4 ms·

When Target opened in my town I went in to see what they had for men's clothing and walked out five minutes later. Nothing. There were piles of clothing for (o

When Target opened in my town I went in to see what they had for men's clothing and walked out five minutes later. Nothing. There were piles of clothing for (obviously) teen girls, a lot for women and boys but for men there was nothing. I'm in my 40s I have no interest dressing like a 15 year-old. Overall choice for everything else was very limited and the prices were higher than the previous store there (Zellers). Some people who went to Target in the USA said the choices in Canada were very limited and prices were double for the same items. I bet millions were spent on renovating the local store here alone since it was pretty grungy before Target took it over. Worse is when Target took over they were the anchor store and demanded all the little kiosks in the main route of the mall be closed. No sunglasses huts, engraving, tobacco or lottery booths either since rumour was Target is owned/started by a fundamentalist religious family(?). Target put a lot of small stores of of business before they even opened the Target store causing a lot of hurt feelings in a small town.

HillRat 11y ago
This is a bit off-topic, but just to be clear, Target is considered generally politically-progressive for a major, publicly-traded retailer, while the direct descendent of its founder is the current, very liberal, governor of Minnesota. Having said that, I'd say that they were focusing on the wrong methods of creating an appealing retail environment, their other issues being noted.
Grishnakh 11y ago
>since rumour was Target is owned/started by a fundamentalist religious family(?). I think you might be confusing them with Hobby Lobby, the company that went to the US Supreme Court so they could deny contraceptive coverage in their employees' health insurance plans. I won't set foot in a Hobby Lobby now. With them closing the kiosks, that just sounds like your typical dick corporation move, to try to shut down competition and drive up traffic in their store.
- wtbob 11y ago
  > I think you might be confusing them with Hobby Lobby, the company that went to the US Supreme Court so they could deny contraceptive coverage in their employees' health insurance plans. I won't set foot in a Hobby Lobby now. They didn't deny contraceptives; they denied (what they believe to be) abortaficients. Big difference.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    That's not so much a difference as it is an elaboration. The original statement is true, the incorrect belief about how contraceptives work merely explains why.
    - wtbob 11y ago
      > The original statement is true, the incorrect belief about how contraceptives work merely explains why. No, because they are fine with contraceptives which they don't believe are abortaficients. A contraceptive prevents conception (hence the name); other drugs, devices or procedures end lives (whether by preventing implantation or directly killing the fœtus). I think that several of the things they believe are abortaficients aren't, and that there's decent science behind that, but I also can't blame them for not trusting folks who don't apparently care about the distinction between something which prevents contraception and something which prevents implantation. I also don't think that an employer should be made to pay for the health care of employees in general. I eat more than I ought; my health is worse than it should be. Who should foot that bill which results from my choices: my employer or myself?
      - mikeash 11y ago
        I'm well aware of the difference between contraceptives and abortifacients. If you want to correct the original, the correction would be that they oppose some contraceptives. The fact that they oppose them based on ignorance about how they work is, again, not a correction but merely an elaboration.

HillRat 11y ago

This is a bit off-topic, but just to be clear, Target is considered generally politically-progressive for a major, publicly-traded retailer, while the direct descendent of its founder is the current, very liberal, governor of Minnesota. Having said that, I'd say that they were focusing on the wrong methods of creating an appealing retail environment, their other issues being noted.

Grishnakh 11y ago

>since rumour was Target is owned/started by a fundamentalist religious family(?). I think you might be confusing them with Hobby Lobby, the company that went to the US Supreme Court so they could deny contraceptive coverage in their employees' health insurance plans. I won't set foot in a Hobby Lobby now. With them closing the kiosks, that just sounds like your typical dick corporation move, to try to shut down competition and drive up traffic in their store.

wtbob 11y ago
> I think you might be confusing them with Hobby Lobby, the company that went to the US Supreme Court so they could deny contraceptive coverage in their employees' health insurance plans. I won't set foot in a Hobby Lobby now. They didn't deny contraceptives; they denied (what they believe to be) abortaficients. Big difference.
- mikeash 11y ago
  That's not so much a difference as it is an elaboration. The original statement is true, the incorrect belief about how contraceptives work merely explains why.
  - wtbob 11y ago
    > The original statement is true, the incorrect belief about how contraceptives work merely explains why. No, because they are fine with contraceptives which they don't believe are abortaficients. A contraceptive prevents conception (hence the name); other drugs, devices or procedures end lives (whether by preventing implantation or directly killing the fœtus). I think that several of the things they believe are abortaficients aren't, and that there's decent science behind that, but I also can't blame them for not trusting folks who don't apparently care about the distinction between something which prevents contraception and something which prevents implantation. I also don't think that an employer should be made to pay for the health care of employees in general. I eat more than I ought; my health is worse than it should be. Who should foot that bill which results from my choices: my employer or myself?
    - mikeash 11y ago
      I'm well aware of the difference between contraceptives and abortifacients. If you want to correct the original, the correction would be that they oppose some contraceptives. The fact that they oppose them based on ignorance about how they work is, again, not a correction but merely an elaboration.