Bill Would Require California Retailers To Have Gender-Neutral Sections; Violators Face Fines

[TomC]

It’s rather fucking stupid.

"It" being who, exactly? I'm saying that there's plenty of stupidity to go around. But Trump was the leader for 4 years, despite the American electorate choosing someone else.
Tom

 

[steve_bank]

I grew up with what in New England were called Blue Laws. No commerce on Sundays except for small stores and gas. You could not buy alcohol outside a bar or restaurant on Sunday.

Primarily based in religion.

If conservative Christians tried to enact rulers on business about culture and environment the media would explode.

COTUS prevents laws enabling religion, no protection from ideology.

 

[Elixir]

The tyranny of the do-gooders.

Yeah, how dare they CANCEL the LABELS of which conservotards are so fond?



It's a stupid bill, but a far more stupid objection.

I don't think that the objection is stupid.

The fact that it's stupid on the face of it is sufficient afaic. Don't even have to get into the weeds about it.
Baseless irrational fears of do-gooders notwithstanding.

Have the California Democrats run out of things to do?

First time I ever quoted that poster because I agreed with him.

 

[bilby]

. It's a situation where there are pros and cons to gender separation from the vendor's perspective, while there are pretty much only cons for most consumers.

You have a very different shopping style than I do.
I dislike shopping. I also dislike huge stores, but I can't well avoid them anymore.

I want a store that's tightly organized and well marked. I want to know, quickly and easily, how to find what I want. I don't want my store confusing to suit people who want to push some social agenda.
Tom

Social agendas are the least of your problems in this regard.

Stores and malls are deliberately designed to be confusing and disorienting, to get you to buy things you didn't want.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gruen_transfer

In shopping mall design, the Gruen transfer (also known as the Gruen effect) is the moment when consumers enter a shopping mall or store and, surrounded by an intentionally confusing layout, lose track of their original intentions, making consumers more susceptible to make impulse buys. It is named after Austrian architect Victor Gruen, who disavowed such manipulative techniques.

 

[Jokodo]

it's rather commonsensical.

It’s rather fucking stupid.

Do you really wanna go on record saying that sorting sweaters for primary school aged kids with more sweaters for primary school aged kids and trousers for toddlers with more trousers for toddlers is "rather fucking stupid" when stuff isn't first sorted by gender, into a boys' wing and a girls' wing?

Because that's what you seem to be saying, and that sounds like a rather fucking stupid thing to say indeed, so I want to give you the option to clarify.

 

[Jokodo]

Social agendas are the least of your problems in this regard.

Stores and malls are deliberately designed to be confusing and disorienting, to get you to buy things you didn't want.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gruen_transfer

In shopping mall design, the Gruen transfer (also known as the Gruen effect) is the moment when consumers enter a shopping mall or store and, surrounded by an intentionally confusing layout, lose track of their original intentions, making consumers more susceptible to make impulse buys. It is named after Austrian architect Victor Gruen, who disavowed such manipulative techniques.

Now you are confusing things. This is free businesses offering their services to to free citizens, who can always take their money elsewhere. You call it "manipulative", but clearly their customers don't object or else they'd be long out of business. There's nothing to see here, even if it were as bad as you make it look, because corporations confusing and disorienting their customers is just a part of the best possible economic system.

That's totally not comparable to the government forcing businesses to do something that will, momentarily, confuse a few customers, even if the net effect is less overall confusion.

(Says: every conservative and most "I'm a liberal but both are equally bad in the extremes")

 

[TSwizzle]

it's rather commonsensical.

It’s rather fucking stupid.

Do you really wanna go on record saying that sorting sweaters for primary school aged kids with more sweaters for primary school aged kids and trousers for toddlers with more trousers for toddlers is "rather fucking stupid" when stuff isn't first sorted by gender, into a boys' wing and a girls' wing?

Because that's what you seem to be saying, and that sounds like a rather fucking stupid thing to say indeed, so I want to give you the option to clarify.

