New law will fine stores for separating toys by gender

[Sidewinder]

From Fox Business, Published February 25, 2021

California law would fine department stores $1,000 for separating toys by gender

Many toymakers have been updating their classic brands in recent years

By Bradford Betz

California lawmakers are considering a bill that would penalize department stores for separating children’s toys, clothing and other items by gender.

Under CA AB2826 (19R), introduced by Assemblyman Evan Low, D-Campbell, department stores with 500 or more employees would be subject to a $1,000 fine if they do not “correct a violation of these provisions within 30 days of receiving written notice of the violation.”

Stores would not have to change their products, but the products could not be displayed based on how they have “traditionally been marketed for either girls or for boys.”

Low, who originally introduced the bill last year, said he conceived of the idea from one of his staffers, who claimed her daughter had asked her why an item she supposedly wanted was in the boys’ section.

“This is an issue of children being able to express themselves without bias,” Low told Politico last week.

The bill comes amid growing pushback by consumer advocacy groups to make toys more gender neutral. The UK-based group “Let Toys Be Toys,” for example, argues that marketing toys and books to a specific gender promotes stereotypes and is harmful to kids.

Many toymakers have been updating their classic brands in recent years, hoping to relate to today's kids and reflect more modern families.

Hasbro, the company that's made the potato-shaped plastic toy for nearly 70 years, announced this week it is giving the “Mr.” Potato Head a gender-neutral new name: Potato Head. The change will appear on boxes this year.

Barbie, for example, has tried to shed its blonde image and now comes in multiple skin tones and body shapes. The Thomas the Tank Engine toy line added more girl characters. And American Girl is now selling a boy doll.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Does anyone see a point in such a punitive law, when the COVID-19 pandemic has devastated the US economy?

[Raw Shark]

Does anyone see a point in such a punitive law, when the COVID-19 pandemic has devastated the US economy?

I think the fine is an overkill tactic where public shaming would probably be sufficient, coupled with good business sense - why discourage any kid from begging for any toy if your goal is to sell lots of toys?

[Jub]

How is the law punitive? It only requires stores to update their layouts - something they do on a regular basis anyway - and gives 30 days from the time of a complaint to address the issue. This law is at best a firm guiding hand to get companies to stop promoting harmful gender stereotypes and each fine is so small that any company it applies to will care more about the bad press of getting fine more than the fine itself.

[Zaune]

Still less petty than the average bathroom bill.

[Solauren]

I think the fine is an overkill tactic where public shaming would probably be sufficient, coupled with good business sense - why discourage any kid from begging for any toy if your goal is to sell lots of toys?

THIS.

When I was younger, I used to play My Little Pony/Strawberry Shortcake with my sister. I remember Fyrefly was my favourite. Go pink pegasus!
(She used to play Transformers/Star Wars/GI JOE with me and my friends).
If I could have gotten my own Pony, I probably would have.

[Starglider]

J.C. Penny, Lord & Taylor and Neiman Marcus all went bankrupt last year. Sears went through Chapter 11 in 2019 and is still losing stores (down to 29 and falling). Macy's closed half their stores, likely that won't be enough to save them. Give it a few more years and there won't be any 'department stores' left for this law to apply to.

[aerius]

J.C. Penny, Lord & Taylor and Neiman Marcus all went bankrupt last year. Sears went through Chapter 11 in 2019 and is still losing stores (down to 29 and falling). Macy's closed half their stores, likely that won't be enough to save them. Give it a few more years and there won't be any 'department stores' left for this law to apply to.

Walmart will be the only store left by the time all this covid shit is over.

[Gandalf]

Does anyone see a point in such a punitive law, when the COVID-19 pandemic has devastated the US economy?

How does CoVID enter into this?

[Avrjoe]

Wal-Mart sells groceries and has a pharmacy. Grocery and pharmacy stores are on the list for being essential. Therefore Wal-Mart is essential. Where by Wal-Mart by being open keeps it's General Merchandise aisles open. Thus keeps selling the same items as stores not allowed to operate because they only sell one type of item. Other stores close down Wal-Mart makes record profit.

Also anytime there is a economic downturn Wal-Mart boosts due to people shopping for bargains, but only if it doesn't last too long. To hard a downturn and dollar stores starts to pick up and Wal-Mart dips.

[Batman]

I'd say a 500+ employee setup that's reeling from a 1000$ fine is in pretty deep doo-doo as it is

[Sidewinder]

Does anyone see a point in such a punitive law, when the COVID-19 pandemic has devastated the US economy?

How does CoVID enter into this?

Closing down "nonessential" businesses to enforce the quarantine, has devastated the US economy. Many will never reopen. With so many businesses closed, the US government will collect far less tax revenue, meaning it cannot support many social and public works programs.

[Ralin]

Interesting idea. Not sure how much it'd help, but not seeing how it would hurt in any significant way and I'm not particularly concerned with the feelings of people who are somehow threatened by it, so if it passes it'll be good to see what comes of it.

[bilateralrope]

Does anyone see a point in such a punitive law, when the COVID-19 pandemic has devastated the US economy?

Have you ever heard of the "pink tax" ?

If the stores can't separate the toys by gender, then they are going to have a hard time charging more for toys aimed at girls.

[Gandalf]

Does anyone see a point in such a punitive law, when the COVID-19 pandemic has devastated the US economy?

How does CoVID enter into this?

Closing down "nonessential" businesses to enforce the quarantine, has devastated the US economy. Many will never reopen. With so many businesses closed, the US government will collect far less tax revenue, meaning it cannot support many social and public works programs.

