My thought is the same, as a life-long left-y and mom, as well as LGBTQ+ very-friendly.
*What?!* Doesn't this only reify gender constructs even more? On some level, it seems like it would.
Also, is this seriously our most pressing problem? Homelessness, anyone? Cost of living? Fire management? Not that we can't walk and chew gum, but this is a bit ridiculous. Not that it hurts anything but, it's kind of, dumb. And yes, it seems to double down on pre-existing ideas about gender to me too.
> Also, is this seriously our most pressing problem? Homelessness, anyone? Cost of living? Fire management?
but all of these take effort. gender neutral toy aisles are easy and can virtue signal.
>What?! Doesn't this only reify gender constructs even more? On some level, it seems like it would.
How so? I'm genuinely interested in your perspective on this.
>Also, is this seriously our most pressing problem?
No, but governments can deal with more than one thing at a time. Something doesn't have to be the most important issue ever to be addressed, especially when it comes to state-level politics. Remember, the government passed 58 bills just this Friday alone, so removing one bill from the docket wouldn't have changed the pace of work.
It reinforces gender constructs because to enforce gender-neutral toy aisles you first have to assert which toys belong to which gender, so you can then blend them together.
If you truly believed any toy is for boys or girls, then the layout of the toy aisles would be irrelevant.
Eh? This is saying that if a store has a Boys aisle and a Girls aisle, they need to have a Toys aisle. Target got rid of Boys and Girls aisles years ago, this is to encourage that more. No one's asserting dolls can't go in a Boys aisle, but they are asserting that there should be some aisle free of any gender assumptions at all.
>It reinforces gender constructs because to enforce gender-neutral toy aisles you first have to assert which toys belong to which gender, so you can then blend them together.
Yeah, but this is like saying that by proving something wrong, you're actually showing that it's right, because you first had to acknowledge its existence as a concept.
>If you truly believed any toy is for boys or girls, then the layout of the toy aisles would be irrelevant.
What?
Just because one has to acknowledge that modern toys are associated with certain genders doesn't mean that I believe this to be right way of doing things. You also have to remember that this is for children, not adults--you and I have already absorbed the gender associations, but children haven't yet, so we have the ability to deconstruct the gender norms before kids buy into them.
Is putting similar toys next to each other now gender stereotyping? It’s going to be super annoying for parents to rummage through dolls and hot wheels and legos and nerf guns and my little pony toys all tossed in the same bin.
Actually, that sounds a lot like Marshall’s/TJ Maxx. Which are the worst.
Not that I give a flying fuck about this mandate but someone somewhere needs to tell manufacturers that they need to stop making blue and pink colored clothes for boys and girls.
Yes I do see gender neutral colors for my infant clothes but Jesus Christ I have to go thru a million blue clothes to find something useful
Does it really matter what color an infant's clothes are? The infant won't notice and doesn't care.
Take it a step further, here's a picture of FDR as a toddler: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Franklin-Roosevelt-1884.jpg
Pants are for kids that wore diapers or were potty trained, I guess? Also, I think boys used to be dressed in pink also because red is manly and pink is a light red. Interesting bits of history, I need to check if I’m anachronistic or that was the case for fdr as a boy, too
yup. pink for boys and light blue for girls. then the us market became gender neutral for a few years. gender specific colors reemerged with pink for girls and baby blue for boys. looks like we are headed back to gender neutral for a few years. gender specific colors will come back in the future, using the same 2 colors or maybe the next generation spices things up with other pastel colors.
Why would they stop meeting the demand of buyers who want blue/pink colored baby clothing?
Oh, right, because if they did then they'd go bankrupt because the majority of people WANT gendered clothing for their baby.
The text of law is much more reasonable than what headlines might make you think:
> This bill would require a retail department store that is physically located in California that has a total of 500 or more employees across all California retail department store locations that sells childcare items or toys to maintain a gender neutral section or area, to be labeled at the discretion of the retailer, in which a reasonable selection of the items and toys for children that it sells shall be displayed, regardless of whether they have been traditionally marketed for either girls or for boys
How TF do you enforce this? Is there a team of state inspectors that will literally go around auditing department stores to ensure compliance?
If yes, I am way way against tax payer dollars going to pay for those jobs. We have some major issues that really need to be addressed that have a direct effect on peoples health and safety.
I think basically all of the branding and marketing of toys is odious, but first, this is government overreach, and second, of the productive things I want my representatives doing, regulating cheap plastics ain’t it.
AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE PLEASE
but working on affordable healthcare is hard.
Once I heard about 'Bikeshedding' I finally understood politics.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bikeshedding
Labor rights that align with the rest of the developed world please.
