opinion at that, but at the same time I would like to think everyone understands the other point of view as well. We are all individuals and can be who and what we wish.

For me, a brand like MLP - which I apologise if it offends anyone - is about as girly girl a brand as you can get [outside Barbie ] - and is fundamentally a "feminine toy" aimed at the market of little girls. Yes I know there are plenty of guys who like it and that's not only cool but [in many ways] awesome . But if I collected Transformers I would be fully accepting of the fact I collected a "boys toy".

I think we are reading too much into it being girls and boys - its divided that way for easy marketing. When I sit with a client and ask who their target market is the worst response they can ever give is "everyone" - there is no such market as "everyone". Whether it be a cake or a car or a toy things have better impact and sell better when they have a large but specific market - whether that market be a subtle targeted one or as blatant as men or women. In many ways that's all "boys" and "girls" toys are about - its about saying lets make this toy "cool for boys" or "sought after for girls" - make them talk about it with their friends, make them drag their parents to TRU to pick it up, make them ask Santa for everything to do with it on their Christmas list. Its all about making money - depressing but true. Yes some toys cross the divide - someone's earlier example of board games is a great one - although even there there are some obvious divisions. As a marketeer and as someone who, in her own opinion, collects toys "for little girls", I personally dont have an issue with girls toys and boys toys being different - but I can also appreciate that other people do have rightful concerns about it.

I think its one of those topics which we are probably going to all have to agree on one thing - we agree to disagree!

[Huscheli]

The world wouldn't exist if we didn't have "men" and "women".

Do you just mean human society? Because there are many beings who reproduce in different ways. o,o

We are all individuals and can be who and what we wish.

This is actually, what I think. I would prefer if people would first and foremost see each other as individuals and not primarily as "female" or "male". There's a lot of "Women are so hard to understand" and "men just can't talk about their feelings" and so on, but I really think there lies the problem of gender segregation. To group half the human population into one group really has not much point in my eyes. For example, I really have nothing in common with my sister, but a lot with her boyfriend. Other people in general are hard to understand because you can't read their minds, and so on.

When I sit with a client and ask who their target market is the worst response they can ever give is "everyone" - there is no such market as "everyone". Whether it be a cake or a car or a toy things have better impact and sell better when they have a large but specific market - whether that market be a subtle targeted one or as blatant as men or women.

But to be fair...as I stated above, there is really not much difference if you market to everyone or 50% of all humans. It's still a  ridiculous huge group who has nothing in common with each other, except two X chromosomes (and how big that influence is, is debatable). Most "differences" between genders are made up by society (that's why they often differ vastly between cultures) and that's probably why most people have problems with them.

You said a brand as MLP is as girly as you can get and, to be honest, I agree. But why do we think it is girly? If you look at it objectively, it's just a little pony toy, in a rainbow color. There's nothing that says "girly" about it, except that we, as a society, in the last 100 years or so agreed that "combing hair, ponies and rainbow colors are girly". While totally understandable how this came to be, I personally find this silly and if gender neutral shelves help to close this weird, made up gender groups, I'm fine with it.

[starlightcomet]

For me, a brand like MLP - which I apologise if it offends anyone - is about as girly girl a brand as you can get [outside Barbie ] - and is fundamentally a "feminine toy" aimed at the market of little girls. Yes I know there are plenty of guys who like it and that's not only cool but [in many ways] awesome . But if I collected Transformers I would be fully accepting of the fact I collected a "boys toy".

Most have the notion too and just kind of suck it up in day to day shopping but I do think its interesting to wonder, how did we get to this conclusion that is pretty prevalent? Some girls grow up to be engineers, robots could be a nice toy for them. Some boys grow up to look after and race horses, so ponies could be a nice toy for them. Same with boys who become chefs (cooking kit toys), fashion designers (dolls) etc. Girls who become wrestlers (action figures), racecar drivers (cars) etc. Some of those professions are still considered largely male or female dominated, so times are still slow to shift, but perhaps if toys had less of a divide those kinds of values could become more prevalent in future generations (it might be too late for this one).

There was a programme on BBC once, where they brought some Girls World toys (heads with hair for makeup and hair styling creativity) to a bunch of male hairdressers and let them have a go with them. If I remember right they said they would of loved it as a kid but would of been too embarassed and instead had to practise on other people if they'd be willing.