The bill is fucking stupid. How the merchant arranges the merchandise is up to them and I don’t really care that much how they do it. But for government to fine the merchant for not arranging the product a particular way is fucking stupid. Places like Target will know better than the fucking arsehole Kew (?) how to arrange their Chinese tat to maximize sales. Sacramento should be worrying about more pressing issues.

 

[bilby]

Do you really wanna go on record saying that sorting sweaters for primary school aged kids with more sweaters for primary school aged kids and trousers for toddlers with more trousers for toddlers is "rather fucking stupid" when stuff isn't first sorted by gender, into a boys' wing and a girls' wing?

Because that's what you seem to be saying, and that sounds like a rather fucking stupid thing to say indeed, so I want to give you the option to clarify.

The bill is fucking stupid. How the merchant arranges the merchandise is up to them and I don’t really care that much how they do it. But for government to fine the merchant for not arranging the product a particular way is fucking stupid. Places like Target will know better than the fucking arsehole Kew (?) how to arrange their Chinese tat to maximize sales. Sacramento should be worrying about more pressing issues.

I can see why "to maximise sales" would be an objective for a retailer, but why would the customers, the government, or the public at large want to support that goal, to the extent of allowing it to supersede any other goals society might have?

 

[TomC]

Do you really wanna go on record saying that sorting sweaters for primary school aged kids with more sweaters for primary school aged kids and trousers for toddlers with more trousers for toddlers is "rather fucking stupid" when stuff isn't first sorted by gender, into a boys' wing and a girls' wing?

Because that's what you seem to be saying, and that sounds like a rather fucking stupid thing to say indeed, so I want to give you the option to clarify.

The bill is fucking stupid. How the merchant arranges the merchandise is up to them and I don’t really care that much how they do it. But for government to fine the merchant for not arranging the product a particular way is fucking stupid. Places like Target will know better than the fucking arsehole Kew (?) how to arrange their Chinese tat to maximize sales. Sacramento should be worrying about more pressing issues.

You and I don't often agree. So, when we do I think I should point it out.

The bill looks like idiotic SJW grandstanding, to me.

Tom

 

[KeepTalking]

Social agendas are the least of your problems in this regard.

Stores and malls are deliberately designed to be confusing and disorienting, to get you to buy things you didn't want.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gruen_transfer

In shopping mall design, the Gruen transfer (also known as the Gruen effect) is the moment when consumers enter a shopping mall or store and, surrounded by an intentionally confusing layout, lose track of their original intentions, making consumers more susceptible to make impulse buys. It is named after Austrian architect Victor Gruen, who disavowed such manipulative techniques.

Now you are confusing things. This is free businesses offering their services to to free citizens, who can always take their money elsewhere. You call it "manipulative", but clearly their customers don't object or else they'd be long out of business. There's nothing to see here, even if it were as bad as you make it look, because corporations confusing and disorienting their customers is just a part of the best possible economic system.

Malls are going out of business all over the place, and it was happening before the pandemic. Who wants to go wander around a mall, when they can order what they want when they want online. Sure there are some that enjoy the shopping experience, and others who either do not have reliable internet, or do not trust online shopping. But for the most part, their shopping destinations have ceased to be malls. Big box stores are still going strong, and that might be due to their products being generally cheaper.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Just the other day I was looking for slip in half boots, something vaguely like these: https://www.proidee.at/?P=200335800...WKsG1YzBT7We3W52_QJ7dCgqe7wDj8_oaAin_EALw_wcB

They have models much like this with minor differences in the men's and women's, often barely noticeable. Which means I lost ten minutes looking on two different floors. Had they sorted their shoes by type rather than target gender would have saved me time and improved my quality of life.

This just as a side note to those claiming that this bill is solely ideological with zero real life benefit. I do not herewith that it's a net positive and will ignore responses trying to corner me into defending doing so.

I do not herewith that it's a net positive and will ignore responses trying to corner me into defending doing so.

