It's not just Toys R Us. I went to Tigerdirect.ca after I got some money to upgrade my computer and I noticed they had "For Guys" and "For Girls" sections. The "Guys" section had all sorts of computer, gadget and component deals. The "Girls" section had cameras, photo albums, an SD card, and one laptop.
As a biological female who has always preferred things meant for males, this sort of thing REALLY pisses me off.
The only remaining question, then, is as a biological female who prefers things meant for males, do you really want the pink microscope? IMO, they should just do away with the pink microscope all together.
Kill the pink microscope, purge Earth of its kind, may its pastel pink plastic slowly melt in the heat of the depths.
Honestly though, when push comes to shove in the field, it doesn't matter what your equipment looks like, what matters is that it works when you need it to. Practicality first, stupid things like snazzy colors last.
Quite frankly if I was interested in purchasing a microscope, Toys R Us would not be a place I would even consider. :X
But yes, they should just do away with the pink one. Even better, just do away with using pink at all to try and discriminate a product as being for "boys" or for "girls." Honestly, whatever happened to the notion of "unisex" when it comes to products? The generation of my grandmother is dying out, so we should get less people who automatically assign the "appropriate" gender/sex to any given product (even wrapping paper).
Honestly, I sort of get the idea of gender relates toys in martketing when it comes to things like dolls and toy guns (I don't approve, but I get it). Personally, I had more toy dolls growing up than any other little boy I knew, but that was me.
However, when it comes to things that really just don't matter (microscopes, beach balls, bikes, whatever else kids play with) you'd think it would be more cost effective to build one kind that doesn't seem to favor a gender and just make it well.
There's one specific reason I hate the marketing gender/sex bias in toys: My mother and grandmother would NEVER buy me anything which wasn't meant for girls. Ever. It didn't matter if the only toys on my list included things like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Hot Wheels. I still would get a Barbie doll. I wasn't even all that keen on Barbie. I was more likely to play with the cooler stuff like He-Man, Hot Wheels, Lego, GI Joe, etc. My best friend and I loved the fact she had an older brother, because it meant we got to play with his toys as well (and often he'd play with us with our toys; he was only a few years older).
Maybe we were atypical, but I doubt it. I think it's unfair to arbitrarily limit the scope of what SHOULD interest a boy or girl based on preconcieved gender roles. These are the sorts of things which put glass walls and ceilings around the opportunities of either gender.
I remember the bitterness over the fact that I never got He-Man stuff even if I really wanted it. That damn mechanical horse-monster was AWESOME.
Fortunately I was fairly creative and crafty myself, so all those dolls got something better to wear, i.e. a self-made ninja garb, and in a really strange quirk of fates, I had gotten a Barbie clone that actually looked exactly like Storm of X-Men (except it came with dorky clothes). Guess what kind of clothes I made a bit later for that one? :D
any microscope over 500 power needs a special light filtering set up and an oil immersion lens.
and when it come to telescope the magnification means nothing if the scope is to small to bring in enough light. for a standard Galileo style scope(like the ones in the back ground.) you need a minimum opening diameter of 10" to be of any real use. unless all you like to look at is the moon. a good set of binoculars would work better then those crappy things.
True! Which is probably why these are in the toy section. An impractical design never stopped someone from selling it to kids.
But in the range of toy microscopes and toy telescopes, there are NO equivalent weaker ones in black and brushed metal, and there are NO equivalent "stronger" telescopes in pink.
Never mind the whole issue about pink = for girls, I think we can all agree that's what toy companies mean when they issue something in pink. Even if I hated it pasionately as a girl.
I sort of suspect what they were aiming for is 'Not pink' = 'looks more like something an adult scientist would use' but I will continue to be pissed off untill they issue a neon green or monster-slime version of the weaker ones for younger boys.
... also: or how about why bother with weaker scopes in the first place. it's not like any of these off-the-shelf microscopes cost much more to make, so why not just make one that covers all 3 ranges so you don't need a special microscope for people who only want to see things "sort of up close".
I can tell you the answer to this one, but all of those microscopes ARE variable power, from the looks of them, so the 1200x scope can probably do 900x, 600x, and probably a few other magnification levels besides.
But.
If you've got a younger kid and you aren't sure if they have a lasting interest in things sciency, you may be reluctant to shell out 52$ now (even on sale) for the high powered scope. Or perhaps you just have a 20-25$ budget per gift for your neices and nefews. There is room in every product line for a cheaper version.
There's also a brain-hacking psychological element: releasing a fancy expensive version immediately establishes the product as "luxury" and desirable in the consumer conciousness. THen when they see the more affordable one, the consumer sees the opportunity to fill that manufactured desire at a more reasonable price point, and pounces on it thinking they have found a bargain.
People's mental models for economic value are very very bad and can't discard "outliers" very well.
I looked up the Edu-Science company, since they're the ones designing these products, just to see if I could send them a letter asking what they made the pink ones so lame.
I found the site, which has a .hk address. It figures - Hong Kong. They don't like their women tinkering where they don't belong >:I
Fascinating (and depressing) article, thanks for linking.
I can't stand to go into Toys R' Us (or, for that matter, most any kid's toy stores) anymore. They're so heavily gendered and split between the pink ~*girls*~ section full of dolls and ponies, and the gray/blue boys section full of Star Wars figures and Lego sets.
... really?! They don't even have Leias or Amidalas? That's ridiculous.
Good luck in your toy quest; I'm sure you'll find something that the girls love. There have to be figurines of the female Star Wars characters out there somewhere. I hope.
I took one look at this and assumed that some cheap manufacturer decided to play the pink card because their products didn't match up to the competition. Pink sells, if only to relatives who need big fat labels to know which presents to buy for girls.
