Target To Eliminate Signs Specifying Boys Or Girls Toys

[Ramhusker]

Since we're on Christmas now, I'd like to weigh in.

When my kids were 13 and 7, I stopped doing the whole tree, presents, and lights thing. I sat them both down one day and told them that there was no such thing as Santa (my eldest already knew that of course), and I was tired of some imaginary fat man taking credit for the hard work I put in to earn the money to buy them presents. Keep in mind, I said this in a joking tone to ease the mood, and my daughter helped ease the initial shock for my son. Then I immediately followed it up by saying we would henceforth start taking a week vacation in Orlando every year - at the end of December - and I would buy them whatever they wanted within the budget I set for them. We always stayed in a resort hotel on the parks grounds because you could use your room key as an express pass to bypass the long lines, and the pools were incredible. Rock slides, in-pool bar, pool-side meals, hot tubs, etc.

At any rate, to this day, my kids tell me that it was the best idea I ever had. They said they would have quickly forgotten or lost interest in the disposable presents I would have used that money to buy, but they would always have the memories of those vacations (plus the pictures we took). And both of my kids said they intend to implement the same policy once their kids are old enough to have enjoyed the mystique of Santa and Christmas, but are ready for a switch to more memorable holidays.

That was a pretty slick thread hijack.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Right. A whole lot easier when you are shopping for a boy and you can go to the boy's section instead of having to sort through twice the inventory. Kinda like having to go to the bathroom somewhere that they have unisex bathrooms. The line is three times as long because most chicks go to the bathroom with a spotter.

Just order off of Amazon, that's what I do. I really don't see how it'll be any different honestly though, it's not like the stores have things spread out, it'll still be in the same 4-5 rows as it always was.

I've never noticed any extra length of time for unisex bathrooms either. The ones we have that are group ones (more than one person at a time) are the same as any male bathroom, except cleaner... Female bathrooms are usually just as gross as male bathrooms, but when we share everyone is nice and polite and clean, which is great. The ones that are single person both genders take about the same length of time,

 

[jrry32]

sorry sarcasm is harder to judge when typed. but my point isn't about the ones that want to switch. what about the majority thats uncomfortable with a man walking into a women's bathroom or locker room. what about mothers and their little girls that deserve privacy but instead are forced to share a room with a transgender man that could potentially just expose himself to a little girl. this country's biggest social problem is that it cares more about minority rights than anyone else and that it doesn't give a flying crap about the rest of the ppl that live here. I'm sorry my friend but this issue is far from black and white and I've gotten tired of the rights of the few outweighing the rights of the many.

What about a grown woman that could expose herself to a little girl? What about a grown man that can walk into any bathroom and expose himself to a little girl? It's an unrealistic fear. If a man is sick enough to expose himself to a little girl, he can just walk into the bathroom whether or not he's allowed to be there and do it.

What about the people that are uncomfortable? Mind your own business. It's not like it's a naked, bearded man walking into the bathroom. Hell, I doubt little kids could even tell that she is a transgender. And that person is just going into the stall, use the restroom, wash their hands, and then leave. Or they put on makeup in the mirror. Or whatever. It's really no big deal. I don't know what people would even be bothered by.

Hell, taking a dump in a public bathroom with other people in it makes me uncomfortable. Doesn't mean I can tell everyone to get out.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Since we're on Christmas now, I'd like to weigh in.

When my kids were 13 and 7, I stopped doing the whole tree, presents, and lights thing. I sat them both down one day and told them that there was no such thing as Santa (my eldest already knew that of course), and I was tired of some imaginary fat man taking credit for the hard work I put in to earn the money to buy them presents. Keep in mind, I said this in a joking tone to ease the mood, and my daughter helped ease the initial shock for my son. Then I immediately followed it up by saying we would henceforth start taking a week vacation in Orlando every year - at the end of December - and I would buy them whatever they wanted within the budget I set for them. We always stayed in a resort hotel on the parks grounds because you could use your room key as an express pass to bypass the long lines, and the pools were incredible. Rock slides, in-pool bar, pool-side meals, hot tubs, etc.

At any rate, to this day, my kids tell me that it was the best idea I ever had. They said they would have quickly forgotten or lost interest in the disposable presents I would have used that money to buy, but they would always have the memories of those vacations (plus the pictures we took). And both of my kids said they intend to implement the same policy once their kids are old enough to have enjoyed the mystique of Santa and Christmas, but are ready for a switch to more memorable holidays.

