Gender No Longer Exists

 

bumper_bumper_stickerToday I made the mistake of turning to ABC for their morning network news. After being blinded by the pastels of their dollhouse-like set, I watched several bobble-headed women and one extremely handsome fellow discuss Target stores doing away with gender signs. The giddy news “person” reported that there will be no more girls’ toys or boys’ toys — just toys. No more girls’ or boys’ clothes — just clothes. They will remove pink wall paper from the Barbie aisle and remove blue from G.I. Joe’s section. Target wants to do away with any gender signage to create “balance.”

Why? ABC explained that a pierced, hair dyed, tattooed Mother was shocked, SHOCKED!!!, when she saw the evil gender signage. Abi Bechtel is a self referred feminist who doesn’t want her kids playing with toys meant for their own gender. It’s sexist!

Target considers this “social media backlash” against gender signage as justification to, well, ignore gender all together.

By the way, the ABC “news” team had absolutely zero mention of anyone who may disagree with this craziness. Fair and balanced, amirite?

As a father to two sons, one a definite alpha male, and the other, well… he likes hugs, I cringed at this report. One thing I know is that kids gravitate toward what they like. Most kids like toys or clothes designed for their own gender.

What Target is doing is furthering the extremist narrative that gender in itself is exclusionary. It’s better to remove “boys” and “girls” labels as those could make the infinitesimal percentage of kids who feel different, also feel excluded.

The question is, where does this stop? When will the color blue be outlawed? When will Mattel Toys be mandated to have Barbie, Ken and Pat?

You can watch the full ABC report here.

Published in Culture
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 118 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    Kate Braestrup:

    David Sussman: Androgyny isn’t just a style but a sociological statement that covers gender equity and sexuality.

    Which is a new thing. 18thcmandress

    Progeny recapitulate androgyny?

    • #91
  2. donald todd Inactive
    donald todd
    @donaldtodd

    Basil Fawlty:

    Kate Braestrup:

    Mike H:

    Jamie Lockett:

    Mike H:

    I’ve always thought Erector Sets should be gender neutral.

    So do the children that play with them.

    • #92
  3. Man With the Axe Inactive
    Man With the Axe
    @ManWiththeAxe

    Dean Murphy: Words have gender, people have sex.

    Some more often than others.

    • #93
  4. skipsul Inactive
    skipsul
    @skipsul

    Kate Braestrup:

    David Sussman: Androgyny isn’t just a style but a sociological statement that covers gender equity and sexuality.

    Which is a new thing. 18thcmandress

    This was masculine for its day.

    • #94
  5. Paul Erickson Inactive
    Paul Erickson
    @PaulErickson

    Jimmy Carter:Are these the same people Who insist on referring to Bruce Jenner a woman?

    Did you mean, a womyn?

    • #95
  6. Jules PA Inactive
    Jules PA
    @JulesPA

    Nick Baldock:Maybe I’m phenomenally dumb, but I would have read that sign as “(Generic) Building Sets” and “Girls’ Building Sets” – that is, somebody had gone out of their way to devise a product designed specifically to interest girls in construction. This could be considered condescending, I guess, but I wouldn’t have inferred that girls were banned from the “Building Sets.”

    This will go further than you probably want to imagine. The logical corollary, which is the abolition of separate sports events for “men” and “women”, may take a little longer. Paging Billie Jean King…

    True, if the new product line is geared to girls, it will direct girls into the line, since traditionally, they don’t go there much. They can buy any construction set they want.

    You can’t win for losing with the Whiner Set…

    • #96
  7. Roberto Inactive
    Roberto
    @Roberto

    skipsul:

    Kate Braestrup:

    David Sussman: Androgyny isn’t just a style but a sociological statement that covers gender equity and sexuality.

    Which is a new thing. 18thcmandress

    This was masculine for its day.

    In a day when one could demand satisfaction through the code duello masculinity hardly needed to be demonstrated through attire.

    • #97
  8. skipsul Inactive
    skipsul
    @skipsul

    Roberto:

    skipsul:

    Kate Braestrup:

    David Sussman: Androgyny isn’t just a style but a sociological statement that covers gender equity and sexuality.

    Which is a new thing. 18thcmandress

    This was masculine for its day.

    In a day when one could demand satisfaction through the code duello masculinity hardly needed to be demonstrated through attire.