So, your shoe shopping experience is more important to you than a customer trying to find appropriate gifts and back to school clothes.
But you don't want to defend that attitude.

Got it.
Tom

I see his point--there are products which would be better served by not being sorted by gender. In some cases businesses recognize this--I have never seen a store that sorts backpacks by male/female even though the good ones come in male and female versions. The thing is, hikers are into practical, not fashion--if the opposite gender pack fits you better then wear it, nobody's going criticize your choice.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is that were that the case, there could be no pink tax, and the quality differential between "boys" and "girls" would become publicly apparent.

My husband has a lot of clothes from before he fully self-actualized, and continues to occasionally buy clothes marketed towards women because sometimes, there are more fun options there. I could tell which "gender" any given shirt in my house was marketed to blindfolded: every "girl" shirt is roughly a third the fabric weight, and wears out in a span of 6 months to 2 years. Compare that to some shirts I've had for longer than 20 years, and I still feel confident to wear.

The problem is that stores make their money primarily selling shitty (but admittedly fun) clothes that will wear out in a year or two for prices WAY higher than you find in the "boys" section.

I believe there is another factor at work here--men's clothing doesn't change much, female clothing is continually chasing fashions. Men's clothing can be worn until it wears out, it's very unlikely to go out of date. Women's clothing goes out of date, durability isn't nearly as important in that world.

Hell, I bet I could walk into a Walmart today (were I to decide to subject myself to the inside of a Walmart) and walk to the women's and I bet I could find a pair of socks, the SAME socks mind, for a 50-100% markup across the store compared to the men's.

The only place I've seen any comparison of men's and women's socks is at REI and they're segregated by type, not gender--and there's no pink tax.

 

[Jarhyn]

The problem is that were that the case, there could be no pink tax, and the quality differential between "boys" and "girls" would become publicly apparent.

My husband has a lot of clothes from before he fully self-actualized, and continues to occasionally buy clothes marketed towards women because sometimes, there are more fun options there. I could tell which "gender" any given shirt in my house was marketed to blindfolded: every "girl" shirt is roughly a third the fabric weight, and wears out in a span of 6 months to 2 years. Compare that to some shirts I've had for longer than 20 years, and I still feel confident to wear.

The problem is that stores make their money primarily selling shitty (but admittedly fun) clothes that will wear out in a year or two for prices WAY higher than you find in the "boys" section.

I believe there is another factor at work here--men's clothing doesn't change much, female clothing is continually chasing fashions. Men's clothing can be worn until it wears out, it's very unlikely to go out of date. Women's clothing goes out of date, durability isn't nearly as important in that world.

Hell, I bet I could walk into a Walmart today (were I to decide to subject myself to the inside of a Walmart) and walk to the women's and I bet I could find a pair of socks, the SAME socks mind, for a 50-100% markup across the store compared to the men's.

The only place I've seen any comparison of men's and women's socks is at REI and they're segregated by type, not gender--and there's no pink tax.

A graphic tee with a cartoon of cookie monster strung out on cookies and milk is timeless.

Except for the fact it will only last for 3 months.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I believe there is another factor at work here--men's clothing doesn't change much, female clothing is continually chasing fashions. Men's clothing can be worn until it wears out, it's very unlikely to go out of date. Women's clothing goes out of date, durability isn't nearly as important in that world.



The only place I've seen any comparison of men's and women's socks is at REI and they're segregated by type, not gender--and there's no pink tax.

A graphic tee with a cartoon of cookie monster strung out on cookies and milk is timeless.

Except for the fact it will only last for 3 months.

Graphic tees for men are pretty wimpy, also.

 

[ZiprHead]

I believe there is another factor at work here--men's clothing doesn't change much, female clothing is continually chasing fashions. Men's clothing can be worn until it wears out, it's very unlikely to go out of date. Women's clothing goes out of date, durability isn't nearly as important in that world.



The only place I've seen any comparison of men's and women's socks is at REI and they're segregated by type, not gender--and there's no pink tax.

