Personally I'm of a like mind and I consider this progress. I have a bunch of (smart, curious) daughters and I feel a real struggle against gender role orthodoxy when I'm trying to nurture their interests in legos and science and Tolkien and their friends are into American Girl dolls and Disney princesses.
With that said, you can see why retailers would be slow to drop gender categorization. For people who aren't particularly progressive on this issue, Amazon just made shopping harder. For the average adult shopping for kids' toys, I bet the single most valuable bit of information to predicting their purchase is the gender of the recipient.
Also if you are shopping for someone else's kids. If you don't know the kids interests it's a lot easier to look for toys of around that age and for the gender of the child. Sometimes its all the info you have.
> Also if you are shopping for someone else's kids. If you don't know the kids interests it's a lot easier to look for toys of around that age and for the gender of the child.
If you are shopping for someone else's kids, how hard is it to talk (/text/email/etc.) to the parents about the kids interests?
> If you are shopping for someone else's kids, how hard is it to talk
> (/text/email/etc.) to the parents about the kids interests?
Or even talk to the kids about the kids' interests (with written permission from the parents and social services and in the presence of at least three independent board-certified chaperons, of course).
How? There are kids in my child's class at school I've never met; I don't know their parents and in some cases there are never occasions where we share geographical location (their kids are picked up by carers). Schools don't give out the parents information; relaying contact details through children under about 8yo is impossible.
Then what? Arrange to meet them at their home to talk to their child for 30s about what they want for their birthday (that's in my price range) - the whole process is costing more than the present at this point.
Am I right in thinking you're not a parent?
Asking a parent you know for ideas for a party present for a kid is quite reasonable, asking the child won't help unless it's a child you're close to and you're spending a considerable sum and I'd warrant know the child's personality pretty well.
But, given that kids that don't conform to gender stereotypes of interests exist, probably infinitely more useful.
Heck, even for kids that conform to gender stereotypes to the extent that all of their interests are within the scope expected for their gender, its still vastly more useful to get direct information from them or their parents about their interests, because its very rare that any kid's interests will be cover all of what is within the gender stereotype even if it is contained within the gender stereotype.
Blindly relying on gender can lead to terrible presents. Plenty of girls do not like pink princesses, and plenty of boys do not like aggressive-looking action figures.
Ask about their interests, or get something generic enough that it's going to be fun for everybody.
Maybe we need to have girl-branded thought-provoking toys in the meantime to deal with parents that force these stereotypes on their children. Princess model rockets and Frozen science kits.
I doubt most parents force anything on kids these days least likely gender specific stuff. It's human nature, girls generally like girly stuff and boys like guy stuff and that's human nature and it is not ever going to change over the course of human history.
Forcing adults who would automatically think "trucks for boys, dolls for girls" to think about their choices is, in itself, valuable. As a child I was given dolls because I was a girl. I had absolutely no interest in dolls. Nor in trucks. I wanted building toys, animals, and dinosaurs.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that educational toys should be in a specific gender category. On the other hand, the number of tween-age boys into American Girl dolls has to low. I don't think "forcing" your customer to do anything is a good idea. I don't see the problem with the gender filters for those who want them and find them useful. It isn't a toy can ONLY be in one category or the other. I believe they are doing this just to pander to a small group of activists.
Sometimes you don't know a kid's interests, and their gender is the best heuristic available (and a pretty good one at that). Obviously if it's e.g. my daughter and I know she likes trains she's going to get trains, but not everyone buying a toy for a kid has that much information.
A lot of interests are tied to gender, probably more so than not. I'm more amazed that you're amazed that it should be the other way around. Even more amazing if the story is true that Amazon would try to change the core of human nature with a web site.
I must be misunderstanding you, because it looks like you're saying refusing to conform to gender roles makes us more robotic. Which would be ridiculous, so you probably don't mean that.
I get what you're saying, but there is a vast gulf between:
- gender is not just a social construct, men and women in aggregate don't have the exact same strengths, and that diversity is beautiful rather than something we need to suppress
and
- boys should play football and girls should play with dolls and wear frilly dresses
I think people who agree with the former, but not the latter, should overall feel good about Amazon not gratuitously dividing all sorts of categories of toys into "his" and "hers."
I can't see how you'd interpret "Boys' Toys" and "Girls' Toys" in a non-normative way (unless we're talking about the set of toys that are actually in the possession of those groups right now, which is plainly not the case here). Surely the meaning is something like "Toys that it is normal for boys to play with."
Sorry, I meant "normative" in the philosophical sense, as in normative ethics.
My non-normative interpretation is "toys marketed to and widely considered to be intended primarily for boys" and "toys marketed to and widely considered to be intended primarily for girls."
okay, take it up another level, if you were in Saudi Arabia and you were a woman you wouldn't be able to drive or do anything without a male companion. That's what happens when you make up arbitrary rules about who should do what
How could this appeals to you? If you don't like the gender categories, just DO NOT USE THEM! Why the hell would you want the categories to be removed?
