Would anyone like to join in an effort to convince retailers to stop categorizing toys by gender?
(1000 Posts) TweetMarking place 
I've put some thoughts down in writing, just to get the ball rolling re: what aspects of the issue we want to focus on, and how we want to organise our points. These are just rough ideas, some of which might find their way into an eventual letter template (if anyone wants to help draft one?!), and some of which might not.
Principles:
•It is not the place of retailers to determine which toys are appropriate
for which children, outside of safety warnings related to age. It is the parents’ role to decide which toys are appropriate for their children, and we are asking as parents that retailers respect that.
•It is lazy and unnecessary to categorise toys in this way. They can be
grouped by age or by interest, e.g. “fashion”, “role play,” “construction,”
“vehicles” etc.
•The idea that boys and men are drivers, explorers, builders and
adventurers, and that girls and women should be concerned mainly with
domesticity and beauty / image, is as outdated as it is offensive. By reinforcing these archaic ideas retailers are alienating a large and growing proportion of the consumer public.
•We recognise that toy manufacturers, marketers, and consumers share
responsibility for the increasing polarization of what is considered to be
“for boys” and “for girls,” and for the disturbing trend toward image-
obsessed and age-inappropriate toys for girls in particular.
However, retailers reinforce and perpetuate these damaging messages by overtly designating “Girls” and “Boys” aisles / sections. Because brick-and-
mortar shops and online stores are the actual point of contact between
the young consumer and the products on sale, we believe that the retailer
has a particular responsibility to avoid sending the message that certain
items are only appropriate for one group of children or the other.
Why it is damaging to children for retailers to group toys by gender:
•It strongly discourages children from pursuing interests outside of the narrow (particularly narrow in the case of girls) range of options in the section
designated by their gender. Some children may feel comfortable choosing
toys from the “other” aisle or website list, but many more are likely to conform with the expectation being reinforced by the adult establishment. Why should a child have to find the courage to subvert adult expectation before she can choose a rocketship from the toy shelf?
•It sends a message to the girl who likes Thomas and Friends that she is
not a “proper” girl, and to the boy who wants Sylvanian Families that he is
not a “proper” boy, because they like toys that the shop tells them are
for the other gender. Why would you want the children of your
customers to be made to feel that there is something wrong or lacking
about them, because they want to buy a product that you’re trying to sell?
•It perpetuates the mindset that girls and women are the lesser, inferior
“other” due to the fact that the “standard” version of a toy (original Duplo or Lego, multi-coloured V-Tech type toys, building blocks [others??]) inevitably ends up in the Boys section, while a pink or purple “other” version goes into the Girls section.
•The practice of categorizing toys by gender is detrimental to both
boys and girls (why should boys be discouraged from nurturing role play,
with dolls and prams?). However, the messages sent about which themes
each gender should be interested in are particularly offensive to, and
limiting for, girls.
The toys in the Girls sections tend to fall into one of the
following categories:
1. The pink, “other” versions of standard toys, as mentioned above,
2. Toys that encourage a focus on domestic roles like childcare and cleaning (which are fine for role playing fun, but damaging when accompanied by the clear message that these activities are only for girls, and are among the few things that girls are / should be interested in),
3. Toys that encourage concern, from a very early age, about beauty, fashion, image, and even “sexiness.”
In the Boys’ section, meanwhile, are toys that encourage play involving space travel, construction, planes, trains and automobiles, adventure, science projects,
and role play as ‘heroes’ (superheroes, firefighters, police officers). Nothing in the Boys section indicates that little boys should spend any time thinking about whether they’re attractive or worthy of the attention of the other sex.
That's all I can come up with at the moment! But I will come back tomorrow and will be interested to see what thoughts others might add. I think the main trick will be making all the points that need making, while composing a clear and pointed letter, rather than an interminable internet rant!
I've facebooked a couple of big retailers here in NZ about this recently. One kindly said I could buy from either aisle 
. The other said that some wholesalers require it, and that a survey of customers also wanted it. I find that hard to believe.
But 400 letters here in NZ was enough to get Cadbury to go palm oil free so there is hope.
There are a few facebook groups you might find interesting:
A mighty girl
Pink stinks
I would get involved with a campaign.
Especially as it would piss my parents off, who refused to buy DD the firefighter helmet she so wanted as 'its for boys'
um, you are being ridiculous stumpy it's not convenient. Because kitchens aren't for girls. Hence buying one for a boy in your scenario 
Yes me!