A graphic tee with a cartoon of cookie monster strung out on cookies and milk is timeless.

Except for the fact it will only last for 3 months.

Graphic tees for men are pretty wimpy, also.

To take my Rush 2112 t-shirt, you'll have to pry it from my cold dead body.

 

[KeepTalking]

I believe there is another factor at work here--men's clothing doesn't change much, female clothing is continually chasing fashions. Men's clothing can be worn until it wears out, it's very unlikely to go out of date. Women's clothing goes out of date, durability isn't nearly as important in that world.



The only place I've seen any comparison of men's and women's socks is at REI and they're segregated by type, not gender--and there's no pink tax.

A graphic tee with a cartoon of cookie monster strung out on cookies and milk is timeless.

Except for the fact it will only last for 3 months.

Graphic tees for men are pretty wimpy, also.

If you want to call a 4XL Beefy T wimpy, that's on you.

For the record, those T-shirts put in a lot of work, holding in all that girth, and forgoing washing for weeks on end.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What I do notice is homeless people shitting in the street, an increase in violent crime, crumbling infrastructure, billions wasted on a failed high speed rail project and some twat in Sacramento is worried about a non problem and wants to fine stores for not arranging their merchandise according to the whims of an eight year old. It’s idiotic in the extreme.

Hey, anyone remember when Crime increased while Trump was President?

 

[TV and credit cards]

Graphic tees for men are pretty wimpy, also.

To take my Rush 2112 t-shirt, you'll have to pry it from my cold dead body.

Or my WMMS Buzzard jersey from fifty pounds ago.

Will they have a "Husky" section? I did hate the "Husky" section as a kid. Mostly because mom called it the "Chubby" section. So wrong. So hurtful. So much psychological damage. But this is what moms do.

And these Europeans shouldn't be allowed to sell clothes in the US without conforming to US sizing standards. Our idea of XL and theirs is broadly different. They think XL means a person is taller. WTF?

Why is it okay that I suffer?

 

[Jarhyn]

I believe there is another factor at work here--men's clothing doesn't change much, female clothing is continually chasing fashions. Men's clothing can be worn until it wears out, it's very unlikely to go out of date. Women's clothing goes out of date, durability isn't nearly as important in that world.



The only place I've seen any comparison of men's and women's socks is at REI and they're segregated by type, not gender--and there's no pink tax.

A graphic tee with a cartoon of cookie monster strung out on cookies and milk is timeless.

Except for the fact it will only last for 3 months.

Graphic tees for men are pretty wimpy, also.

My entire point has been made on the basis of the extant differences between graphic tees based on who they are marketing to.

"Graphic tees for men" last me 20+ years. I'm lucky if ones my husband occasionally buys, marketed to women, last us 20+ weeks.

And don't get me started about pockets.

 

[Jokodo]

Do you really wanna go on record saying that sorting sweaters for primary school aged kids with more sweaters for primary school aged kids and trousers for toddlers with more trousers for toddlers is "rather fucking stupid" when stuff isn't first sorted by gender, into a boys' wing and a girls' wing?

Because that's what you seem to be saying, and that sounds like a rather fucking stupid thing to say indeed, so I want to give you the option to clarify.

The bill is fucking stupid. How the merchant arranges the merchandise is up to them and I don’t really care that much how they do it. But for government to fine the merchant for not arranging the product a particular way is fucking stupid. Places like Target will know better than the fucking arsehole Kew (?) how to arrange their Chinese tat to maximize sales. Sacramento should be worrying about more pressing issues.

Do you believe a shopper looking for trousers for his 8-year-old boy who has outgrown the last batch is more likely to find what he's looking for among trousers for eight year old girls, or among sweaters for six year old boys? If the shop sorts by gender first, the latter will be closer than the former. He may end up with with trousers he doesn't like because he never went to look at the girls' where they would have had what he was looking for,and a sweater he likes but didn't need. That may or may not increase sales, but it's not serving customers' needs