Conference 7.286::digital

    That sounds like too much paperwork and value guesswork.
    
    If somebody called the Matching Gift Program people and
    suggested that Digital donate, say, $1 per toy, I think
    Digital could manage to handle that OK. It even sounds
    like a good idea.
    
    (No, I won't. It's too late. Next year, fine.)
    

    Can't Digital do the Toys for Tots without making a bit
    deal of sexism?  Every year, they say the toys will
    be sorted "by gender".  Are they also sorted by age?
    By intelligence level of the kid?  By personality of
    the kid?  (for instance, my son would be turned off
    by anything warlike).
    
    I think if Digital is concerned that the kids should like
    the gifts they're getting, and not just appreciate the
    thought, then they ought to either have them unwrapped
    and let the kids choose, or give them gift certificates.
    
    If Digital thinks the point is the thought, and part of
    the fun of a gift is the surprise, then should Digital
    second guess the kids and assume all of them want
    sex stereotyped gifts?
    
    I personally will not participate in any toy drive that
    thinks gender stereotyping of toys must be enforced.

The reason toys are sorted by gender is because even though its 1989, most
young boys don't want to play with Barbie dolls, even though young girls
might like GI Joe.  It just makes it more likely that the child will enjoy
the gift.  The gifts are much more meaningful when they are enjoyed.

There will always be some children who don't enjoy the toys that are "gender
allocated" to them according to the norms, but there would be more children
disappointed by reversing this allocation.   

The most appropriate gift is not gender specific, and allocated as such.

Some people fell that "war toys" are never apropriate for either gender.

"...You can't please all of the people all of the time."  - A. Lincoln

Bob

    Since the Toys for Tots program is run by the United States Marine
    Corps Reserve, I expect you will get lots of politeness but no sympathy
    for suggestions on avoiding toys with military themes. 

    re: .02  First of all it's not DEC, it's as .04 said, the corps.
             Second, you could give games, puzzles, playdoe, or other
             non-gender-specific stuff.
    
    ****** FLAME ON*****
    
    This sounds like a limp excuse not to give toys.  Are you sure you
    just don't want to give?!?!?!
    
    ***** FLAME OFF*****
    
    Chris D.
    

    Re:

>    TYCOBB::C_DENOPOULOS                                 13 lines  12-JAN-1989 08:52
>    ****** FLAME ON*****
>    
>    This sounds like a limp excuse not to give toys.  Are you sure you
>   just don't want to give?!?!?!
>    
>    ***** FLAME OFF*****
 
    It seems to be that Radia made a perfectly valid observation. Just
    because you don't agree with it is no reason to question her integrity
    or generosity. It's patently obvious to me that you have never met
    or spoken to Radia, because if you had you wouldn't have made such
    an ignorant comment.
    
    Let's have a bit of civility around here.
    
    Dave   

        RE: .6 -- At least Mr. Denopoulos acknowledged his reply as
        a flame.
        
        You, on the other hand, accuse him of being "ignorant".  Do you
        know him well enough to make that accusation?  I agree with you
        that his contribution was a bit rough edged, but it was clearly
        labelled as such. 
        
        Please, let's be civil.  It makes the lives of the moderators
        much more pleasant.
        
        Tom
        co-moderator

    No flames this time.  What is preventing you from giving a toy such
    as a puzzle, crayons, or something on that idea?  That way you're
    not supporting the genderism (I think I just created a new word)
    and you are still helping out needy kids.  
    
    Chris D.