    True, but what is really “masculine” in fashion is ultimately whatever makes men be and feel perceived as different from women.

    Androgyny in fashion is always a short term fad as both men and women, more often than not, eventually want to be distinguished (and distinguishable) from each other.  The above garb was manly for its day, even if foppish today.

    • #98
  9. David Sussman Member
    David Sussman
    @DaveSussman

    Roberto:

    skipsul:

    Kate Braestrup:

    David Sussman: Androgyny isn’t just a style but a sociological statement that covers gender equity and sexuality.

    Which is a new thing. 18thcmandress

    This was masculine for its day.

    In a day when one could demand satisfaction through the code duello masculinity hardly needed to be demonstrated through attire.

    Cant I just wear the shirt???download (5)

    • #99
  10. gts109 Inactive
    gts109
    @gts109

    Anyone else notice that the children of the SJW mom featured in the ABC piece prefer gendered toys? She had to lecture her children that boys are allowed to like dolls and girls toy guns. Maybe her children’s own preferences–notwithstanding the constant harping of their prog, tatted ma–should tell her something?

    For all those who think this is a market initiative, please reconsider. Responding to loudmouth criticism isn’t a market initiative, i.e. a plan designed to increase profits by responding to customer preference. It may be rational for corporations to try and avoid social media backlash by kowtowing to aggressive SJW critics, but let’s not mistake cultural pliancy with an initiative that would increase Target’s toys sales. We have zero evidence that Target made this move in response to behavior witnessed in its stores (i.e. that girls were driven away from the boy aisles or vice versa and that sales lagged as a result) or that any market-based research demonstrates that this change would increase toy sales. I am certain that the prior set-up of Target’s toy aisles was determined in large part based on making the shopping experience enjoyable and increasing sales.

    In fact, all of the (little) evidence we have proves the following: Target did this because it fears tattooed progressive weirdos who demand stupid things on Twitter.

    • #100
  11. Ryan M Inactive
    Ryan M
    @RyanM

    David Sussman:

    Ball Diamond Ball:

    Frankly, we are offended by your repeated use of the singular.

    You ever make it to MacArthur’s Memorial?

    And don’t call me Frankly.

    In Norfolk?  When I lived there, my wife and I toured a MacArthur museum, I believe.  It was fascinating.  I hope I don’t have my generals mixed up.

    • #101
  12. Ryan M Inactive
    Ryan M
    @RyanM

    Kate Braestrup:

    David Sussman: Androgyny isn’t just a style but a sociological statement that covers gender equity and sexuality.

    Which is a new thing. 18thcmandress

    See the sword at his side, though?  I think a man of that era would still very much have found a meaningful difference between the genders.  What’s pathetic is that even those men were far, far more manly than what is acceptable in today’s society.

    • #102
  13. skipsul Inactive
    skipsul
    @skipsul

    Ryan M:

    Kate Braestrup:

    David Sussman: Androgyny isn’t just a style but a sociological statement that covers gender equity and sexuality.

    Which is a new thing. 18thcmandress

    See the sword at his side, though? I think a man of that era would still very much have found a meaningful difference between the genders. What’s pathetic is that even those men were far, far more manly than what is acceptable in today’s society.

    In some ways.  Remember the purpose of that wig:  to hide baldness.  Louis XIV was bald as a cueball (and short) so he mandated wigs and heeled riding boots to drown out his deficiencies (can’t have the king seem less manly than the courtiers).  Today bald guys proudly shave their heads to advertise their virility.

    • #103
  14. Ryan M Inactive
    Ryan M
    @RyanM

    skipsul:

    Ryan M:

    Kate Braestrup:

    David Sussman: Androgyny isn’t just a style but a sociological statement that covers gender equity and sexuality.

    Which is a new thing.

    See the sword at his side, though? I think a man of that era would still very much have found a meaningful difference between the genders. What’s pathetic is that even those men were far, far more manly than what is acceptable in today’s society.

    In some ways. Remember the purpose of that wig: to hide baldness. Louis XIV was bald as a cueball (and short) so he mandated wigs and heeled riding boots to drown out his deficiencies (can’t have the king seem less manly than the courtiers). Today bald guys proudly shave their heads to advertise their virility.

