Hacker News Reader

Comment by mmjaa | Hacker News Reader

Yeah, I personally think this feature-removal is just plain sexism. Lots of girls enjoy learning new and interesting things to do with math and science, and crypto is an especially great way to introduce kids to abstract thinking.

Not to mention there's the whole "if you remove the feature, how will they ever learn about it" factor .. just plain sexist, imho.

A better, more "pro-girl" approach would be to include the feature and let girls figure out for themselves, if they like it. Also, the boys who might play with these same toys.

View on HN

> Yeah, I personally think this feature-removal is just plain sexism.

It probably had nothing to do with sexism per se; rather it probably was a business call made by people who suspected that while some percentage of girls would like that feature, a certain percentage of parents wouldn't find that feature appropriate or scary or simply not something they would consider as suitable for a toy. These people are paid to know their target demographic and to make choices that maximize profit for any given product.

Their assumptions might be rooted in sexism, but I suspect that most of their frame of reference consists of simply knowing how parents and relatives view these products, their sexist attitudes included. That is to say, if these people suspect that a significant percentage parents want to stimulate exact thinking and problem solving skills in their girls, they will translate that to market decisions (which is slowly happening now).

It's sexism in the systems sense, not in the personal bigotry sense. The fun thing about sexism (and racism, etc) in the systems sense is that the intentions can be neutral or even positive yet the outcome can still be sexist (or racist, etc).

Maximising profit is not a neutral decision even if it has neutral intentions.

>Maximising profit is not a neutral decision even if it has neutral intentions.

Complaining that for profit companies maximize profit makes about as much sense as complaining great white sharks eat meat. Both do what they were evolved for, both die rather quickly if they don't.

Perhaps we shouldn't put great white sharks in petting zoos. Perhaps we shouldn't put our children's well being into the hands of for profit companies.

You're assuming the Friedman doctrine[0] is universally accepted as "that's just how companies work". That view is not universal, even if it's the norm in the US and plenty of large companies see it that way internationally.

You might want to look up "social market economy"[1] and what social democracies in Europe think about the social responsibilities of companies (i.e. that they have those in the first place). I know these are foreign concepts in the US but it's what powers the famous German Mittelstand and our economic stability (though at the cost of missing out on some of the rapid growth possible in the US).

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy

> These people are paid to know their target demographic and to make choices that maximize profit for any given product.

There was no lego for girls, most sets were clearly for boys (via colors and such) and then they made it and it suddenly drove sales big time. It is fair guess that same sets would sell even sooner.

> a certain percentage of parents wouldn't find that feature appropriate or scary or simply not something they would consider as suitable for a toy.

This is true. Large percentage of toy buyers actually, most toys are bought by more distant relatives and friends who prefer to follow all social expectations and wont buy what is not appropriate for gender. Not because they would be evil, but because basically just want to be done with selection quickly and simply and then go their way.

Except for the fact that the feature was never removed or disabled. It’s only Monday morning and it looks like we’re already looking for evidence of a sexism conspiracy and other things to be outraged about!

The coding/decoding feature was omitted from the manuals in the Barbie versions of the typewriter, effectively 'removing' it because you could now only activate it by accident — some young girl probably got quite a surprise when her text came out garbled like that after an accidental key press combination. Actually removing the feature from the PCB means incurring extra costs, so they just left it in.

>It probably had nothing to do with sexism per se;

It is quite common to hear about sexism in the tech industry (especially here), but sexism in the toy industry is where it all starts.

FYI, they didn't remove the feature. I thought the article made this clear.

They disabled the feature. Its still there if you know how to enable it. But that's the point: why disable it, if they're going to include it anyway? Because they made a sexist decision to not market it to that version of the product, for girls.

FYI, they didn't remove the feature. They didn't disable it. Serious question: did you read the article?

Reading? That spoils half the fun of commenting! Like slashdot in the old days!

Any toy designed specifically for one sex is sexist by definition.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com