I want it to go back to when we got to chose what toys were ok for boys and girls. There was a brief window back in the early 90s I remember < wistful >
I dont understand why you think this is PC Stumpy
And the whole point is that we want to allow our children to be little boys and girls without some marketing genius telling us and them what that means.
And would you not have just been able to find the LaLaloopsy in the DOLLS section?
Halloween I have noticed that, but DD is tall and skinny for her age so girls tops are still pretty loose. And of course we've always bought clothes from both sections in shops, depending what we thought was nice.
Her two favourite tops in the world are her pink 'World's best big sister' one and her black and white stripy one, because she says it makes her look like a pirate. 
being a good big sister, and being a good pirate are very important TJPD
If by "don't drag children into politics", stumpy, you mean that we shouldn't try to influence what children think about the implications of their gender, and should just let them get on with being kids without worrying about it, then shouldn't you be on the other side of the argument?
Grouping toys into "Boys" and "Girls" sections is what's political (and harmful). We're asking retailers to stop doing that.
I quite agree with this proposed campaign. I also find the boys' and girls' aisles in toy shops annoying - also the aisles for their clothes.
One of my grandsons is 7 and he's been helping his mother parents for the last 3 years to prepare meals by chopping vegetables. He wanted to. I was a bit about the sharp knives but it was not my place to interfere. When he was younger he loved getting out the vacuum cleaner to play with the cat. He's also allowed to stir simmering risotto for which he chopped vegetables. With evidence like this - and there must bne others - why do manufacturers and retailers think that cooking and other domestic work is just for girls?
Although I hate shopping so I'm in and out in a dash so do not real stand about and look at section names
I love that link, SGM! And what a great mom too, writing her own letter when the kid's one got such a sorry excuse for a response.
Pink globes? 
Yes, because girl's brains cannot process geography in green and blue.
Apparently
I'm in! Great idea. What a joy it would be not to tell the difference between boys and girls toys. In fact if this catches on we might not even be able to tell the difference between small children.
...And the world would then collapse around our ears...
I agree entirely that a big part of the issue lies with the manufacturers and the marketers for perpetuating the idea that you have to have a 'boys' and 'girls' version of everything (and there's some blame to be apportioned to the consumers for buying into it too). I do think that the issue of what's made in the first place, how it's packaged and how it's advertised on TV really needs to be addressed.
But as you say, HNC, their motive for doing it is clear. They want to sell twice as much to families (and extended families) with children of both genders.
It would be very worthwhile to take on the whole issue of gendered / pinkified toys, but I don't know how effective we'd be, at least in the short term, in making a noticeable dent in how things are done overall.
Whereas the rationale for concentrating on the toy aisle thing (actual aisles in physical shops and virtual aisles in the case of search tools on retail websites) in the short term, is that it's something that could potentially be changed pretty quickly.
I don't really see where there's a huge incentive for retailers to keep things the way they are, as there is in the case of manufacturers. They will still stock kitchens and spaceships, and both versions of Lego, and boys and girls will still enter the store wanting what they want, based largely (and unfortunately) on the messaging they've received from advertisers.
The only difference is that the pink legos and the multicoloured ones will be side by side on the 'construction' shelf, rather than aisles apart. Surely this could potentially have a positive impact on sales rather than a negative one? A girl who wasn't interested Lego when it was offered to her in five shades of pink, won't feel like she can't pick up the multicoloured box which is sitting right next to it. A boy who wants every possible kind of Lego might see the pink ones as an option to expand his range, when he would never have considered going into the girls' aisle to find them.
A girl who wants to play with dolls is not going to skip the "dolls" aisle because it no longer says "Girls" - but her brother might venture there if the "Girls" sign disappears. And the little girl might find herself browsing train sets if there's no "Boys" sign over that aisle to put her off having a look.
Surely all of this could be good for the retailer?
Given that the retailers are (perhaps) the most likely to make a change, can make a change as easily as re-stocking shelves and hanging a few new signs, and are the actual point at which children and parents finalise their decisions about which toys they want, I would argue that it makes sense to concentrate our efforts on them, at least to begin with.
I'm not at all trying to stifle discussion on manufacturing / marketing, and I will still be very much on board if the consensus is that we should try to target all aspects of gender-based sales of toys, in the way that PinkStinks does. But my own view is that we should bite off one chunk at a time, starting with the retailers. Open to feedback on that, though
sorry so long!
Count me in
I feel very strongly about this issue. I have only a son and I think your points are excellent OP. I also hate how girls' toys are sold as being about attractiveness etc but personally I have a boy, so I notice it from the opposite side. I feel the message we are sending boys about being nurturing/creative etc not being manly is something that has a lifelong effect too.