    Very true.  And although the outfit seems like something a woman would wear today, I think it had much more practical significance when it was in fashion.  If anyone hasn’t done so recently, a person should go back and pick up the Horatio Hornblower series or the Aubrey/Maturin series for a good reminder of what men used to be like.  Obviously, I believe that we all still have that instinct, but it has to find other outlets… for better or worse.  (I’m not complaining about my current life-expectancy or not having to risk taking a cannonball to the forehead anytime soon)  Then again, go online and watch some Afghanistan engagement videos…

    • #104
  15. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    gts109: For all those who think this is a market initiative, please reconsider. Responding to loudmouth criticism isn’t a market initiative, i.e. a plan designed to increase profits by responding to customer preference. It may be rational for corporations to try and avoid social media backlash by kowtowing to aggressive SJW critics, but let’s not mistake cultural pliancy with an initiative that would increase Target’s toys sales. We have zero evidence that Target made this move in response to behavior witnessed in its stores (i.e. that girls were driven away from the boy aisles or vice versa and that sales lagged as a result) or that any market-based research demonstrates that this change would increase toy sales. I am certain that the prior set-up of Target’s toy aisles was determined in large part based on making the shopping experience enjoyable and increasing sales.

    In fact, all of the (little) evidence we have proves the following: Target did this because it fears tattooed progressive weirdos who demand stupid things on Twitter.

    Amen! It’s surrendering to bullies, not a market-based decision.

    • #105
  16. skipsul Inactive
    skipsul
    @skipsul

    Western Chauvinist:

    gts109: For all those who think this is a market initiative, please reconsider. Responding to loudmouth criticism isn’t a market initiative, i.e. a plan designed to increase profits by responding to customer preference. It may be rational for corporations to try and avoid social media backlash by kowtowing to aggressive SJW critics, but let’s not mistake cultural pliancy with an initiative that would increase Target’s toys sales. We have zero evidence that Target made this move in response to behavior witnessed in its stores (i.e. that girls were driven away from the boy aisles or vice versa and that sales lagged as a result) or that any market-based research demonstrates that this change would increase toy sales. I am certain that the prior set-up of Target’s toy aisles was determined in large part based on making the shopping experience enjoyable and increasing sales.

    In fact, all of the (little) evidence we have proves the following: Target did this because it fears tattooed progressive weirdos who demand stupid things on Twitter.

    Amen! It’s surrendering to bullies, not a market-based decision.

    Hence the name “TARGET”.  They’re practically begging for it.

    • #106
  17. David Sussman Member
    David Sussman
    @DaveSussman

    Ryan M:

    David Sussman:

    Ball Diamond Ball:

    Frankly, we are offended by your repeated use of the singular.

    You ever make it to MacArthur’s Memorial?

    And don’t call me Frankly.

    In Norfolk? When I lived there, my wife and I toured a MacArthur museum, I believe. It was fascinating. I hope I don’t have my generals mixed up.

    Yup. It certainly is. The man had a massive influence in American history. After accepting Japans surrender and then overseeing the Korea War, he could have easily become President but his campaign burned out before it really got started. Highly recommended to anyone heading to the Norfolk vicinity.

    • #107
  18. David Sussman Member
    David Sussman
    @DaveSussman

    skipsul:

    Ryan M:

    Kate Braestrup:

    David Sussman: Androgyny isn’t just a style but a sociological statement that covers gender equity and sexuality.

    Which is a new thing. 18thcmandress

    See the sword at his side, though? I think a man of that era would still very much have found a meaningful difference between the genders. What’s pathetic is that even those men were far, far more manly than what is acceptable in today’s society.

    In some ways. Remember the purpose of that wig: to hide baldness. Louis XIV was bald as a cueball (and short) so he mandated wigs and heeled riding boots to drown out his deficiencies (can’t have the king seem less manly than the courtiers). Today bald guys proudly shave their heads to advertise their virility.

    • #108
  19. Jojo Inactive
    Jojo
    @TheDowagerJojo

    Nick Baldock:Maybe I’m phenomenally dumb, but I would have read that sign as “(Generic) Building Sets” and “Girls’ Building Sets” – that is, somebody had gone out of their way to devise a product designed specifically to interest girls in construction. This could be considered condescending, I guess, but I wouldn’t have inferred that girls were banned from the “Building Sets.”

