Amazon drops gendered categories for toys
kottke.org
kottke.org
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.
At least you're consistent in your beliefs but I still disagree with you.
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.
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.
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.
Ask about their interests, or get something generic enough that it's going to be fun for everybody.
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?
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.
Point being, pretending to be off put by a reasonable and logical thing doesn't make you correct.
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?
Deleted comment
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.
- 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
- 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."