My toddler son has two parents who both work. We both clean the house. We both wipe his bum. We both cook. He both push the buggy and snuggle him at night. His dad says how much he loves him all the time and hugs him all the time, as do I. To him, grown ups can live pretty similar lives regardless of gender and both can be nurturing and emotional.
So it depresses me that DS' three year old female cousin tells him he can't like Peppa Pig as she is for girls and he will have to like George because boys can only like George. My stepsister complains that she doesn't know what to buy him because she doesn't know what boys like. He likes reading, arty stuff, role play, throwing a ball - exactly the same as her daughter!!!
It depresses me that while all the science kits may be for boys (I had all those, not my brother, by the way) all the crafty kits are pink and purple for girls.
I disagree entirely with you stumpy. I'm not saying anything to you apart from disagreeing as you're entitled to your view obviouly, but I do not share it. I don't think that most of the time, boys choose boys' toys and girls choose girls' toys. I think kids love all kinds of toys and I just think you are limiting their imagination by categorising them by gender.
But then my brother did build a rampaging army as a child out of dinosaurs and My Little Ponies as he thought the ponies looked like they could deal with troublemakers.....
Oh, mememememe.
It really bugs me that Argos classify pencils and craft supplies as girls' toys
Apart from stumpy there seems to be fairly unanimous support for this campaign here. Can I resurrect Onehandwavingfree's practical list of things to do:
* Email campaign targeting main offenders (to be identified).
* Campaign via a Facebook group, either a new one with a specific action
plan, or an approach to an existing group with a similar concern, such as
PinkStinks, A Mighty Girl, and Toward the Stars.
* Online petition via Change.org
* Some kind of recognition of examples of better practice - i.e. shops and
websites that group toys by age and interest, not gender.
* See if MNHQ can use any influence to help?
- I would say don't make it part of "pink stinks" etc... (Although they could of course be supportive). It's a different campaign - aimed at retailers, and about girls and boys.
Could we start to make a list of targets:
John Lewis
The Entertainer
Tesco (?)
Argos (?)... Although they seem to do this less than they used to - have dropped "boys" and "girls" in favour of pink and blue pages
Ones that don't:
Harrods (...after a campaign...)
>"equal rights are being taken too far here."
yes, that line got me too... how do you take equality too far? Its either equal or it ain't.
Thing is, some of us, like me and stumpy and our offspring didn't get harmed by genderisation, by some combination of age and familial attitude. But you only have to read one post like Goth's to realise that an 'I'm all right, Jill' attitude doesn't wash. Genderisation does affect children, its unecessary and in many cases would be easy to avoid. Websites could simply stop categorising by gender, remove the boy/girl search filters (or at least, if they really want them, make 'girl + science' return the whole gamut not just pink smellies)
In Debenhams there are 12 science toys 'for boys', and 2 'for girls'
link
116 construction toys 'for boys' and and 9 'for girls'.
link
Most depressing of all is the girl's role play vs boys role play
They seem to go out of their way to be retrograde. This Construction Worker's set is modeled by a girl and a boy, but doesn't show up if you click 'for girls'.
I am very much in. Can we extend it to include clothes please? Why can't children just choose clothes they like without having girls' and boys' sections. My DD refused to let me buy some Gruffalo wellies she had initially fallen in love with once she say they said "Boys" on the label. 
In.
They'll just tell you they are responding to customer demand for ease of shopping and choice, though, I bet....
What companies often respond to, and what newspapers love is a ranking. I.e. a top ten, from most to least sexist toy retailer.
To do this you need a set of criteria.
E.g
Boys and girls aisles in store -2 points
Boys and girls pages in catalogue -2 points
Boys and girls as major categories on website -2 points
Implicit but unlabelled boys and girls aisles -1point
Implicit but unlabelled boys and girls pages in catalogue -1 point
Boy, girl as minor search terms on web -1 point
Etc....
So they get a numerical score. No one wants to come last
I'm really disappointed to hear that ELC are among the culprits. 20 years ago when my dds were young there was no gender stereotyping and no pink stuff as far as I can remember. Everything was cheery red, yellow, blue or green.
I emailed them 2 years ago when their website detailed 'girls'' and 'boys'' dressing-up chests and to their credit they changed it immediately. It sounds like they have forgotten
Have we got a facebook page yet?
The ranking criteria are only draft - might need a bit of editing and work - anybody want to add any other criteria? - they need to be clear and easy to assess with a straight yes/no answer.