    This will go further than you probably want to imagine. The logical corollary, which is the abolition of separate sports events for “men” and “women”, may take a little longer. Paging Billie Jean King…

    I read the sign to say that there were the real building sets and the girlie ones that weren’t real building sets.  That struck me wrong.  I’ve been learning from other people’s comments that it might be pretty much the truth though, and apparently what the market wants!  Girlie building sets apparently prominently feature people, preferably girls, preferably princesses.  That sounds a lot like not a building set to me.  I like my dollhouses house-ey and my Legos brick-ey.  I would hate for girls who want a real building set to feel they were weird because those are for boys.   Legos used to be a pretty unisex item.

    • #109
  20. John Stater Inactive
    John Stater
    @JohnStater

    Vance Richards: True, but as someone who became an uncle long before he became a father, I can say that when I was a childless single man I had no idea what might interest an eight-year-old girl (and evidently a scale model of the Akagi was a bad choice).

    Should have gone battleship Yamato. Way bigger with 8-year old girls than the Akagi. It’s just common sense.

    • #110
  21. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    LibertyDefender:With NO GENDER SIGNS, how will anyone know which bathroom to use?

    It only really matters if there’s no lock on the bathroom door.

    • #111
  22. 10 cents Member
    10 cents
    @

    John Stater:

    Vance Richards: True, but as someone who became an uncle long before he became a father, I can say that when I was a childless single man I had no idea what might interest an eight-year-old girl (and evidently a scale model of the Akagi was a bad choice).

    Should have gone battleship Yamato. Way bigger with 8-year old girls than the Akagi. It’s just common sense.

    There is no Kure for you guys.

    • #112
  23. 10 cents Member
    10 cents
    @

    Misthiocracy:

    LibertyDefender:With NO GENDER SIGNS, how will anyone know which bathroom to use?

    It only really matters if there’s no lock on the bathroom door.

    Canadian urinals are weird.

    • #113
  24. Douglas Inactive
    Douglas
    @Douglas

    David Sussman:

    George Washington powdered his hair. Wanna speculate what would have happened had someone called him a fairy?

    • #114
  25. Ball Diamond Ball Member
    Ball Diamond Ball
    @BallDiamondBall

    Douglas:

    David Sussman:

    George Washington powdered his hair. Wanna speculate what would have happened had someone called him a fairy?

    Why, he would have forged right across the Delaware, frozen or not, and laid siege to Trenton, New Jersey with such a fury that it would remain a blighted wasteland hundreds of — oh.

    • #115
  26. RightAngles Member
    RightAngles
    @RightAngles

    Out of curiosity, I went to Target’s Facebook page to see if others were as irritated as I am, and there are an awful lot of posts signed “Former Target Shopper.” The market will speak. The separation of toys into categories is for convenience, not for any nefarious purposes. And anyway, to reiterate my own Facebook post (not on Target’s page, but elsewhere), you can give dolls to boys and give footballs to girls, and within a half hour the boys will be throwing the dolls, and the girls will be cradling the footballs and putting bonnets on them. Social Engineering? HAH. No match for biology.

    • #116
  27. David Sussman Member
    David Sussman
    @DaveSussman

    Douglas:

    David Sussman:

    George Washington powdered his hair. Wanna speculate what would have happened had someone called him a fairy?

    Dude… that was 2(50) years ago!

    11536130

    • #117
  28. David Sussman Member
    David Sussman
    @DaveSussman

    RightAngles:Out of curiosity, I went to Target’s Facebook page to see if others were as irritated as I am, and there are an awful lot of posts signed “Former Target Shopper.” The market will speak. The separation of toys into categories is for convenience, not for any nefarious purposes. And anyway, to reiterate my own Facebook post (not on Target’s page, but elsewhere), you can give dolls to boys and give footballs to girls, and within a half hour the boys will be throwing the dolls, and the girls will be cradling the footballs and putting bonnets on them. Social Engineering? HAH. No match for biology.

    RA, yes, biology trumps all. That’s the frustration, that a few hysterical SJW’s want to alter a million years of genetics, and social media then causes huge corporate entities to acquiesce to these basement dwellers.

    Generally I would agree the market will speak, but I for one enjoy Targets convenience. Will this cause me to drive another 10 miles to their competition? No. Time is money. So I, like most, will just shake my head while tacitly accepting another societal infringement by extremists.

    • #118
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.