How many businesses will this close down, in your opinion?

[Zaune]

Better ban 'Gi..rl toys' and 'bo..y toys' from autocompleting on Amazon.

Seriously this reminds me of a couple of times recently that lib arts departments tried to ban pronouns and have everyone called 'they/them'. The trans lobby objected furiously, because then how were you supposed to know who is trans and who isn't. Mermaids et al claim that one of the key identifiers of 'trans kids' is 'playing with toys for the other gender' (absolute silence from the libleft on that one). How on earth will they know who to inject with puberty blockers if everything is genderless? (The answer, of course, is to inject everyone, just to be safe)

It's more likely "the trans lobby" objected furiously on the grounds that dictating terms to someone else about what pronouns they get to use is still Not Cricket if you're doing it out of a misguided desire for equality through erasure, and the fact it must make the SCUM Manifesto brigade's piss boil does not constitute an excuse.

And if puberty blockers didn't have some potentially unpleasant side effects (although not as severe as certain interests would have you believe) I would say why the hell not? Most kids will probably choose the gender that matches their primary sexual characteristics, but doing some introspection on the subject of whether that's what they actually want cannot possibly do any harm.

[Ralin]

It's more likely "the trans lobby" objected furiously on the grounds that dictating terms to someone else about what pronouns they get to use is still Not Cricket if you're doing it out of a misguided desire for equality through erasure, and the fact it must make the SCUM Manifesto brigade's piss boil does not constitute an excuse.

Depends on whether they applied it specific people instead of using they/them as the default when referring to students or faculty members in general. I remember reading about a university in Germany that decided to default to female pronouns and whatever the feminine version of professor in German is because the majority of their faculty members were women. And holy god did it piss off the male faculty.

[Solauren]

My biggest concern with this law is for companies that choose to store toys by brand, and it ends up looking like it was sorted by gender, because of what sells from which brand/group of brands. (With most popular brands closest to the main store, with less popular in the back)

i.e all the Disney stuff that sells are traditionally 'Boy brands', like Star Wars, Marvel, Transformers are up front, while less popular brands are further back.
i.e all the Matel stuff that sells is traditionally 'Girl Brands', like Barbie, Polly Pocket are up front, while less popular brands (like Hot Wheels) are towards the back.

And how would people screaming about gendor ID/roles respond to 'Well, guess what, this is what sells'.

[Jub]

My biggest concern with this law is for companies that choose to store toys by brand, and it ends up looking like it was sorted by gender, because of what sells from which brand/group of brands. (With most popular brands closest to the main store, with less popular in the back)

i.e all the Disney stuff that sells are traditionally 'Boy brands', like Star Wars, Marvel, Transformers are up front, while less popular brands are further back.
i.e all the Matel stuff that sells is traditionally 'Girl Brands', like Barbie, Polly Pocket are up front, while less popular brands (like Hot Wheels) are towards the back.

And how would people screaming about gendor ID/roles respond to 'Well, guess what, this is what sells'.

Just Make sure Disney and Mattel's toys end up in the same 'Figurines' section and I can't see where there are any grounds for action.

[Solauren]

Disney may not want their stuff in the same isle as Mattel, and vice-versa.

[Jub]

Disney may not want their stuff in the same isle as Mattel, and vice-versa.

Too bad for them. Point to the law and set your shelves.

[LadyTevar]

Post by Starglider deleted pending review

[Solauren]

Disney may not want their stuff in the same isle as Mattel, and vice-versa.

Too bad for them. Point to the law and set your shelves.

You could also make the argument that since it's by manufacturer, and the toys are beside each other, then there is no 'gender division'. It's by sub-brand of the manufacturer, and people are projecting. (for example, you can't really argue 'toy Cars' are a boys toy', without implying girls can't have an interest in cars.)

Therefore, since it's not a 'boys toy isle', the law is being followed.

[loomer]

My biggest concern with this law is for companies that choose to store toys by brand, and it ends up looking like it was sorted by gender, because of what sells from which brand/group of brands. (With most popular brands closest to the main store, with less popular in the back)

i.e all the Disney stuff that sells are traditionally 'Boy brands', like Star Wars, Marvel, Transformers are up front, while less popular brands are further back.
i.e all the Matel stuff that sells is traditionally 'Girl Brands', like Barbie, Polly Pocket are up front, while less popular brands (like Hot Wheels) are towards the back.

And how would people screaming about gendor ID/roles respond to 'Well, guess what, this is what sells'.

Have you read the proposed bill?

[Ralin]

And how would people screaming about gendor ID/roles respond to 'Well, guess what, this is what sells'.

"Not anymore it isn't."

[bilateralrope]

Disney may not want their stuff in the same isle as Mattel, and vice-versa.

Too bad for them. Point to the law and set your shelves.

You could also make the argument that since it's by manufacturer, and the toys are beside each other, then there is no 'gender division'. It's by sub-brand of the manufacturer, and people are projecting. (for example, you can't really argue 'toy Cars' are a boys toy', without implying girls can't have an interest in cars.)

Therefore, since it's not a 'boys toy isle', the law is being followed.

Sorting the store by brand means you'll get customers who know that the kid they are buying for wants a specific toy because the kid specified it without mentioning the brand. Lets say it's a specific toy car. Then they have to go through every brand section to see if that brand has toy cars, looking to see if this is the brand that has it. That's going to lead to annoyed customers and reduced sales compared to putting all the toy cars in one place.

Just make sure that if there is any type of toy that gets split by gender that they merge those sections and the store should be in compliance.