It appears that what's actually been dropped is the filters from nav, since they still have the boys-toys girls-toys categories. This seems like a reasonable compromise for people want to shop that way, versus just choosing a kind of toy they think the child they are shopping for would like.
I wonder if Amazon actually A/B tested this, or just dropped it because of pressure from activists. If they did A/B test it, and found it increased sales or search efficiency, they should tout the finding.
But part of me wonders if they didn't just end up making their website worse for people actually trying to search for a present.
> Even for searching for your own kids gender categories are useful thing.
I dunno, when I've searched for gifts for children I know (and, really, the same thing goes for adults), I've usually had some idea of what I was looking for which was more useful than a gender category.
If the child is too young to express a preference, you don't need to choose between (eg) dolls or trucks - baby toys need to be primarily something that can't hurt the baby. If the child is old enough to express a preference, you can ask the child or their parents.
You two are talking past each other. The way it was before, you both could do what you wanted: either use the gender filter or not use the gender filter. Now there's no choice.
I have used the gender filter on many occasions to give me ideas or help discover toys my boys might like. Christmas and birthdays are brutal trying to find something engaging and fun for fast-growing kids with changing tastes. So it sucks that that option is gone.
Dedicated toys review sites seem to typically just be shills for toy companies and conventions.
There is significant scientific evidence for differences between men and women, both psychologically and physiologically. For one, if I may, mental illness strikes differently in men and women. In other news, it seems that women have been overmadicated for a long time because medical studies have ignored differences, for different reasons, one being the fear of sexism accusations.
And while it's silly to be offered only pink dolls, I do think that little girls and little boys have different preferences which are not instilled by their parents, but rather emerge from their own psychology. I find it very hard to believe that all of our passions and preferences have a source in somebody telling us that we should be this or that way. Like me starting to play guitar, mathematics, physics or now being a programmer and entrepreneur. It's things I just happened to like to do. There's been little encourgements.
I think there's a danger in fighting an wheel mill by enforcing a culture of uniformity because "girls need to learn about science too". I hate it when the world is accused of pushing pink on girls while everyday, on the streets, girls and women dress nicely in hundreds of colours and variations while men just wear t-shirts. I think that girls and women can manage this, and they're not as easilly to manipulate as some might think.
Even if men and women are different, I'm not certain that prescribed gender categories for toys is really aiding that anyway. Isn't it more convenient for both genders to not miss or avoid a toy because someone has labeled it as not belonging to their gender?
I don't know. You can look at it ethically, or statistically. First option is really difficult and you can not please everyone. Second... if consistently boys/girls want a certain kind of toy, parents will look for that type of toy for their girl/boy.
On the other hand, most consumers buy toys for children based on gender. How difficult does Amazon want to make it to find a toy for your niece or nephew? Not being able to filter for one or the other is an inconvenience. Now, if they have data that suggests nobody used those categories, that's one thing, but removing it for political reasons is another.
The other filter people use a lot when searching for toys is age. They could remove the ages filter too, and expose you to all toys without any distinction. Just a toy firehose. I don't think the gender filter is helpful, but maybe it is to some people. But then it's Amazon's property, so I don't care about it, so long as they don't remove the gender filter for adult clothing.
Of course there are individual differences in toy preferences, but why not simply let people voice them themselves, rather than shoehorn them into a straightjacket?
It's not about enforcing a culture of uniformity, it's about fighting it. It's about making all toys accessible to everybody.
I agree, there shouldn't be clean cut boundaries, but I believe that socially things tend to settle naturally, even if not in the same way for everyone. It's culture, not physics.
Trying to meet expectations is a big part of culture, unfortunately. Just look at how many people are unhappy about the role society expects them to fill. Consider why coming out is so hard for many people. Things don't settle naturally the way they should; it often takes a struggle to free people from cultural expectations.
> rather than shoehorn them into a straightjacket?
Them who? Children don't buy their own toys. Adults buy them. Adults can make their own decisions to ignore the gender filter. By removing the option entirely, you're making it more difficult for your paying customers.
> There is no gender equality when it comes to what a child needs. A child needs the smile of a mother as much as they need the smile of a father. And one can not replace the other. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6003444]
At least you're consistent in your beliefs but I still disagree with you.
How much of it is self-enforcing simply by peer groups though? I certainly wouldn't say there isn't a psychological/neurological component at work here - I'd guess that there is a proclivity for boys to choose a ball over a doll. However, I can't think it would be as much as what we see today - the environment plays the largest role I would guess, especially since after the "roles" are established experimentation with "non-role-appropriate" toys are probably highly discouraged.
I fail to see the wisdom of assuming children are homo economus capable of expressing consumer will, especially since for the first ten (and even twenty) years of their existence they are mindless meme conduits for whatever mass media monster pumps them full of nonsense.