I think that as far as the current MLP TV show goes, its got more of a Pixar feel. In that it can be enjoyed by everyone and each person can find a character they relate to. Apparently Lauren Faust aimed for this too. A lot of Pixar toys are enjoyed by both genders. But I do agree though that the actual MLP products don't seem to of taken advantage of that approach in the way they are marketed or packaged, though the actual toys themselves are a variety of colours and so they could do something similar to Monster High packaging / marketing, which has quite a variety and doesn't seem to specifically target girls only. Though in shops in America they are put in the section with the walls painted pink because "fashion dolls" I guess. But as far as the manufacturing of them goes, they seem to of gained a male following and reading a thread with male collectors, they seem to say they feel they have been included from the start with the articulation and style (they could be wrong but that was the vibe, I don't collect Monster High so not familiar outside what I've looked up). I also think Sylvanian Families has a lot of variety, and in some adverts they show both a boy or a girl or like Monster High they just show hands.

I think we are reading too much into it being girls and boys - its divided that way for easy marketing.

Yeah but advertising has a long way to come really. I mean I was taught "sex sells" as part of Advertising. You know the typical "He/she wasn't popular with [opposite sex here] until they got this product" which has become a tired cliche and now advertisers are trying to think outside the box so as not to appear like everyone else. Also it'd be interesting to see if during the second world war, when the pink/blue divide was solidified, advertisers had a part in that since messages and imagery on posters and such became a big thing during that time period.

I think like "sex sells", "pink is for girls" has become a tired marketing cliche which is making the products merge on shelves, so marketers are going to have to start thinking outside the box, even on a purely sales basis.

[Heliodor]

I find it difficult to agree to disagree on topics that plainly sideline and categorize others. The topic is, 'Well it's just like that' or 'It's not even a big deal' vs. 'This offends me' and in some cases 'This is the root of something that screwed me up when I was growing up.' I think there are males, females, and a million things in-between. But there are no essential Girls, Boys, Men and Women. That is a societal construct. :/ Which everybody just made up, and tries to shove every new person into. It's wrong and it's damaging. I find it frustrating to think anybody would advocate for keeping those little tiny "boxes you should fit in or you're a freak" around. How many people even fir the mould of the "essential" man or woman or boy or girl? Almost NO ONE fits the "ideal" which is just so stupid, so damaging. :/ But what I've read has been about 'Well it's just easier for ME to find toys that way' or 'Well those categories are true' or 'Who even cares.' I mean, isn't it more important that everyone feels comfortable, instead of someone being able to 'find toys easily'?

And hathorcat, the reason what you say about "target audience" rings true to you in society is because society is totally backwards and messed up, and basically buys into these categories. That's why your approach with your client works, because in this humiliating and damaging environment the majority of people don't even question any of this. They just buy into it because That's The Way It Is. When it actually doesn't HAVE to be like that at all, since society ya know created these dumb preconceptions, misconceptions and rules in the first place. But those things served the purpose of individuals who had power and privilege, and they still do, which is why they still exist.

Imagine how hard it is to openly take a stand about a system like this...? A behemoth that everyone just...buys into? Watchs on TV? Hears it from their parents? Reads it magazines? Sees it in movies? Had to follow it to get a job? Has to follow it to KEEP a job? Girls are like this! Boys are like this! Men are like this! Women are like this! Aspire to be the ideal man or woman like a "good" and "normal" person! Essential categories we all just made up when loads of men and women aren't even like this, and get to be harassed, tormented, disowned, ignored, bullied, etc. because they aren't! And when those people get "punished," other people who might feel like they do will hide themselves to get by.

It sounds crazy, but that gigantic system of fail starts with the smallest things, including how toy stores are set up, telling kids what their Group likes, based on what genitals they're born with. I mean, isn't that the dumbest thing you've ever heard? All these people in the world assuming they know how you're going to be from Day 1 if you're a "normal" boy or girl? And like I said...kids eat this stuff up...and they will BULLY the crap out of other kids for being "not normal." For someone to make the judgement on whether you're "normal" or not, there has to BE a standard of normalcy. And so often that is divided BY gender. Without even asking that person how they feel, or what kind of person they are.

So really...this is a problem...it's just one cog in a huge system of fail, and one thing changed might change other things eventually... Maybe some lucky kids assert themselves young AND their parents don't threaten to hit it out of them with a belt (not me!) ...but hey...we can't all be like them, can we. Some of us are shy little girls or boys, or shy folks who don't feel they are boys or girls, or boys that were supposed to be girls, or girls that were supposed to be boys, or folks who are both boys and girls. Why? Because "boys" and "girls" are limiting - all the people who don't toe the line are demeaned by being told: You're not even a boy, what's wrong with you! You're not even a girl, what's wrong with you! Those words should mean individual things to each person. Not a standard or rubric for people to judge how manly or womanly somebody is, and then decide how to hurt them if they're not manly or womanly enough. Don't forget that some people feel they are neither, or both, or the wrong one, and they still have to "PICK' one. And likely be mercilessly bullied for it at the end of the day.