That's a pretty awesome move, I'd probably like to do the same thing... Assuming I have kids (right now I don't want any).... Even if I don't I'm sure my girlfriend would love to do something similar, take a week long vacation, travel and relax instead of stressing out over who's family we should visit.

 

[-X-]

That's a pretty awesome move, I'd probably like to do the same thing... Assuming I have kids (right now I don't want any).... Even if I don't I'm sure my girlfriend would love to do something similar, take a week long vacation, travel and relax instead of stressing out over who's family we should visit.

It was so liberating, man. No more crowded super stores and malls, no more stringing lights and assembling trees, and no more buying shit that's only going to break or get tossed in a closet within a month. Plus the weather was so sweet in Orlando in December, and a bit less crowded as opposed to the Summer break months. We did it 8 years in a row and it was awesome.

 

[-X-]

We really do hate locking threads, so please veer away from any and all religious discussions. Have those types of discussions through pm's or somewhere else. Thanks.

Not to worry. The NMO will soon take care of that for everyone.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ers196VJyfI

 

[Stranger]

Using the founding fathers' antiquated view to defend it is ridiculous.

I don't consider the founder's view "antiquated"

And no, our entire system is not based or founded upon "God."

Again, where do our inalienable right emanate?

You do...for yourself. And then you are judged by society based on their norms and standards

people will act according to societal rules. this is old science.

 

[jrry32]

I don't consider the founder's view "antiquated"

Great. I do.

Again, where do our inalienable right emanate?

From the concept of natural rights/laws. The founding fathers' views mainly stemmed from Locke. But there were other perspectives on natural rights/laws that did not involve "God." Furthermore, the concept of natural rights/laws are not reliant on there being a "God." It was simply a way for Locke to frame his perspective within the views of his time (and his own views).

people will act according to societal rules. this is old science.

If this were true, we wouldn't have murder, racism, homosexuals, etc.

But I'm not sure how your response even relates to my point. In fact, I'm pretty sure it doesn't.

 

[Stranger]

From the concept of natural rights/laws. The founding fathers' views mainly stemmed from Locke. But there were other perspectives on natural rights/laws that did not involve "God." Furthermore, the concept of natural rights/laws are not reliant on there being a "God." It was simply a way for Locke to frame his perspective within the views of his time (and his own views).

So, without even trying to modify your own argument here, it's more than reasonable to assess that our rights emanate from God. Or, is that under debate as well?

If this were true, we wouldn't have murder, racism, homosexuals, etc.

Rules, or behavioral inputs come from media, institutions (which include corporations), and societal norms. Media, esepcially, espouses all of what you've stated in the above quote.

But I'm not sure how your response even relates to my point. In fact, I'm pretty sure it doesn't.

It's relevant because my argument, and the argument of a litany of social scientists before me, is that behaviorial inputs shape human behavior. I could reference this in terms of Network Theory and Complexity as it applies to the social, but that's way beyond the scope of this Rams forum.

Hence, what Target is doing wil shape how we relate to and perceive Gender. This includes you, as you will seek to behave in socially acceptable ways. So, your behavior will change, and the way you think, and therefore the way you act and speak.

Bottom line, this is not just some naked act in search of greater profits. This is clearly a social engineering maneuver. And when one views this in light of the changes to how gender is presented by celebrities one can see that these are not isolated events.

 

[VegasRam]

"And then you are judged by society, based on their norms and standards".

Bingo , buddy.

Yet you simply cannot accept the fact that these norms and standards can be the result of manipulation.

BTW, McCarthyism was not PC, it was paranoia bordering on Nazism. I was there- you weren't.

 

[Stranger]

Great. I do.

Yup, really antiquated concepts in the DoI the Founders created....

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

Funny word, that word "Creator" (capital "C")... wonder what/who they were talking about there? Hmmm.

I guess we ought to remove all references to a "Creator" in our Pledge of Allegiance.. .cause you know, the Founders were "anitquated".

 

[bluecoconuts]

Yup, really antiquated concepts in the DoI the Founders created....

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

Funny word, that word "Creator" (capital "C")... wonder what/who they were talking about there? Hmmm.

I guess we ought to remove all references to a "Creator" in our Pledge of Allegiance.. .cause you know, the Founders were "anitquated".

Not that I really want to get sucked into this, but there wasn't references to any creator in the first four versions of the pledge... As to the Constitution, out of curiosity where does one get their rights if they do not believe in a creator?

 

[jrry32]

Yup, really antiquated concepts in the DoI the Founders created....

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

Funny word, that word "Creator" (capital "C")... wonder what/who they were talking about there? Hmmm.