Maybe one about dressing up clothes - are they all/nearly all gendered or are there unisex outfits for doctors, nurses, chefs, firefighters etc...? Not sure if this is clear enough a question, though?
I would be happy to set up a surveymonkey to collect the data for this before the weekend, if we can agree on criteria - then you can all go out and do mystery shopping !
I've always wanted to be a mystery shopper!
Yea to the surveymonkey idea Himilaya! I agree with LadyK, to focus also on the types of toys that are marketed to boys and girls because that's the bit that limits kids - gearing boys to science/ construction / action whilst girls to home-making / child-rearing / caring about appearances.
One question though, as we're being covert mystery shoppers do we have to wear dark glasses and fake moustaches?
I like the mystery shopping / reconnaissance mission idea... WIBU 
to collect info on UK outlets in Ireland? I know the vast majority of you are in the UK so of course the focus needs to be on retailers based there, but do you think it would be okay to include pics from Debenhams, Boots, Tesco in Dublin or Galway?
Would that demonstrate a broader base of support for changing things, or would it dilute the message?
Think you'll like this
I'm going to hide here now and pretend I didn't read another post talking about this thread as if we are all overreacting and reading too much into things. Thank god for you sane people!
I'm going into town tomorrow so will make some notes if I go into any stores with kids toys in.
Would the scores thing be easier if we looked at types of toys and which aisle they're in? Then the différence in shop sizes isn't an issue.
So for example chemistry sets, Lego, Duplo/Megablocks, kitchens, craft stuff etc. So you could have 1 point per item if there's a toy aisle with kitchens and chemistry sets, but 3 points per item if the chemistry set is in the boys aisle and the kitchen in the girls aisle.
Or something.
I'd love to have a look, Himalaya
I will join.
I have 1 DC. A boy. He likes loads of stuff Inc. baby dolls, Zoobles and other stuff he finds cute. He gets flack for liking girl's toys. IMHO, this is due to gender segregation.
All the boys in his nursery had no probs liking what he likes. Now they are in PS it has become an issue. This is in no small way die to the way toys are targeted towards gender.
Doesn't happen in my house though.
But now it is a secret.
Dione I worry about that for DS
Both DH and I get flack for the careers we want to follow. We also both felt unable to follow those interests as children. We also both felt unable to own toys that related to our interests due to being told that the toys weren't for our own sex. We were both also bullied (one of us hospitalised) for not fitting into our gender box.
Still think it's ridiculous to want to remove that stigma?
I can guarantee Goth, that stumpy thinks you being bullied was bad..but can't see the direct link that telling children what gender box they have to fit in to led to your being bullied
That's the problem.
I'm in saw a marble run in M&S the other day which is part of a range labled "boys toys". I would never have imagined a marble run to be only for boys. Ridiculous! (and limiting their market, surely?!)
"...who feels that dragging children into the issue of equal rights in this way is taking it too far"
See, I just do not understand this point of view.
'Taking equal rights too far'. So you actively want to be kept back behind men? You actively want your daughter to be kept back behind your son?
What do you even mean by taking equal rights 'too far'. It just seems so ridiculous and inhibiting.
And anyway - how is encouraging all children to play with all toys taking anything too far?! What damage is being caused by making this switch? Why do you feel the need to so vehemently defend the status quo...?
Yeah, cos you should have a limit on equal rights. I mean, sure women have rights, just not too many of them in case they start feeling all entitled and equal. Right?
I'm in.
Not had chance to read the whole thread yet. Gender stereotyping of babies, children, toys etc is quite a passion of mine.
I can't remember which Xmas catalogue it was in now, but Connect 4 was in the boys section
Wow toys, that I'm generally a fan of, launched some new toys, not too long back and a couple screamed pink girl toys, when there was no need. Myself and a few other people complained on their Facebook page. They said they'd undertaken market research and it's what their customers wanted. There were other parents getting their giddy pink sexist knickers all a twist in their excitement, I assume that's who'd they'd conducted their research on.
Lancelottie - link to your thread here and I'm sure we can oblige with more. I've got a 13 year old ..two years ago her main present was an electronics set and a soldering iron. Maybe not exactly a 'toy' but more fun than nail art. (she did get some nice blue/green nail varnish in her stocking)
This thread is a good example of what makes MN so brilliant
Count me in please!
