Thursday, November 10, 2005

Off Target, or: which decade is this?

Target's suggested toys for girls are boring and cheap.
Target rhymes with "garget".

Walmart is still the most evil of the big retailers, but Target tries hard. P is unhappy about a promotional email she received:
I'm not sure I feel so good shopping at Target anymore. Look at the "Girls' Toys": Horse World, Dolls & Accessories, Arts & Crafts. "Boys' Toys" are Science & Nature, Trains & Train Sets, and Tech Toys. Girls get doll strollers and cribs, quiet pastoral play with the horsies, and jewelry making, while boys get a head start on well-compensated careers in science and technology with cool stuff like "Snap Circuits Jr." I would expect that kind of gender norming in the '70s and maybe '80s but in 2005? Why not just call them all "toys" and leave it for grandma to decide that little Sally needs yet another item from the Pink Aisle?
Target doesn't just short-change girls in the career department and the all-important fun department — Target literally short-changes them. The pictured girls' toys total a mere $85 vs. $180 for the boys ' stuff. The girls' toys average less than the cheapest thing Target recommends for boys.

And Target has little excuse for "wen only" and "Snap circuts". I guess the same nine-year-old boy who chooses the toys also proofreads outgoing email.

The busy lad may have been in charge of Target's web design. P concluded
I'm also pissed that there doesn't seem to be any way to easily provide feedback on this to Target thru their website, even once you wade through their "Commitment to Diversity" statement.


Blogger Douglas Hoffman said...

I've heard from enlightened friends who try to raise their girls in a nonsexist environment that it's damned near impossible. The images are so rampant in our culture that you can try your best to raise a tomboy, only to have a daughter who demands Barbie. Oh, well.

7:39 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home