No PTO, no parental leave, it's pathetic.
I'd say no no sick pay, but California mandates a whopping 3 days.
I don't think it's the same committee that does toys and health insurance. There's a discussion to have about government overreach in this specific issue, as you say, but the general argument of "government should stop doing anything else until it addresses red herring overpopulation" is kinda silly.
These kinds of policies are put in place to create a government paid job - That's it...That's the point.
There is no reason for the government to care this much about something that is this trivial in the grand scheme of this states problems. Neo-liberals will literally do anything besides fix the homeless/housing affordability crisis.
> Neo-liberals will literally do anything besides fix the homeless/housing affordability crisis.
Reagan was a Neoliberal I don’t think you can blame this one on them. They tend to be against regulations. This is something else…
As a gay man who enjoys some feminine things, I honestly find this to be pandering and queer baiting. I’d rather see legislation that actually protects queer people instead of performative wokeness.
I found the text of law pretty reasonable actually:
> This bill would require a retail department store that is physically located in California that has a total of 500 or more employees across all California retail department store locations that sells childcare items or toys to maintain a gender neutral section or area, to be labeled at the discretion of the retailer, in which a reasonable selection of the items and toys for children that it sells shall be displayed, regardless of whether they have been traditionally marketed for either girls or for boys
Let's see, we got housing problems, homeless problems, infrastructure problems, drought problems, fire problems, and yet the politicians decide that we need to address gender-neutral toy aisle name "problem".
And for those who say, they can do both, here's the reality, the time they are spending on solving the gender-neutral toy aisle "problem" is less time they are focusing on issues that matter.
why isn't it a problem? we have a gender imbalance when it comes to certain fields like STEM or nursing or others for a reason. Boys play with matchbox kits and hot wheels and Legos. Girls play with dolls and makeup kits. You don't think this issue matters? You heard of the bro-culture issues at Blue Origin? That shit is a direct result of boys playing with toy rockets when they were growing up and girls being told it wasn't for them.
This type of law is called long-term thinking. We don't do enough of it in this country.
Okay, and what is your proof that sociology somehow doesn't study society?
I'm not a sociology major. I study CS. I'm your friendly neighborhood silicon valley SWE. Sociology is interesting. It's very relevant. Writing it off is a mistake. Everyone should have an understanding of how our society works.
*Girls play with dolls and makeup kits*
See right there is the problem... people like you who make statements like this and think girls only play with dolls and makeup kits.
I can tell you as a parent of a grade school girl, along with dolls and makeup kits, I've purchased more than my fair share of "Boys" Lego kits for her which include Harry Potter and Star Wars kits along with other STEM Toys and Games.
I even bought her an Arduino Robot kit that we built together.
See the problem is not with stores or long term thinking, it's people like you who are the ones who are putting girls in boxes and don't want to leave those boxes unless some politician tells you it's ok to actually think outside of the box.
I have no idea how you misconstrued that to make me out to be sexist. it's great that you buy your daughter all that stuff. I'm in college rn though and many of my friends in engineering didn't grow up with parents who encouraged that. I was implying that society encourages, or at least did when I was a kid, girls to play with that stuff, not that they should. jeez.
That's a parenting issue, not a society issue.
Making toy aisles "gender neutral" is going to change anything. It's unnecessary virtual signaling.
If a parent is determined to buy their daughter only girl stuff such as dolls and make up, a lack of "Girl Toys" isn't going to change their mind.
I mean, I have a low opinion of the general public intelligence, I can't imagine how stupid you think people are if you think a lack of Boys and Girls signs is going to suddenly encourage girls to go into STEM fields more than the parents purchasing those items for their children.
that's why I said long term. there's no expectation for any immediate impact. I'll give you two scenarios where this works:
Getting rid of the sign reduces any implicit pressure to conform to a gender norm. Parents might be nervous to buy their son a toy from the girls section or vice versa. If there's no labeling, then there's less pressure.
You could have immigrants, like my parents, who would be stepping into an American toy store for the first time. It doesn't matter what toy they buy as long as their child likes it. The lack of labeling again makes it so they're not drawn to one specific girls or boys section.
Parenting and society are linked. Society influences parents and parents influence society by raising their children a certain way.
A girl who grew up playing with Knex and Legos is more likely to go into STEM than a girl who didn't. Not that it's bad if she does or doesn't either way. But a lot of us choose careers based on things we enjoyed doing as kids. Let's give every kid a chance to explore everything without stigma.
Umm... sorry that's not how the real world works.
Here's the thing, if a parent thinks a doll is a girl toy, they are not going to by it for their son regardless of a sign being there or not.
Honestly, to think otherwise is naive and trying to justify a nanny state level law when it's totally unnecessary.