It's reminded me of when I was late in my 2nd pregnancy and at <whispers> macdonalds - 2yo DD was happily playing with the Star Wars toy (spaceship) from my happy meal while I finished eating. Another little girl (3 at a guess) tried to take the same toy with her as she and her mum left. The mum said "no you can't have that, it's for boys" and the girl had to leave her toy on the table, and she left crying! FFS! It was a FREE bit of plastic tat. Baffling.
smyths toys is refreshing in this way.
it categorizes by age and interest, but not by gender.
i think there's somewhere that you can choose boy or girl and the stuff is the same in each one
Survey should be ready to launch tomorrow.
Apologies for the delay, it's all Onehandwavingfree's fault
i mentioned this to someone today adn they didnt get it at all i told them about the debenhams thing and the schience kits for girls boys, apparently we should be grateful that they do any science kits for girls, doesnt matter that they are limited and crap perfume/bath bombs its better than nothing at all....bashes head on keyboard.
Oh Terraria don't get me started on shoes! DD is a very active 3.4yo who loves running, climbing, scrambling over rocks at the beach and just generally being an energetic child. We went to the shoe shop to buy her some boots (proper sturdy hiking boot type things) and all they had were purple suede things with fluff around the top! Needless to say we found a proper pair in the boys section...
It seems we've caught something of the zeitgeist. Waking up this morning, I see that one of my UK FB friends has liked and publicised this page... I hope the link works - you may have to log in.
Next are coming in for a bit of a hard time, judging by all the comments ... It seems a fair number of people do 'get it'.
" if it didn't come off a fucking shelf labeled boy or girl. Is anyone that stupid?"
Unfortunately
Sorry I’ve been away from the thread – I am a transplanted Yank and yesterday was Thanksgiving so I’ve been busy with that . Himalaya and I have exchanged a couple of PMs on the survey, but I said I’d share my thoughts here too because I think it would be great if more people were involved in feedback and in contributing to the final version.
Big thanks to Himalya for being the one to get us started with an action plan rather than just an idea to do something. The idea of using the womanpower of MN to survey lots of stores in different locations, and to track where certain iconic items are shelved, was a stroke of genius.
Have people (other than the few who requested PMs) had a chance to look at a draft of the survey before we finalise it? Is there any reason not to post a link to it on the thread so that everyone can weigh in if they want to?
I do still have the one main concern that I’ve expressed upthread, and that’s the view that by not keeping it to clearly marked “boys” and “girls” aisles / sections / web search filters, we will make the findings much less objective and therefore much less powerful.
The current draft of the survey asks:
Were there obvious sections for ‘boys’ and ‘girls’ toys in store?
Yes with signs
Yes but without signs (clue: if you are not sure ask a shop assistant, or your child)
No, toys were arranged by theme / function
See, I think that the question should simply be “Were there signs indicating which toys were for girls, and which were for boys”. I don’t think it’s useful to include a subjective assessment of a section being clearly meant for girls or boys, if it’s not labeled in that way, because we are only inviting a response of “if you think that pink is just for girls or Lego is just for boys, that’s your own hang-up, nobody’s saying they can’t go into that aisle, blah blah blah”.
I know that when I see a ‘wall of pink’ in a toy store I think “grrr…. ‘girl’s section”, and I know that other MNers interested in taking part in this will, too. But however right our judgment may be, it’s still our subjective judgment and therefore should not be part of a survey for gathering facts.
Besides, if the retailer groups toys by function and puts all the domestic roleplay items together, then there is going to be a row of dollies and prams and kitchens. And because manufacturers and advertisers are also a major part of the problem here, most of those things will be packaged in pink. So there will be a wall of pink, which we’ll assess as clearly a girls’ section even without a sign. You can already anticipate the retailer arguing that they’re doing what we want, grouping by function, and the problem isn’t them at all, it’s the fact that all the play kitchens arrive in pink boxes; take it up with the manufacturer. I really think it will weaken our argument.
Whereas if the aisle is actually labeled “Girls’ Toys” or “Boy’s Toys”, then it’s much more straightforward to say it’s the retailer’s responsibility that those signs are there, and we’re asking them to take them down because they perpetuate damaging stereotypes and assumptions.
I think we have to anticipate the argument from the other side and try to conduct a survey that isn’t going to give them that kind of ammunition.
There are enough retailers who do explicitly label sections as “Boys Toys” and “Girls Toys” that we could do a really effective piece of work without including those that don’t say it explicitly.
Besides, if we’re not sure and ask the shop assistant or child, and the shop assitant or child says ‘yes that’s the girls section over there, with all the pink stuff and the dolls and kitchens’, then are we measuring how the retailer is labeling things, or how conditioned members of society (such as the assistant or the child) already are to read those items as ‘for girls’, even with no sign present?