I guess we ought to remove all references to a "Creator" in our Pledge of Allegiance.. .cause you know, the Founders were "anitquated".

Sure. They didn't write the pledge. God wasn't referenced in the original edition. And we've come a long way since that time.

But yes, they are antiquated. Not all of their ideals are but it's a very different time now than it was back then. Especially in regards to religion.

So, without even trying to modify your own argument here, it's more than reasonable to assess that our rights emanate from God. Or, is that under debate as well?

No, it's not reasonable to assess that. Our rights come from the government. Locke used his religious beliefs as a justification for his argument for natural rights. It was a far more religious time and it was hard to argue with a statement that we had rights given to us by God when being Christian was almost necessary in that time to avoid being persecuted. However, Immanuel Kant also wrote about natural rights and justified them without using God or religion.

God and religion aren't necessary to justify natural rights. Even now, you don't have to be religious to believe that people have natural rights.

So the answer is no.

Rules, or behavioral inputs come from media, institutions (which include corporations), and societal norms. Media, esepcially, espouses all of what you've stated in the above quote.

It's relevant because my argument, and the argument of a litany of social scientists before me, is that behaviorial inputs shape human behavior. I could reference this in terms of Network Theory and Complexity as it applies to the social, but that's way beyond the scope of this Rams forum.

Hence, what Target is doing wil shape how we relate to and perceive Gender. This includes you, as you will seek to behave in socially acceptable ways. So, your behavior will change, and the way you think, and therefore the way you act and speak.

Well, I think you're wrong. I haven't been down a target toy aisle in years. It will have no effect on my life.

Bottom line, this is not just some naked act in search of greater profits. This is clearly a social engineering maneuver. And when one views this in light of the changes to how gender is presented by celebrities one can see that these are not isolated events.

I don't buy it. But even if it is, good. Don't lock kids into rigid stereotypes of what they should or shouldn't be as boys or girls.

"And then you are judged by society, based on their norms and standards".

Bingo , buddy.

Yet you simply cannot accept the fact that these norms and standards can be the result of manipulation.

BTW, McCarthyism was not PC, it was paranoia bordering on Nazism. I was there- you weren't.

As I said, most extreme form of PC possible. Isn't that what people are complaining about with PC? That you can't express an opinion different than what society dictates is the right belief or you will face backlash? That you have to censor yourself to avoid adverse consequences?

I'm perfectly fine with accepting that. I'm also perfectly fine with the "manipulation" when it's attempting to correct past injustices.

 

[Mojo Ram]

I have access to history.

You have a time machine? Can i borrow it?
No, what you have is knowledge of it.

 

[jrry32]

You have a time machine? Can i borrow it?
No, what you have is knowledge of it.

Awesome. However you want to label it semantically, we have the ability to know about things we weren't around to see.

 

[bluecoconuts]

You have a time machine? Can i borrow it?
No, what you have is knowledge of it.

Isn't that what everyone has? I mean unless someone was there personally, all they have is accounts from someone else who was there, essentially second hand knowledge of what happened.

 

[Robocop]

What about a grown woman that could expose herself to a little girl? What about a grown man that can walk into any bathroom and expose himself to a little girl? It's an unrealistic fear. If a man is sick enough to expose himself to a little girl, he can just walk into the bathroom whether or not he's allowed to be there and do it.

What about the people that are uncomfortable? Mind your own business. It's not like it's a naked, bearded man walking into the bathroom. Hell, I doubt little kids could even tell that she is a transgender. And that person is just going into the stall, use the restroom, wash their hands, and then leave. Or they put on makeup in the mirror. Or whatever. It's really no big deal. I don't know what people would even be bothered by.

Hell, taking a dump in a public bathroom with other people in it makes me uncomfortable. Doesn't mean I can tell everyone to get out.

dude the difference is if a man simple walked in and did that he gets hauled off to jail and forever be a sex offender. but you're talking about making it legal. but I'm talking locker rooms and such too. and YES a child could tell. A month ago I was at a physical therapy appointment and in walked in Mrs. Doubtfire from head to toe. this man was probably 6'2 a little 5oclock shadow full dress makeup and wig. and he was dead serious about it and had been there before. you know that could leave a very upsetting impact on a child in a locker room if they saw the ins and outs of something like that. but nvm the conversation you're set in your ways and don't think it's anything so I'll drop it

 

[-X-]

Well, I think you're wrong. I haven't been down a target toy aisle in years. It will have no effect on my life.