It starts when you're small, and you go to the toy store, and school, and the playground. You can get punched in the face for what toy you've got in your backpack. You can have stuff thrown at you, be called slurred, be threatened with violence, etc., by your parents. People are saying: That happened to ME. And it just plays into the most basic things...so, go Harrod's.

[hathorcat]

I have and still do work in marketing and advertising - and have done so for a decade - not only marketing but ambient advertising - no one thinks more outside of the box than we do so this is something I have not only an opinion on but a little experience in. The old adage of "sex sells" may sound a little 80s - but check out a perfume advert near you [heck check out any advert advertising something fashionable] and you ll see its still a pretty commonly [even if tired] used concept. As is the idea of "frilly and pink" for girls and "blue and butch" for boys.

To the outside it looks odd but unfortunately advertising does work best when targeted - and in a toy market you are not targeting 50% of those parents or kids in store - you are targeting 50% of a certain age group, in a certain social economic bracket - advertising depends on stereotypes for product focus because unfortunately stereotypes exist. Its about delivering a product to market for which there is a demand and an avenue - that avenue is established by reasoning that a large number of people [with something in common - be that age or sex or income] have a need or wish for that product. Something as simple as colour coded products - which I mentioned way back on my first post - is an element of this. Again - your milk cartons are coded in colours relevant to the products within arent they? So are toys. In western society in general pink = girl and blue = boy. It could be any other colour combo - yellow = girl, green = boy. Yes, there is a division but I think we are all debating different things.

I am not having a discussion on the concept of the world at large accepting gender neutrality or changing society's opinions on men/women and gender roles - thats something far too in depth for this particular pony forum and something I dont feel experienced enough to state fact upon, only offer my one person opinion. This thread is supposed to be a discussion about toy aisles [and now toy marketing] and thats what I am referring to in my comments.

This is why this thread is going around and around in opinion - I am not saying any of what I am typing is "right" in the grander scheme of the world or that people need to accept it or like it. I am simply commenting on how it works and why its there. I am not asking or expecting everyone to agree with me of course and likewise I dont expect to agree with everyone else but as I am acknowledging other peoples opinions and expertise.

[starlightcomet]

I am not saying any of what I am typing is "right" in the grander scheme of the world or that people need to accept it or like it.

Sorry if it seemed implied that I was saying you were 

I think whilst some of the debate has gone in circles there have been compromises too. I mean we both agree some of those marketing cliches are considered tired even within the Marketing world. They're still used but I do think the adverts that branch out go more viral because people are like "Hey, this is something different". But there are areas of marketing that hasn't branched out yet, so the "tired cliche" is still the standard and become a bit of a blur that doesn't really stand out amongst the crowd, therefore it could be something worth more agencies experimenting with. Like with Mattel's new fashion doll range, where part of the appeal might be that it is something different on the shelves at a glance. They could of easily just done another pink packaged range and sold, but it seems the approach has gained a wider following.

Looking back at the MLP cartoon, Lauren Faust decided not to make a "show for girls" specifically but to first and foremost make a show with wide appeal. In marketing that could seem like a bad choice instead of just trying to appeal to a specific target that could be honed in on when it came to advertising the show to the general public. How do you market a show not just for girls but also for boys, men, women etc. and still get high sales? However the approach seems to of worked for Pixar etc. In MLP's case it seems to of worked too, Hub network make some interesting adverts, the fanbase has grown and so has the potential profit-making.

[LadyMoondancer]

I wanted to add something about the idea that a change in the setup won't change anything.

You never know what will kick off a change--a change in the mind of one person, or a family, or all of society.  When the United States was founded, the idea of women voting was unthinkable.  "Everybody knew" women were irrational and couldn't (or shouldn't) make up their own minds.  Before WWII, "everybody knew" women couldn't handle complex industrial jobs, like welding.  In the 1950s, "everybody knew" that pants were For Men--only men! 

Our society is not static, and it never was.  So maybe Harrod's will stick with this policy, maybe they won't.  Maybe it will make them more money, or maybe less.  God help us when we decide what's right based on how much money it produces.

The point is just because now, today, "pink aisle and blue aisle" are considered normal today doesn't mean that they are inevitable or ideal.