Time to go babysit.

[conuly]

I'm irked, though - I was adding toys to my wishlist, and carefully adding all the Little People toys. Then I came across this paragraph:

The Lil Kingdom Assortment are accessories to the Lil Kingdom Castle. Assortment consists of (2) items: Night at the Ball - is a toy for little girls and includes a lovely horse drawn coach to take the prince and princess to the ball and a dance stand in the garden. Simply place the figures on the dance floor "pegs", turn the thumb wheel and they twirl round 'n round. Includes two Little People figures, horse and castle fence piece. Watchful Woodsman is a toy for little boys - a little place in the woods to guard the kingdom. Structure has lots of peek-a-boo spots, a "boulder blaster" to keep intruders away, and playable fence piece "cave" where the dragon lives. Gate in the dragon cave rotates to let the dragon out or to reveal the jewels he watches over. Includes Little People figure, dragon, a horse and a cart.

I know that many parents wouldn't buy a "girly" toy for their boys (I don't understand it, but I know it) but... wtf?

Comments

[innerbrat]

I want the Woodsman set. It looks more fun.

[staircase-wit.livejournal.com]

I'm going to take the Hypnotist's veiw here. By saying the toy is "for little girls," you change the frame-of-reference of the toy. Rather than thinking about the toy in and of itself, you now think of the toy being played with by a little girl. If you happen to be a parent or other gift-buyer of a little girl, you now have an image in your mind... an image that may lead you to buy the toy.

[conuly]

You think so too?

[conuly]

Why not just say "for little kids" then?

[innerbrat]

Abso-frigging-lutely.
But I'm not really very gender-typical.

[staircase-wit.livejournal.com]

Too vague. Also, "kids" is plural.

*Shrugs* I wasn't raised with those kinds of prejudices, so I don't have a frame-of-reference for why such prejudices would be important. If the children are old enough to play with this toy, which seems to have enough small parts to prevent a choking hazard for toddlers, then they're most likely old enough to express clear interests. Somehow, buying toys based on express interest, rather than on genitalia, just makes sense.

Then again, I can explain quite clearly why Keanu Reeves is the Messiah.

[conuly]

Well, let's compare...

One set has a dragon and a bullseye and a cave.
The other has a dance floor and a fence.

I don't know....

[innerbrat]

Yeah, it's not a hard choice, is it?

[katschakai.livejournal.com]

Then again, I can explain quite clearly why Keanu Reeves is the Messiah.
Let me just butt in with a: whaaaaat? Would you want to explain?

Keanu

[staircase-wit.livejournal.com]

http://www.livejournal.com/users/staircase_wit/185583.html

Re: Keanu

[katschakai.livejournal.com]

That was an interesting read, thank's for the link. I enjoy your writing very much.

[lakidaa.livejournal.com]

Dude.

The boytoy is Robin Hood. That beats any princess set.

Unless, off course, the 'princess' is really a prince. I want a Prince set. Mostly because we have so many princesses, that a prince would be incredibly valuable.

[amarafox.livejournal.com]

I'm old enough to remember when Little People toys were completely, utterly and 100% gender neutral.

What the fuck happened? >:(

[conuly]

Well, those Little People toys also had breasts on the female teachers...

[amarafox.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but they weren't marketed towards one gender like they are now.

[innerbrat]

I want the Woodsman set. It looks more fun.

[staircase-wit.livejournal.com]

I'm going to take the Hypnotist's veiw here. By saying the toy is "for little girls," you change the frame-of-reference of the toy. Rather than thinking about the toy in and of itself, you now think of the toy being played with by a little girl. If you happen to be a parent or other gift-buyer of a little girl, you now have an image in your mind... an image that may lead you to buy the toy.

[conuly]

You think so too?

[conuly]

Why not just say "for little kids" then?

[innerbrat]

Abso-frigging-lutely.
But I'm not really very gender-typical.

[staircase-wit.livejournal.com]

Too vague. Also, "kids" is plural.

*Shrugs* I wasn't raised with those kinds of prejudices, so I don't have a frame-of-reference for why such prejudices would be important. If the children are old enough to play with this toy, which seems to have enough small parts to prevent a choking hazard for toddlers, then they're most likely old enough to express clear interests. Somehow, buying toys based on express interest, rather than on genitalia, just makes sense.

Then again, I can explain quite clearly why Keanu Reeves is the Messiah.

[conuly]

Well, let's compare...

One set has a dragon and a bullseye and a cave.
The other has a dance floor and a fence.

I don't know....

[innerbrat]

Yeah, it's not a hard choice, is it?

[katschakai.livejournal.com]

Then again, I can explain quite clearly why Keanu Reeves is the Messiah.
Let me just butt in with a: whaaaaat? Would you want to explain?

Keanu

[staircase-wit.livejournal.com]

http://www.livejournal.com/users/staircase_wit/185583.html

Re: Keanu

[katschakai.livejournal.com]

That was an interesting read, thank's for the link. I enjoy your writing very much.

[lakidaa.livejournal.com]

Dude.

The boytoy is Robin Hood. That beats any princess set.

Unless, off course, the 'princess' is really a prince. I want a Prince set. Mostly because we have so many princesses, that a prince would be incredibly valuable.

[amarafox.livejournal.com]

I'm old enough to remember when Little People toys were completely, utterly and 100% gender neutral.

What the fuck happened? >:(

[conuly]

Well, those Little People toys also had breasts on the female teachers...

[amarafox.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but they weren't marketed towards one gender like they are now.