But it does have an effect on your life. You're part of the debate now as it relates to social engineering, and happen to be on the side of tolerance. So consciously (and not unwittingly), you're furthering the agenda through push-back of opposition. It's subtle, and incremental, but hundreds of thousands like you form policy change by accepting whatever it is you're fed with the justification that (whatever) doesn't affect you directly. I'm surprised you don't see it, quite honestly. And I'd venture to say that most (if not all) of us haven't been down the toy aisle in Target; and as such, it won't effect any of us on that micro-level. It's not about toys, m'man.

God and religion aren't necessary to justify natural rights. Even now, you don't have to be religious to believe that people have natural rights.

So the answer is no.

It's not that cut and dried, because what you're saying is based on the *assumption* that there is no God. If you don't (believe), then sure, you won't connect the dots that authority is given from God, and that authority is responsible (TO God) to use it to govern wisely. But if you're like 83% of the Country, you recognize that the Creator created everything necessary for you to obtain natural rights. But you're still beholden to authority, and that authority is beholden a higher power. It's in the declaration of independence, and so is the invocation of God (5 times).

I'm perfectly fine with accepting that. I'm also perfectly fine with the "manipulation" when it's attempting to correct past injustices.

I hope you have a line drawn in the sand about something. But since Target isn't doing anything to you, you're good with it. Unfortunately, there are going to be several dozen things that happen on this scale in the very near future that will begin to form the picture for you. I just hope that by the time it comes into focus, you haven't completely bent to the point of inflexibility. Right now the only people 100% vulnerable to this manipulation is the developing child. But that's not your concern either, yeah? You're all grown up and don't play with toys.


Oh. And something about football. Thank God (oops) there are games today!

 

[Zombie Slayer]

Some people think the POW/MIA flag is racist too. I bet if enough people said they wanted it down it would come down as well.

http://www.newsweek.com/its-time-haul-down-another-flag-racist-hate-361929

 

[PA Ram]

First of all, I want to apologize if this goes too far in offending some people on this board. I do not intend it that way but there's no way to touch on a subject like religion without it. I am just guessing that if you were to survey the board you'd find it was mostly conservative politically and socially.

I respect anyone's right to believe what they want to--no problem with that--as long as you aren't hurting or oppressing another individual. If religion gives you peace, makes your life better, gives it more meaning--that's great.

But if what Target is doing is social engineering in a sort of stealth fashion that will blow up into huge differences(and maybe that's true--haven't given it much thought)what religion does is uses a hammer to pound at that change. As referenced earlier, the pledge did not have the word "God" until 1954. If repeating a pledge to "God" does not serve as a piece of brainwashing propaganda to reinforce a belief, I don't know what does.

No one is asking anyone to pledge allegiance to Target and unisex restrooms.

What freedom does a child have who is in a classroom, who may not happen to believe in God? Is there no peer pressure to repeat that pledge? Social engineering at its finest.

If most Christians born here and raised here were born and raised in Iran would they still be Christians? Or would their faith be just as strong for Islam? When we look at Muslim countries that are religious run states we look on in horror and disgust and contempt. And yet there are those who would have the Bible over the Constitution.

I want to be clear that I am not trying to attack Christianity or any religion or to go all Richard Dawkins on the board to renounce religion. I am personally what I would consider a spiritual person. I don't have Bill Mahr's anger at religion.

This is only meant to touch on the social engineering aspect of the thread. That's the only point I'm trying to make. I sort of vaguely said what I wanted to earlier---that this sort of thing is everywhere in every part of our lives from the time we're children. I don't think that getting angry about this matters. Society will continue to evolve and change. While atheists may be a small percentage of the population in this country the trend is a growing one. What will that mean 50 years from now if the trend continues? What about in a hundred years?

And actually---Muslims are projected to equal the amount of Christians around the world by 2050.

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/

So the point of this--is that there is always social engineering--whether it is through Target, religion, nationalism, whatever.

Some of it you will agree with and support and some you will not but getting worked up or infuriated about an issue will not change its reality.

I just think about things like this and think---it's the outrage of the week. Next week it will be another thing. And most of them, to me are trivial while the things that really get me outraged--and yes I could drive the thread in a whole other direction, are things I shake my head about and wonder why there isn't more outrage.

But...this is all JUST MY OPINION. That's all it is. I don't claim to possess and universal truth about anything and I'm always willing to listen and learn...and as I get older trying to come to grips with the fact that yes--I may even be wrong on some things.

Again--I sincerely hope that this is not taken the wrong way. I probably should have just stayed away from it--which was my first thought. But what fun is that?