That said, if the consensus (and it would be great to have some discussion of the survey on thread, so that there is a sense of consensus) is that we should include gendered sections that are not explicitly marked as such, then I think another category has to be added into question 4.
Question 4 is the brilliant one about where certain iconic items are displayed. Things like chemistry sets and doll buggies. The choices are:
In the ‘boys’ section or with a label ‘for boys’
In the ‘girls’ section, or with a label ‘for girls’
In a common section with ‘girls’ and ‘boys’ version (e.g. pink / blue)
In a common section / unisex
Not in store
I think it will be a majorly missed opportunity to have people recording this information, without the final results showing clearly whether chemistry sets and kitchens were stocked in sectioned with signs explicitly stating that they are for one gender or the other. There’s just far too much subjectivity in saying that something was “in the boys section” just because all the boxes were blue. It muddies the water as to whether the “blue is for boys, pink is for girls” assumption is the retailer’s, or the surveyor’s.
I’ve probably said enough. Sorry about the length and repetitiveness of the post and for the delay in weighing in. And I really don’t want to take anything away from the work that Himalaya has done here, I think it’s fantastic.
To summarise:
Can we please have more posters' input on the survey, possibly post a link on the thread?
Can we please think again about whether it’s wise to include sections that we perceived to be gendered, but that are not explicitly marked as such?
And if we do include sections that aren’t explicitly marked, can we please separate out the “marked for boys” and “perceived to be for boys” options in Question 4?
puddlejumper if you're still around, I meant to say thanks for your response re: including Ireland.
I was in Tesco and Boots on Wednesday, and took photos of the toy aisles there. Both clearly labeled with signs for "Toys For Girls" / "Toys for Boys" in Tesco, and "Gifts for Boys" / "Gifts for Girls" in Boots
In Boots, all the Lego City and all of the Duplo - including the farm and zoo sets that my dd plays with constantly - were directly under the "Gifts for Boys" sign. In the Girls' section, there was a bag of pink MegaBlocks, and nothing else even remotely construction orientated. Lots and lots of makeup though.
Yep, still here, just lurking. I'd love to have a look at the survey too.
Looks good at first glance I'll have closer look at the detail later.
The thing that jumps out at me at first glance is that I think this will do better as two surveys: one for in-store and another for on-line. We'll get a lot more respondents that way.
I imagine there will be plenty of people who will be happy to help to from their sofa, but who are unable to get to the shops. Similarly there will be lots of people who are going to the shops anyway, but who will find it hard to get a spare minute at home to fill in the online bit.
And even those who are able to do both will benefit from being able to submit whichever one they find time to do first, without having to hold on to the piece of paper with their results on it until they get round to doing the other one.
We'll get significantly more data that way, I promise!
I'm doing another one for a client, so I'll pay for one month before it gets to 100
I think we want to look at what will get the most people to see the consequences of genderising(yes, I know that's not a real word ) toys.
Focussing on it discouraging children from certain careers/hobbies might be one of the best methods, and garner more attention. It's harder for people to argue against that, obviously they still will, but no companies want to be seen as condoning when retailers actively discourage 50% of the population.
We want to be able to go to medical bodies (eg. NHS) and say, "Are you happy that little girls are told by retailers that they can only be nurses and little boys are told they can only be doctors?". The answer there can only be no.
It'll also be good to be able to go to celebrities, eg. top male chefs and say, "Are you happy that retailers are discouraging little boys from being interested in cooking?"
Maybe add sports equipment to the list too. I'm sure after the Olympics there are a fair few female athletes that would get behind this.
Love question 5 on the online one Is it worth adding a note taking space to it? So we can comment on whether the girls and boys are at least being sold comparable products?
If you're finding surveymonkey limiting, I have a Survey Gizmo account we can use if you like.
It can have up to 500 responses a month as standard, but if it gets really popular I believe it can be extended (for free - well that's what the website says anyway!)
It's a student account so I'd have to use the data somehow for something uni-related, but that's not a problem! It would however have this badge at the bottom - do you think that matters?
Just let me know if you want to use it
I can't take credit for Equal Play, that was DH
OK, I'm going to point out things I think might be difficult to understand or need changing. I hope I don't sound like I'm nitpicking, just trying to help!
In the Sofa surfer's edition (great name btw ) the following isn't clear: are all questions meant to apply to both the website and the catalogue, or are some specifically for the catalogue and others just for the website? So, if question 2 is just for the catalogue, that needs to be stated in the question, for example.