A lot of sites have moved to non-binary gender representations. Some do it because they see heteronormativity as a close-but-not-quite-close-enough false dichotomy that leaves too many people out in the cold. I’m not sure if that’s why Amazon did this, but they certainly wouldn’t be the first ones to do it.
FWIW, I tend to agree with this recent perspective. In the endless debate over nature-vs-nurture, why should we insist on nurturing this dichotomy? We’re no worse off for not reenforcing that which marginalizes/disenfranchises so many. Are we?
72 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 122 ms ] threadWith that said, you can see why retailers would be slow to drop gender categorization. For people who aren't particularly progressive on this issue, Amazon just made shopping harder. For the average adult shopping for kids' toys, I bet the single most valuable bit of information to predicting their purchase is the gender of the recipient.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JDmb_f3E2c
If you are shopping for someone else's kids, how hard is it to talk (/text/email/etc.) to the parents about the kids interests?
Then what? Arrange to meet them at their home to talk to their child for 30s about what they want for their birthday (that's in my price range) - the whole process is costing more than the present at this point.
Am I right in thinking you're not a parent?
Asking a parent you know for ideas for a party present for a kid is quite reasonable, asking the child won't help unless it's a child you're close to and you're spending a considerable sum and I'd warrant know the child's personality pretty well.
But, given that kids that don't conform to gender stereotypes of interests exist, probably infinitely more useful.
Heck, even for kids that conform to gender stereotypes to the extent that all of their interests are within the scope expected for their gender, its still vastly more useful to get direct information from them or their parents about their interests, because its very rare that any kid's interests will be cover all of what is within the gender stereotype even if it is contained within the gender stereotype.
You must really be an arse hole to feel the need to belittle people just because they disagree with you.
Ask about their interests, or get something generic enough that it's going to be fun for everybody.
Point being, pretending to be off put by a reasonable and logical thing doesn't make you correct.
- gender is not just a social construct, men and women in aggregate don't have the exact same strengths, and that diversity is beautiful rather than something we need to suppress
and
- boys should play football and girls should play with dolls and wear frilly dresses
I think people who agree with the former, but not the latter, should overall feel good about Amazon not gratuitously dividing all sorts of categories of toys into "his" and "hers."
Amazons categorization probably does not imply a normative belief. I doubt Amazon cares if you order an Iron Man toy for a female.
My non-normative interpretation is "toys marketed to and widely considered to be intended primarily for boys" and "toys marketed to and widely considered to be intended primarily for girls."
Sure ... but are you saying that this is politically prudent and financially irrelevant?
Unisex things like diet soda are engendered (Diet Coke vs Coke Zero) because market differentiation and segmentation works.
Were consumers unable to find products because their assumption of a girl's toy was different from the manufacturer's assignment of the toy's gender?
Were manufacturers gaming the system by marking toys unisex to increase sales?
Was there a lower convergence rate when the consumers filtered by gender?
Were consumers offended by the category and complained?
Was gender the least used classifier and Amazon was simply tidying up the interface?
I don't know the answer. There's many options. Filters are on the left hand and near the top. That means they are important.
I think Amazon knew the financial hazards or benefits and then made the decision primarily based on that.
But part of me wonders if they didn't just end up making their website worse for people actually trying to search for a present.
I dunno, when I've searched for gifts for children I know (and, really, the same thing goes for adults), I've usually had some idea of what I was looking for which was more useful than a gender category.
Dedicated toys review sites seem to typically just be shills for toy companies and conventions.
And while it's silly to be offered only pink dolls, I do think that little girls and little boys have different preferences which are not instilled by their parents, but rather emerge from their own psychology. I find it very hard to believe that all of our passions and preferences have a source in somebody telling us that we should be this or that way. Like me starting to play guitar, mathematics, physics or now being a programmer and entrepreneur. It's things I just happened to like to do. There's been little encourgements.
I think there's a danger in fighting an wheel mill by enforcing a culture of uniformity because "girls need to learn about science too". I hate it when the world is accused of pushing pink on girls while everyday, on the streets, girls and women dress nicely in hundreds of colours and variations while men just wear t-shirts. I think that girls and women can manage this, and they're not as easilly to manipulate as some might think.
It's not about enforcing a culture of uniformity, it's about fighting it. It's about making all toys accessible to everybody.
Them who? Children don't buy their own toys. Adults buy them. Adults can make their own decisions to ignore the gender filter. By removing the option entirely, you're making it more difficult for your paying customers.
At least you're consistent in your beliefs but I still disagree with you.
FWIW, I tend to agree with this recent perspective. In the endless debate over nature-vs-nurture, why should we insist on nurturing this dichotomy? We’re no worse off for not reenforcing that which marginalizes/disenfranchises so many. Are we?
- existence of the gendered categories does not force you to use the gendered categories
- dropping the gender categories does prohibit others to use the gender categories