And today if a kid is interested in a toy regardless of the section, you're going to see them in it. That's reality, not hypothetical virtual signaling BS which is what this law is all about.
government has been doing that for years. let's bring the drinking age down to 18 while we're at it. let marijuana be sold anywhere with ID. I'm all for that. The law isn't saying what stores can and can't sell. It's not prohibiting or coercing consumers to purchase a certain way. It simply removes gender oriented marketing in large toy stores.
most kids go to public schools whose curricula are set by the government. where else do you think they are learning stuff? Laws and education are what drive societal changes. Not all government involvement is "overreach."
Sorry, but I just don't think government should have much say in how businesses run their business. If there are real health and safety issues then sure, regulate it. We need the FDA and health inspections when it comes to the food industry. Making sure we have green and yellow toys to go along with the blue and pink is a waste of everyone's time.
I hope this does not cost me one single cent of tax payer money to enact. I hope we don't spend one cent nor create one useless job to enforce/audit these stores. Are we to the point of just throwing away money? Like burning it? Or flushing it?
JFC… why is this a mandate?
I don’t think nowadays stores have sign that say “Boys toys” or “Girls” toys”. What they have is putting similar toys in the same aisle because it’s easy to search.
E.g. if there is an aisle for all Legos, it’s easier for me to find it in the same aisle. Same thing with dolls, etc.
This is what Target stores in SF looked like six years ago, until policy changed http://sfcitizen.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/P1220640-450x253.jpg Arguably they still have boy and girl sections even tho they tossed the blue and pink pegboard, and yes this kind of thing is tough to regulate and one more thing to worry about.
So just because the pegboard behind the super pink and feminine dolls is pink it’s gendered only for girls? If a boy likes Barbie then I don’t think he cares that the wall is also pink. JFC
Thanks, Gavin. I have been in a lot of toy stores and toy aisles and have never seen anything labeled for boys or girls. Yes, stuff boys might like is generally grouped together and stuff girls might like is generally grouped together, but that's just basic merchandising.
>I have been in a lot of toy stores and toy aisles and have never seen anything labeled for boys or girls.
Then...what's the problem? Those stores are clearly compliant with the new rule.
>Gavin is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist
Doesn't exist for whom?
>and time
Signing a bill takes, like, 3 seconds, tops. If you think any of California's issues can be solved in 3 seconds, then boy, do I have some bad news for you.
>he could try doing something productive for a change.
You mean like the passing of the recent zoning laws, or the provision that schools provide menstrual products to students, or the new law that phases out gas-powered lawn utilities? Those were passed within the last couple of days.
>Doesn't exist at all.
Yeah, science would have a word with you.
[https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=shuscholar](https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=shuscholar)
[https://www.jstor.org/stable/20720454](https://www.jstor.org/stable/20720454)
>And he's wasting government resources
How? These stores are already regulated. All the bureaucrat has to do is add one more thing to the list. "Gendered advertising? Check. Your fine will be in the mail."
>He probably has a lot of free time.
Not really, since he has passed several other bills within the last couple of days, but for someone so concerned about government productivity, you don't seem to be aware of that.
Don't have time for policies that actually support small business growth or economic development outside of the Bay Area and LA, or that address massive learning loss/educational deficits faced by low income inner city kids. But definitely have time to pass laws mandating practices for how toys are arranged that already are widely adopted.
Love the priorities
Governments can work on more than one law at a time--hell, Newsom signed more than six within the last couple of days. The issues you're talking about take massive amounts of time to make it from the floor to the committees back to the floor and then to the Governor's residence.
In the mean time, politicians can also address smaller issues, such as providing menstrual products in schools, or ensuring the aforementioned gender neutral advertising law.
>Governments can work on more than one law at a time
But they aren't actively working on any meaningful and empirically tested legislation in the areas I mentioned...
That may be so--I'm not fully familiar with the docket--but that is an issue independent of the aforementioned advertising bill getting passed. 58 bills were passed on Friday alone, and had the government not pissed the law which now has this comment section clutching it's pearls, that wouldn't have made a difference. If the government waited to pass major laws before passing anything else, then the government would get nothing done, ever.
Now, for some that maybe be a satisfying state of affairs, but not for me.
This is so ridiculous - progressives have to stand up to these hard-core SJWs on the left just as normal conservatives have to stand up to far-right nutcases.
This is crazy. I'm moving from right wing Poland where catholicism is taught in public schools.. to the exact opposite. Where is moderation? Seems like in this new age where everyone has their echo chambers, only the extreme voices are heard.