I also wonder whether you really mean toys for 5 and up? DS is 3.10 and has been playing with toys for a while which are often in the "gendered" sections (craft sets, dress up clothes, a buggy from your list).
I like Fair Play
The double meaning works well.
aufaniae please don't apologise for nitpicking! I think this needs to be as much a collaborative effort as possible - the more input and improvement before launching, the better.
Himalaya I hadn't even been thinking about press coverage / Christmas when I posted the OP, but I suppose that's just because I didn't expect so much enthusiastic interest straight away!
You're right though, since we have the momentum, if we could do something in the lead-up to Christmas, that might be a good opportunity. I still think we should take the time we need to get broad input from MNers, though - the constructive feedback this evening has been really useful, and I'm sure others might also have good ideas we'll want to include.
I like "Equal Play" because it sounds like "Equal Pay", which underscores the link to career paths, fostering aspirations, etc. But I also like "Fair Play" a lot, and I think it might be catchier.
Re: the updated survey, I think it's getting better and better. Three outstanding issues for me:
1) Where did the 5 and up focus come about? I missed it on the thread if it was discussed / debated, but I don't think there's any reason to be prescriptive about the age range. Something interesting might come out about how early this stuff starts, if we just leave it open to all toys.
2) Question 5, Points 1 & 2 really need to be separated out to ask whether the gender is indicated on the package or on the shelf, rather than treating those two things as the same. One (the shelf) is in the power of the retailer to change, the other (the packaging) is not (at least not directly).
3) I think there should be a comment box under Question 3 on the sofa surfer's edition.
I'm so, so delighted that this is taking off
Himalaya
A point, not a pint
Himalaya I meant to say that I think the "if this is wrong... Why isn't this?" pictures idea is a good one.
Is everyone for a Facebook page? Would it be useful at this stage? I'll start one tonight if so - please keep weighing in on a name for the campaign
(I may be overthinking)
I think we're all overthinking at this stage :D But as someone said upthread, better to overthink than underthink!
I still think this is - and has been from the start, for me - as much about what is presented as being 'what girls should play at' by virtue of being in the aisle labeled 'girls', as it is about the implication that girls should not play with the construction toys etc in the other aisle.
It is really important to me that image stuff is included. And at least one other person has posted to say they think so too.
I'm willing to admit that the control freak in me is twitching at the fact that you Himalaya are the only one with access to edit the survey and therefore have a kind of veto power over what's on it.
Please add the image stuff - I'm not too proud to beg.
Thank you
yy aufaniae, thank you for putting that across in one post more effectively than I managed to in five
I never meant to imply that toy shops should stock shaving toys for boys! The ridiculousness of that notion does beg questions about why toy versions of personal grooming products are accepted as good options for girls to play with, though.
I'm not SO much a control freak that it needs to be up to me when the survey launches. I just didn't want to lose the image stuff, which was central to the reason I wanted to do a campaign, because I'd failed to convince the person who happened to be holding the pen (as you aptly put it, H).
I think the survey keeps improving with people's input, but i know we'll have to call time on the endless redrafting! I'm happy to go with the majority view. If people think it's ready, so be it. Calling all lurkers! Please come weigh in!
H I agree with you that baby toys don't tend to be segregated, but I wonder if it would be better to include "toys for babies / 18 mo and younger" or whatever on the list anyway? That way the results should show that the heavy gender messages start around toddlerhood, rather than us going into it assuming that's the case?
If the surveys come back with lots of ticks in "unisex section" for baby toys, we can say to retailers, "you're getting it right at the baby stage; what happens at age two or so that children are suddenly directed toward different toys depending on their gender?"
Himalaya I hope you don't mind that I've decided we're now on a first-letter basis
I think I like Fair Play better, but it has been used before.
what about Let's Play Together! or (i don't know, sorry 
)
I like "Let toys be toys" as it reinforces the idea that we just want children to play freely without gender issues coming into it. (We're not the political ones, they are! )
oh Lady
how awful.
Green has always been my favourite colour. I would hate to think that it has to be a boy's colour.
PS: maybe you could tell your daughter that actually, green is a girls' colour - it was used along with purple and white for the WSPU (later the suffragettes)
here info
and here
here
and another one
I like "let toys be toys"
I see Barbie and Action Man together on the picket line, Toy Story style
Nickel - I tried my best with the green! Including feigning ignorance ( "why on earth can't boys have pink?") but it didn't work
I've already planned that if DD tries to pull a stunt like that it'll be "either you get the one you wanted before you were brainwashed into thinking boys and girls can't have the same colour or you'll be blowing on the hoover pipe for the next 5 years"
I'm well aware this might not work (and doesn't help you in the slightest )
at blowing on the hoover pipe.
