Welcome to The Conservative Cave©!Join in the discussion! Click HERE to register.
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Star Member left-of-center2012 (26,329 posts)https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215197482California would ban boys and girls sections at big retailers under proposed lawCalifornia’s large retailers would have to do away with boy and girl signage for toys and child care aisles, under a bill being considered by state lawmakers.Assembly Bill 1084 would require retailers with 500 or more employees “to maintain undivided areas of its sales floor where the majority of those items being offered are displayed, regardless of whether an item has traditionally been marketed for either girls or for boys,” according to the Legislative Counsel’s digest of the bill.The bill would also prohibit the use of signage to indicate whether a particular child care item or toy is for boys or girls. Online retailers with a physical presence in California would be required to label their toy and child care sections in a unisex or gender neutral way.The bill, which if passed would go into effect Jan. 1, 2024, contains a provision to punish violating retailers with a $1,000 civil penalty.Assemblyman Evan Low (D-Campbell) said that he was inspired by Target’s 2015 decision to abolish gendered kids sections. Low said he also took inspiration for the bill from a staffer’s 9-year-old daughter, who wanted to know why she had to go into the “boys” aisle to find science-related toys.https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article249695008.html
Star Member Dream Girl (3,880 posts) 3. No!!! This is really dumb.They are just handing them a nice juicy cultural issue. Plus really?Mixing up boys and girls clothes? WTF? This is way to woke foe 90% of people. Not to mention I his would inconvenience peple in the name of wokeness.outlaw gender reveal parties? Blue and Blue?
Star Member pnwmom (104,105 posts) 4. Most little girls clothes are pink and/or frilly.I like primary colors, too, but if I wanted them for my daughter I had to buy them in the boys' department.
Star Member Celerity (17,747 posts) 5. You must be going to some vastly different stores than I go to
Star Member left-of-center2012 (26,329 posts) 8. "Most little girls clothes are pink and/or frilly"Uh, noNot at Walmart, Target, Penney's, etcNor on public transit, etc.Just no.
mammasbaby (3 posts) 40. This is where it starts.Toss the pink/blue gender identity in the trash. It sets the parents' reinforcement parameters.Girls can like blue, action figures, super active sports, and become astronauts (or whatever they want).Boys can like pink, barbies, gentler sports, and become fashion icons (or whatever they want).Celebrate diversity, rather than put roadblocks in a child's future.Disclaimer... I have no children, have never wanted children. So this is just my opinion. Heavy on the salt.forgot, edit to addmb
Star Member Celerity (17,747 posts) 7. This is electoral madness. Might as well call it The Democratic Majority Sabotage Bill, and I amnot talking about my Deep Blue California.
Star Member PoindexterOglethorpe (18,285 posts) 10. I had two boys, and I always noticed that the girls' clothing sectionwas always twice the size of the boys'.I somehow don't recall ever seeing signage that indicated boys toys vs girls toys, but I'm capable of totally ignoring something like that. I simply bought them the toys I thought they'd like.
Star Member kysrsoze (5,284 posts) 15. I think this is dumb. Even at early ages, boys' and girls' clothes need to be cut differently.I honestly don't care whether a boy wants to wear "girl" clothes or vice versa. Whatever someone wants to wear is fine with me. One of our daughters is a tomboy and loves sports, videogames, etc. She likes some of the girly things, but wants to wear video game t-shirts, but there aren't many girls' clothes with that theme. So she sometimes gets boys' t-shirts, but they don't fit right. It looks like she's wearing a boy's shirt.It sounds like they're trying to do something more like Benetton in the 80's, but that was a dismal failure. I have more of a problem with thems being "boy-only" or "girl only." I think they should expand the choices and available to everyone and have sizes that actually them. But it seems ridiculous to just have all one type of clothing. Our kids are going to all wind up wearing stuff that doesn't fit.
Star Member Hugin (27,728 posts) 38. The village I grew up in was so tiny we all wore the same brand of flower sacks.So, to me it's no biggy.From a business standpoint it seems to make better sense to categorize by clothing type rather than gender, anyway.Enshrining it in law seems a little excessive.
Star Member Alex4Martinez (1,765 posts) 44. **** the Sac Bee and their flamebait headline. This doesn't ban sections.It bans signage.They can still group pink things together and blue things together.I'm bothered by the toy sections in particular, but then the whole world of toys has changed from being fun and exploratory to becoming dedicated to cross marketing product lines, Barbie, Strawberry Shortcake, Transformers, etc.I want my balsa wood airplane section back, and crafts and arts sections, not pink plastic crap.
Assemblyman Evan Low (D-Campbell) said that he was inspired by Target’s 2015 decision to abolish gendered kids sections.
this bullshit nonsense brought to you by the dude in the grey shirt. purple shoes carrying the rainbow flags...from his twitter posting where he claims he's "gay as AF"https://twitter.com/Evan_Low/status/1050434984656293894
Star Member Hugin (27,728 posts)38. The village I grew up in was so tiny we all wore the same brand of flower sacks.So, to me it's no biggy.From a business standpoint it seems to make better sense to categorize by clothing type rather than gender, anyway.Enshrining it in law seems a little excessive.
