Recently, a facespace post caught my eye: it was regarding the disbelief that the Early Learning Centre (ELC) didn't include a pig in a child's toy farm set on the NetMums website.
 |
| The offending toy set, without a 'piggy'. |
"[I] noticed that there was a pig noise on the top of Goosefeather Farm but I couldnt find a pig ... I went through all the paper and boxes again, but alas coudn't find piggy. Checked the box and discovered that there isnt a piggy. Went online, nope no piggy. So I emailed ELC and the response that I had makes my blood boil. [Emoticons]
'However previously the pig was part of the Goose feather farm however due to customer feedback and religious reasons this is no longer part of the farm'
Now, let me make this perfectly clear. This has absolutely nothing to do with race, so nobody can accuse me of being 'racist'.
This is POLITICAL CORRECTNESS gone loopy. On what basis did they remove it???
This is as bad as no more 'baa baa black sheep' or other such things. Stuff like this is just insipid, it worms its way into every aspect of our lives and we just let it happen. Surely if someone has issue with a toy that they don't agree with, then don't buy it!"
NetMums contributor Caroline
Sidestepping the foaming-at-the-mouth posting style, the missing apostrophes and the spelling mistakes for a moment; does Caroline have a point?
In short, I think, no.
For a start, the ELC aren't being overly PC - if they find their customers report they'd prefer not to have said animal in their toys, that's good for their business. While I disagree with people who'd think touching a pig is immoral or against some foolishly held belief, it's their right to it being protected. Just like they don't present your child with a cow clearly missing limbs or a farmer who has an unorthodox method of interlocking with a sheep: they'd loose business by including it. So, Caroline, it isn't insipid it is just business sense.
The fact the toy farm building still makes a piggy noise means that the child may grow up to be mocked for thinking another animal oinks, but they're hardly going to develop into future serial killers because of it. If you thought there should be a pig, fine, but it wasn't listed and perhaps the ELC should have made this a little more clear. This smacks of the head scarf should be banned argument, who will immediately back track when they realise that banning of head scarves will mean a ban on all religious dress - including crucifixes.
In short, swallow some of your own medicine, Caroline; "Surely if someone has issue with a toy that they don't agree with, then don't buy it!".
For a start, the ELC aren't being overly PC - if they find their customers report they'd prefer not to have said animal in their toys, that's good for their business. While I disagree with people who'd think touching a pig is immoral or against some foolishly held belief, it's their right to it being protected. Just like they don't present your child with a cow clearly missing limbs or a farmer who has an unorthodox method of interlocking with a sheep: they'd loose business by including it. So, Caroline, it isn't insipid it is just business sense.
The fact the toy farm building still makes a piggy noise means that the child may grow up to be mocked for thinking another animal oinks, but they're hardly going to develop into future serial killers because of it. If you thought there should be a pig, fine, but it wasn't listed and perhaps the ELC should have made this a little more clear. This smacks of the head scarf should be banned argument, who will immediately back track when they realise that banning of head scarves will mean a ban on all religious dress - including crucifixes.
In short, swallow some of your own medicine, Caroline; "Surely if someone has issue with a toy that they don't agree with, then don't buy it!".
No comments:
Post a Comment