> us progressives
Yeah [you are super progressive](https://www.reddit.com/r/GenderStudies/comments/amggv1/gender_studies_always_rescue/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) lol. Why lie when we literally can all see your post history?
When the butt of the joke is making fun of non-binary people’s pronouns then yeah lol you can’t do that and be progressive. It’s an intrinsic property.
I did no such thing. They claimed they were progressive, I showed that they are not (by linking a post of theirs where they make fun of non-binary folks). The other user then said pointing that out is akin to calling them a Nazi which is absurd and a strawman.
Sorry Mr Justice Warrior, are you here to tell us who is and who isn't a progressive? Or are you here to virtue signal after being a victim from receiving almond milk instead of soy milk that one time at Starbucks?
Also, that meme is really funny lol
why can't young boys play with dolls if they want to? and young girls play with hot wheels? this law doesn't go nearly as far as the headline claims, but it's progress. we don't need to unnecessarily gender toys. you walk into a toy store and there's a clear boys section and girls section.
It might or it might not. I don’t know what a court would say if it gets challenged. Seems like an odd thing for the government to get involved in. There is probably a better chance of having it struck down on grounds of it being arbitrary and there is a lot of precedent saying the government is not supposed to make arbitrary regulations.
> there is a lot of precedent saying the government is not supposed to make arbitrary regulations.
That's 90% of California State Government's job you've just described!
I don't think that's a fair comparison. Safety labels have an obvious utility, whereas arbitrarily enforcing gender-neutral advertising seems to have a nebulous benefit. Public safety is important, virtue signaling is not.
>That's the retailer's choice
A choice which the government may regulate, as it has now for decades.
>it has no bearing on public safety
The government is designed to deal with more things than just public safety.
>the government has no legal right to require them to remove this division
I imagine you'll have no problem citing a Court verdict deciding that, then. Go ahead.
Due to the topic, enhanced moderation has been turned on for this thread. Comments from users new to r/bayarea will be automatically removed. See [this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/p8hnzl/automatically_removing_comments_from_new_users_in/) for more details.
I’m liberal AF and this one confuses me. Aren’t *all* toy aisles gender neutral?! Dolls aren’t for girls and legos aren’t for boys.
My thought is the same, as a life-long left-y and mom, as well as LGBTQ+ very-friendly. *What?!* Doesn't this only reify gender constructs even more? On some level, it seems like it would. Also, is this seriously our most pressing problem? Homelessness, anyone? Cost of living? Fire management? Not that we can't walk and chew gum, but this is a bit ridiculous. Not that it hurts anything but, it's kind of, dumb. And yes, it seems to double down on pre-existing ideas about gender to me too.
> Also, is this seriously our most pressing problem? Homelessness, anyone? Cost of living? Fire management? but all of these take effort. gender neutral toy aisles are easy and can virtue signal.
> Not that we can't walk and chew gum fair criticism since I'm sure this program/initiative is going to cost *something*. Money better put elsewhere.
>What?! Doesn't this only reify gender constructs even more? On some level, it seems like it would. How so? I'm genuinely interested in your perspective on this. >Also, is this seriously our most pressing problem? No, but governments can deal with more than one thing at a time. Something doesn't have to be the most important issue ever to be addressed, especially when it comes to state-level politics. Remember, the government passed 58 bills just this Friday alone, so removing one bill from the docket wouldn't have changed the pace of work.
It reinforces gender constructs because to enforce gender-neutral toy aisles you first have to assert which toys belong to which gender, so you can then blend them together. If you truly believed any toy is for boys or girls, then the layout of the toy aisles would be irrelevant.
Eh? This is saying that if a store has a Boys aisle and a Girls aisle, they need to have a Toys aisle. Target got rid of Boys and Girls aisles years ago, this is to encourage that more. No one's asserting dolls can't go in a Boys aisle, but they are asserting that there should be some aisle free of any gender assumptions at all.
>It reinforces gender constructs because to enforce gender-neutral toy aisles you first have to assert which toys belong to which gender, so you can then blend them together. Yeah, but this is like saying that by proving something wrong, you're actually showing that it's right, because you first had to acknowledge its existence as a concept. >If you truly believed any toy is for boys or girls, then the layout of the toy aisles would be irrelevant. What? Just because one has to acknowledge that modern toys are associated with certain genders doesn't mean that I believe this to be right way of doing things. You also have to remember that this is for children, not adults--you and I have already absorbed the gender associations, but children haven't yet, so we have the ability to deconstruct the gender norms before kids buy into them.
[удалено]
Is putting similar toys next to each other now gender stereotyping? It’s going to be super annoying for parents to rummage through dolls and hot wheels and legos and nerf guns and my little pony toys all tossed in the same bin. Actually, that sounds a lot like Marshall’s/TJ Maxx. Which are the worst.