But frankly, most budding science girls know better than to buy a microscope from Toys 'R' Us!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-30 09:40 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-31 07:46 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-31 07:52 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-01 01:07 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-30 09:46 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-30 09:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-30 10:21 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-31 07:52 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-31 02:08 am (UTC)FFFFFFFFFFF
Date: 2009-12-31 07:37 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-31 02:12 pm (UTC)We need something like this that will not make people think of the super finger.
Date: 2009-12-31 03:45 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-30 09:51 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-30 09:55 pm (UTC)As a biological female who has always preferred things meant for males, this sort of thing REALLY pisses me off.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-31 02:09 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-31 07:41 am (UTC)Kill the pink microscope, purge Earth of its kind, may its pastel pink plastic slowly melt in the heat of the depths.
Honestly though, when push comes to shove in the field, it doesn't matter what your equipment looks like, what matters is that it works when you need it to. Practicality first, stupid things like snazzy colors last.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-31 10:31 am (UTC)Huzzah!
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-31 08:29 pm (UTC)Three cheers for the life sciences!
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-31 10:30 am (UTC)But yes, they should just do away with the pink one. Even better, just do away with using pink at all to try and discriminate a product as being for "boys" or for "girls." Honestly, whatever happened to the notion of "unisex" when it comes to products? The generation of my grandmother is dying out, so we should get less people who automatically assign the "appropriate" gender/sex to any given product (even wrapping paper).
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-31 03:25 pm (UTC)However, when it comes to things that really just don't matter (microscopes, beach balls, bikes, whatever else kids play with) you'd think it would be more cost effective to build one kind that doesn't seem to favor a gender and just make it well.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-31 08:20 pm (UTC)Maybe we were atypical, but I doubt it. I think it's unfair to arbitrarily limit the scope of what SHOULD interest a boy or girl based on preconcieved gender roles. These are the sorts of things which put glass walls and ceilings around the opportunities of either gender.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-01 03:16 pm (UTC)I remember the bitterness over the fact that I never got He-Man stuff even if I really wanted it. That damn mechanical horse-monster was AWESOME.
Fortunately I was fairly creative and crafty myself, so all those dolls got something better to wear, i.e. a self-made ninja garb, and in a really strange quirk of fates, I had gotten a Barbie clone that actually looked exactly like Storm of X-Men (except it came with dorky clothes). Guess what kind of clothes I made a bit later for that one? :D
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-30 10:04 pm (UTC)and when it come to telescope the magnification means nothing if the scope is to small to bring in enough light. for a standard Galileo style scope(like the ones in the back ground.) you need a minimum opening diameter of 10" to be of any real use. unless all you like to look at is the moon. a good set of binoculars would work better then those crappy things.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-30 10:25 pm (UTC)But in the range of toy microscopes and toy telescopes, there are NO equivalent weaker ones in black and brushed metal, and there are NO equivalent "stronger" telescopes in pink.
Never mind the whole issue about pink = for girls, I think we can all agree that's what toy companies mean when they issue something in pink. Even if I hated it pasionately as a girl.
I sort of suspect what they were aiming for is 'Not pink' = 'looks more like something an adult scientist would use' but I will continue to be pissed off untill they issue a neon green or monster-slime version of the weaker ones for younger boys.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-31 02:10 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-31 02:12 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-31 02:23 am (UTC)But.
If you've got a younger kid and you aren't sure if they have a lasting interest in things sciency, you may be reluctant to shell out 52$ now (even on sale) for the high powered scope. Or perhaps you just have a 20-25$ budget per gift for your neices and nefews. There is room in every product line for a cheaper version.
There's also a brain-hacking psychological element: releasing a fancy expensive version immediately establishes the product as "luxury" and desirable in the consumer conciousness. THen when they see the more affordable one, the consumer sees the opportunity to fill that manufactured desire at a more reasonable price point, and pounces on it thinking they have found a bargain.
People's mental models for economic value are very very bad and can't discard "outliers" very well.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-30 10:06 pm (UTC)I found the site, which has a .hk address. It figures - Hong Kong. They don't like their women tinkering where they don't belong >:I
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-30 10:19 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-30 10:25 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-30 10:26 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-30 10:32 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-31 12:27 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-31 03:11 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-30 10:26 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-31 07:47 am (UTC)I can't stand to go into Toys R' Us (or, for that matter, most any kid's toy stores) anymore. They're so heavily gendered and split between the pink ~*girls*~ section full of dolls and ponies, and the gray/blue boys section full of Star Wars figures and Lego sets.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-04 04:52 pm (UTC)*curses*
*grumbles*
With at least two under ten girls in my life who think that Star Wars is the BESTEST EVAR, the toy section is depressing.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-04 07:25 pm (UTC)Good luck in your toy quest; I'm sure you'll find something that the girls love. There have to be figurines of the female Star Wars characters out there somewhere. I hope.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-30 11:20 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-30 11:40 pm (UTC)would you want your son's eye to be sucked out?
Date: 2009-12-31 03:53 am (UTC)also, maybe they hate gay boys - coz why would a girl want that stuff anyways - surely they wants the barbies and the baby dolls?
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-31 04:01 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-31 04:53 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-31 06:30 am (UTC)When I was a little girl, I desperately wanted a REAL microscope, too!
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-31 11:31 am (UTC)I took one look at this and assumed that some cheap manufacturer decided to play the pink card because their products didn't match up to the competition. Pink sells, if only to relatives who need big fat labels to know which presents to buy for girls.
But frankly, most budding science girls know better than to buy a microscope from Toys 'R' Us!
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-01 02:09 am (UTC)