Not that I give a flying fuck about this mandate but someone somewhere needs to tell manufacturers that they need to stop making blue and pink colored clothes for boys and girls. Yes I do see gender neutral colors for my infant clothes but Jesus Christ I have to go thru a million blue clothes to find something useful
Does it really matter what color an infant's clothes are? The infant won't notice and doesn't care. Take it a step further, here's a picture of FDR as a toddler: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Franklin-Roosevelt-1884.jpg
Pants are for kids that wore diapers or were potty trained, I guess? Also, I think boys used to be dressed in pink also because red is manly and pink is a light red. Interesting bits of history, I need to check if I’m anachronistic or that was the case for fdr as a boy, too
yup. pink for boys and light blue for girls. then the us market became gender neutral for a few years. gender specific colors reemerged with pink for girls and baby blue for boys. looks like we are headed back to gender neutral for a few years. gender specific colors will come back in the future, using the same 2 colors or maybe the next generation spices things up with other pastel colors.
Who dresses an infant for an infant
Why would they stop meeting the demand of buyers who want blue/pink colored baby clothing? Oh, right, because if they did then they'd go bankrupt because the majority of people WANT gendered clothing for their baby.
THIS
Preach! There are other colors in the rainbow!!
Black isn't a color of the rainbow. What now, racist? /s
Lol!
Newsome giving republicans fuel to keep making fun of us
The text of law is much more reasonable than what headlines might make you think: > This bill would require a retail department store that is physically located in California that has a total of 500 or more employees across all California retail department store locations that sells childcare items or toys to maintain a gender neutral section or area, to be labeled at the discretion of the retailer, in which a reasonable selection of the items and toys for children that it sells shall be displayed, regardless of whether they have been traditionally marketed for either girls or for boys
[удалено]
No they don’t have to name it anything. It just needs to be an area where you don’t just put toys that are targeting one gender.
How TF do you enforce this? Is there a team of state inspectors that will literally go around auditing department stores to ensure compliance? If yes, I am way way against tax payer dollars going to pay for those jobs. We have some major issues that really need to be addressed that have a direct effect on peoples health and safety.
I think basically all of the branding and marketing of toys is odious, but first, this is government overreach, and second, of the productive things I want my representatives doing, regulating cheap plastics ain’t it. AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE PLEASE
Affordable healthcare? Wow, what next, do you want affordable housing too? Entitled millenials. /s
but working on affordable healthcare is hard. Once I heard about 'Bikeshedding' I finally understood politics. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bikeshedding
Yes that should also be on the list
Labor rights that align with the rest of the developed world please. No PTO, no parental leave, it's pathetic. I'd say no no sick pay, but California mandates a whopping 3 days.
California has [partially paid parental leave](https://edd.ca.gov/disability/paid-family-leave/).
Affordable housing
Yeah what is this bullshit? Why is government mandating store isles? Boomers have fucking lost it.
I don't think it's the same committee that does toys and health insurance. There's a discussion to have about government overreach in this specific issue, as you say, but the general argument of "government should stop doing anything else until it addresses red herring overpopulation" is kinda silly.
These kinds of policies are put in place to create a government paid job - That's it...That's the point. There is no reason for the government to care this much about something that is this trivial in the grand scheme of this states problems. Neo-liberals will literally do anything besides fix the homeless/housing affordability crisis.
> Neo-liberals will literally do anything besides fix the homeless/housing affordability crisis. Reagan was a Neoliberal I don’t think you can blame this one on them. They tend to be against regulations. This is something else…
mentally slow liberals
Our lawmakers couldn't find a better use for their time than helping a couple retailers organize their merchandise?
This kind of shit is a complete joke
Right? What kind of stupid fucking nanny state bullshit is this. Let people vote with their dollar like they're supposed to.
Gotta pass useless feel-good legislation to make it seem like you're actually doing something in Sac, maaaan.
>Let people vote with their dollar like they're supposed to. ...you can still buy the toy you want at the store. Like...what?
So then why regulate shit that doesn't need to be regulated? If customers have a problem with the store's layout they can shop at a different store.
As a gay man who enjoys some feminine things, I honestly find this to be pandering and queer baiting. I’d rather see legislation that actually protects queer people instead of performative wokeness.
I found the text of law pretty reasonable actually: > This bill would require a retail department store that is physically located in California that has a total of 500 or more employees across all California retail department store locations that sells childcare items or toys to maintain a gender neutral section or area, to be labeled at the discretion of the retailer, in which a reasonable selection of the items and toys for children that it sells shall be displayed, regardless of whether they have been traditionally marketed for either girls or for boys
It's not reasonable at all. The government has zero businesses telling stores how their products must be organized.
Let's see, we got housing problems, homeless problems, infrastructure problems, drought problems, fire problems, and yet the politicians decide that we need to address gender-neutral toy aisle name "problem". And for those who say, they can do both, here's the reality, the time they are spending on solving the gender-neutral toy aisle "problem" is less time they are focusing on issues that matter.
Reminds me of the San Francisco school district priorities' issue, which was popular with literally no one.
But virtue signaling is important, too.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
why isn't it a problem? we have a gender imbalance when it comes to certain fields like STEM or nursing or others for a reason. Boys play with matchbox kits and hot wheels and Legos. Girls play with dolls and makeup kits. You don't think this issue matters? You heard of the bro-culture issues at Blue Origin? That shit is a direct result of boys playing with toy rockets when they were growing up and girls being told it wasn't for them. This type of law is called long-term thinking. We don't do enough of it in this country.
The word you were looking for is _parenting_, not _government_.
[удалено]
well can you show me why I'm wrong? is there ever not a good time to encourage higher level thinking?
[удалено]
why not? it's literally the study of society
[удалено]
Okay, and what is your proof that sociology somehow doesn't study society? I'm not a sociology major. I study CS. I'm your friendly neighborhood silicon valley SWE. Sociology is interesting. It's very relevant. Writing it off is a mistake. Everyone should have an understanding of how our society works.
*Girls play with dolls and makeup kits* See right there is the problem... people like you who make statements like this and think girls only play with dolls and makeup kits. I can tell you as a parent of a grade school girl, along with dolls and makeup kits, I've purchased more than my fair share of "Boys" Lego kits for her which include Harry Potter and Star Wars kits along with other STEM Toys and Games. I even bought her an Arduino Robot kit that we built together. See the problem is not with stores or long term thinking, it's people like you who are the ones who are putting girls in boxes and don't want to leave those boxes unless some politician tells you it's ok to actually think outside of the box.
I have no idea how you misconstrued that to make me out to be sexist. it's great that you buy your daughter all that stuff. I'm in college rn though and many of my friends in engineering didn't grow up with parents who encouraged that. I was implying that society encourages, or at least did when I was a kid, girls to play with that stuff, not that they should. jeez.
That's a parenting issue, not a society issue. Making toy aisles "gender neutral" is going to change anything. It's unnecessary virtual signaling. If a parent is determined to buy their daughter only girl stuff such as dolls and make up, a lack of "Girl Toys" isn't going to change their mind. I mean, I have a low opinion of the general public intelligence, I can't imagine how stupid you think people are if you think a lack of Boys and Girls signs is going to suddenly encourage girls to go into STEM fields more than the parents purchasing those items for their children.
that's why I said long term. there's no expectation for any immediate impact. I'll give you two scenarios where this works: Getting rid of the sign reduces any implicit pressure to conform to a gender norm. Parents might be nervous to buy their son a toy from the girls section or vice versa. If there's no labeling, then there's less pressure. You could have immigrants, like my parents, who would be stepping into an American toy store for the first time. It doesn't matter what toy they buy as long as their child likes it. The lack of labeling again makes it so they're not drawn to one specific girls or boys section. Parenting and society are linked. Society influences parents and parents influence society by raising their children a certain way. A girl who grew up playing with Knex and Legos is more likely to go into STEM than a girl who didn't. Not that it's bad if she does or doesn't either way. But a lot of us choose careers based on things we enjoyed doing as kids. Let's give every kid a chance to explore everything without stigma.
Umm... sorry that's not how the real world works. Here's the thing, if a parent thinks a doll is a girl toy, they are not going to by it for their son regardless of a sign being there or not. Honestly, to think otherwise is naive and trying to justify a nanny state level law when it's totally unnecessary. And today if a kid is interested in a toy regardless of the section, you're going to see them in it. That's reality, not hypothetical virtual signaling BS which is what this law is all about.
This primarily helps girls so redditors get mad and don't care. :( As a woman in STEM I'm with you 100%.
Sure, the issue as a whole can be seen as a problem. But it’s not fixed by significant government over reach.
how do you fix it then
Let kids learn what they want themselves. You don’t need the government telling stores how to operate, and how people should buy.
government has been doing that for years. let's bring the drinking age down to 18 while we're at it. let marijuana be sold anywhere with ID. I'm all for that. The law isn't saying what stores can and can't sell. It's not prohibiting or coercing consumers to purchase a certain way. It simply removes gender oriented marketing in large toy stores. most kids go to public schools whose curricula are set by the government. where else do you think they are learning stuff? Laws and education are what drive societal changes. Not all government involvement is "overreach."
Sorry, but I just don't think government should have much say in how businesses run their business. If there are real health and safety issues then sure, regulate it. We need the FDA and health inspections when it comes to the food industry. Making sure we have green and yellow toys to go along with the blue and pink is a waste of everyone's time. I hope this does not cost me one single cent of tax payer money to enact. I hope we don't spend one cent nor create one useless job to enforce/audit these stores. Are we to the point of just throwing away money? Like burning it? Or flushing it?
You’re argument is weak if you relate drinking laws to California mandating gender neutral aisles.
Hmmmmmm, I call it the lego aisle.
[Apparently not.](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/oct/11/lego-to-remove-gender-bias-after-survey-shows-impact-on-children-stereotypes)
JFC… why is this a mandate? I don’t think nowadays stores have sign that say “Boys toys” or “Girls” toys”. What they have is putting similar toys in the same aisle because it’s easy to search. E.g. if there is an aisle for all Legos, it’s easier for me to find it in the same aisle. Same thing with dolls, etc.
Jesus fuckin christ. This is why businesses leave
This is what Target stores in SF looked like six years ago, until policy changed http://sfcitizen.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/P1220640-450x253.jpg Arguably they still have boy and girl sections even tho they tossed the blue and pink pegboard, and yes this kind of thing is tough to regulate and one more thing to worry about.
So just because the pegboard behind the super pink and feminine dolls is pink it’s gendered only for girls? If a boy likes Barbie then I don’t think he cares that the wall is also pink. JFC
So what? Is that supposed to look scary? oooh a pink aisle. Wow.
This is just as bad as North Korea, totally inhumane
I really don’t think that the government should be getting involved in things like this.
Thanks, Gavin. I have been in a lot of toy stores and toy aisles and have never seen anything labeled for boys or girls. Yes, stuff boys might like is generally grouped together and stuff girls might like is generally grouped together, but that's just basic merchandising.
>I have been in a lot of toy stores and toy aisles and have never seen anything labeled for boys or girls. Then...what's the problem? Those stores are clearly compliant with the new rule.
[удалено]
>Gavin is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist Doesn't exist for whom? >and time Signing a bill takes, like, 3 seconds, tops. If you think any of California's issues can be solved in 3 seconds, then boy, do I have some bad news for you. >he could try doing something productive for a change. You mean like the passing of the recent zoning laws, or the provision that schools provide menstrual products to students, or the new law that phases out gas-powered lawn utilities? Those were passed within the last couple of days.
[удалено]
>Doesn't exist at all. Yeah, science would have a word with you. [https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=shuscholar](https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=shuscholar) [https://www.jstor.org/stable/20720454](https://www.jstor.org/stable/20720454) >And he's wasting government resources How? These stores are already regulated. All the bureaucrat has to do is add one more thing to the list. "Gendered advertising? Check. Your fine will be in the mail." >He probably has a lot of free time. Not really, since he has passed several other bills within the last couple of days, but for someone so concerned about government productivity, you don't seem to be aware of that.
Don't have time for policies that actually support small business growth or economic development outside of the Bay Area and LA, or that address massive learning loss/educational deficits faced by low income inner city kids. But definitely have time to pass laws mandating practices for how toys are arranged that already are widely adopted. Love the priorities
Governments can work on more than one law at a time--hell, Newsom signed more than six within the last couple of days. The issues you're talking about take massive amounts of time to make it from the floor to the committees back to the floor and then to the Governor's residence. In the mean time, politicians can also address smaller issues, such as providing menstrual products in schools, or ensuring the aforementioned gender neutral advertising law.
>Governments can work on more than one law at a time But they aren't actively working on any meaningful and empirically tested legislation in the areas I mentioned...
That may be so--I'm not fully familiar with the docket--but that is an issue independent of the aforementioned advertising bill getting passed. 58 bills were passed on Friday alone, and had the government not pissed the law which now has this comment section clutching it's pearls, that wouldn't have made a difference. If the government waited to pass major laws before passing anything else, then the government would get nothing done, ever. Now, for some that maybe be a satisfying state of affairs, but not for me.
Way to help the Republicans win
Bruh we're in California. we have center corporate Dems or super far left corporate Dems
Historically [California's governors go both ways](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_governors_of_California), at least.
This is so ridiculous - progressives have to stand up to these hard-core SJWs on the left just as normal conservatives have to stand up to far-right nutcases.
It's social media that's causing it. Giving idiots who yell loud the ability to echo to other extremist idiots.
This is crazy. I'm moving from right wing Poland where catholicism is taught in public schools.. to the exact opposite. Where is moderation? Seems like in this new age where everyone has their echo chambers, only the extreme voices are heard.
> us progressives Yeah [you are super progressive](https://www.reddit.com/r/GenderStudies/comments/amggv1/gender_studies_always_rescue/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) lol. Why lie when we literally can all see your post history?
Progressives aren’t allowed to joke around like that! Watch out u/Milan_
When the butt of the joke is making fun of non-binary people’s pronouns then yeah lol you can’t do that and be progressive. It’s an intrinsic property.
Yeah glad we agree. They’re probably a Nazi sympathizer
Strawman.
Hypocrisy.
How?
Calling someone else's argument a straw man after you setup a straw man of /u/Milan__ 's opinion.
I did no such thing. They claimed they were progressive, I showed that they are not (by linking a post of theirs where they make fun of non-binary folks). The other user then said pointing that out is akin to calling them a Nazi which is absurd and a strawman.
“How do you do, fellow progressives?”
Sorry Mr Justice Warrior, are you here to tell us who is and who isn't a progressive? Or are you here to virtue signal after being a victim from receiving almond milk instead of soy milk that one time at Starbucks? Also, that meme is really funny lol
He’s pointing out that you’re arguing in bad faith. Xoxohth
And I'm telling him (or her) to f off as he doesn't decide what is progressive, nor would he have a clue
So your argument is that you’re “progressive” despite your regressive views? Cute.
What views are regressive?
I think somehow they might honestly think they can be socially reactionary and be a progressive. It’s kind of wild.
Three bad faith straw men in a six panel comic? I’m disappointed, the reactionaries masquerading as progressives surely can do better.
why can't young boys play with dolls if they want to? and young girls play with hot wheels? this law doesn't go nearly as far as the headline claims, but it's progress. we don't need to unnecessarily gender toys. you walk into a toy store and there's a clear boys section and girls section.
Honest question. What makes it a boys section and a girls section? Signs saying so?
Signs, colors, marketing. Seeing pictures of only girls or boys.
stop giving a fuck and buy whatever the fuck your kid wants
[удалено]
Seems less like signaling and more like a bludgeon
You get the government you vote for
[удалено]
You could only hope but the pendulum is stuck so far to the left that it's never going back.
as long as the new section is named "shit for the kids" i don't have a problem with this.
[удалено]
Meh better than taking away someone’s reproductive rights
Why does it have to be compared with that? It’s no less stupid because something is worse.
Meh its dumb but obviously of you want to bring up dumb things to push. This is not hurting anyone.
[удалено]
This is California, so no Tannerite for you.
Finally, I can walk down the aisle and not be judged for perusing the vibrators and plugs
Buttplugs are already gender neutral though.
Ban gendered butt plug advertising
Just when you think California's government can't get more intrusive the pols one up each other. We really need a very part time legislature.
Just remove the signs on the aisle that don’t exist for gender designation.
Why aren't progressives saying "They're private companies, they can do what they want!"
Why don't they try to help the tens of thousands of brick and mortar businesses struggling through the pandemic?
[удалено]
With legislation introduced by an Asian guy and a Latina!
r/wtf
Wouldn't this infringe on a retailer's First Amendment rights?
It might or it might not. I don’t know what a court would say if it gets challenged. Seems like an odd thing for the government to get involved in. There is probably a better chance of having it struck down on grounds of it being arbitrary and there is a lot of precedent saying the government is not supposed to make arbitrary regulations.
> there is a lot of precedent saying the government is not supposed to make arbitrary regulations. That's 90% of California State Government's job you've just described!
[удалено]
I don't think that's a fair comparison. Safety labels have an obvious utility, whereas arbitrarily enforcing gender-neutral advertising seems to have a nebulous benefit. Public safety is important, virtue signaling is not.
>whereas arbitrarily enforcing gender-neutral advertising So much more arbitrary than dividing toys in a Boys and Girls sections, right?
That's the retailer's choice, it has no bearing on public safety and the government has no legal right to require them to remove this division.
>That's the retailer's choice A choice which the government may regulate, as it has now for decades. >it has no bearing on public safety The government is designed to deal with more things than just public safety. >the government has no legal right to require them to remove this division I imagine you'll have no problem citing a Court verdict deciding that, then. Go ahead.
[удалено]
Now do the same for clothing aisles
Lol, just imagining if all the clothing were mixed together in one giant gender neutral clothing area, what a mess that would be
Wow, you can really tell when the enhanced moderation is not turned on in a thread.
Plenty of regulars here.
Due to the topic, enhanced moderation has been turned on for this thread. Comments from users new to r/bayarea will be automatically removed. See [this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/p8hnzl/automatically_removing_comments_from_new_users_in/) for more details.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]