Lady, tell your DD that I got married in green, with flowers in my hair!
I got married in green as well
no flowers, but stars in my hair
maybe we were separated at birth
Pluto, I got married in pink! A lovely deep dusky pink, with a rose in my hair and a baby on my hip!!
I was out all day and the mobile died, so just catching up now. MrsDevere I love the idea about the cards.
I want to try and get a Facebook page up and running tonight. I am happy to have other admins on the account so that this campaign keeps its grassroots, collaborative feel and doesn't become about one person's view (mine or anyone else's) of how we should move forward. I'm aware that I have strong opinions on the issue and have found the back-and-forth of agreement and disagreement and having to justify my views so far on this thread to be really good for refining the arguments also I don't want all the responsibility .
Now, while I spend the next hour or so going through my MN posting history with a fine-tooth comb before outing myself via Facebook, would the rest of you like to agree on a name for our campaign?
The contenders so far are:
Equal Play (optional tagline: Let Toys Be Toys for Girls and Boys)
Fair Play (optional tagline as above)
Let Toys Be Toys ... for girls and boys [tagline]
EqualiToy
Apologies if I've missed any - rushing to go and do bedtime now. Please add other suggestions and / or vote on your favourite. Majority rules! That goes for you too, lurkers !!
ConsiderCasey It is a killer colour which can do anything!!! Starting to get scaredof pink...
aufaniae - I got a clandestine photo of some 'boy stuff' bits - the one thing (other than the recorder debacle) that made me feel slightly ill!
DD spent the rest of the day attacking people with her toy dinosaur so I think there's hope for her yet!
I'm torn between Equal Play and Let Toys Be Toys. Both work really well.
Would love to be a FB admin if no one minds
Oh yes count me in - was in M&S today and they had a week planner in the toy section - wipe clean chart with headings Monday - Friday and a marker pen and eraser. Perfect for DS to practice his wobbly writing I thought.
But no, only in pink.
I guess boys don't do writing stuff - they barely had a single writing based toy activity there which was aimed at boys.
Also, for both surveys, please can we add a box at the bottom inviting "any more comments". We may well learn some useful stuff here, and I think it's good survey etiquette
Personally, it always annoys me when surveys haven't left a box for comments when I have something relevant to say (sometimes about how their survey has been designed so I've been to tick a box which is not true, for example! It really annoys me that not only have they made me give them false data, they've not given me the chance to tell them! But I digress ... )
Well, I've made a start on the Facebook page - I agree with Himalaya that before it goes 'live' we need to decide what purpose we want it to serve.
Goths and Casey - please pm me your email addresses so I can add you as admins
The page is there in draft form, it's called "Let Toys Be Toys - For Girls and Boys" at the moment, as that seems to be the most popular option. Anything can be changed though!
It needs a profile picture - the timeline 'cover photo' is an aisle of pink with a prominent "Toys for Girls" sign (it's from Tesco, and I chose it mainly because it was the only one I took that was the right landscape shape for the cover shot - if anyone has a better one I'm happy to change it).
I'd love to have the profile picture be a girl having fun with an item you'd never find there in the pink aisle. I have a great picture of dd playing with a dump truck in a sandbox, but DH is an anti-Facebook sort so I'd want to run it by him first and he isn't home tonight. Anyone have a good picture of a kid defying the prescribed roles? Who wants to be the poster child of our campaign?
Below is what I've written for the 'About' page. Please feel free to pick it over and give your input; it's important that the description of the group captures the essence of what we're about. Will hope to have things up and running by tomorrow - sorry, it's bedtime now!
Let Toys Be Toys has a simple mission: to send a message to toy makers, marketers, and retailers that it is not acceptable to categorise toys by gender, rather than by theme or function. Our first project is to convince retailers to remove the signposts in their shops, catalogues, and websites that label some toys for "Girls" and others for "Boys".
It is not the place of retailers to determine which children should play with which toys, outside of safety warnings related to age. A child should not have to find the courage to subvert adult expectation before she can choose a rocketship from a toystore shelf labeled "Boys". A child should not be made to feel that he is not a 'proper' boy because he wants a doll that's in a section labeled "Girls".
We will be conducting a survey of toy retailers across the UK and Ireland, in order to determine which are the most (and least) child-friendly with regard to respecting the right of all children to play freely with the toys that most interest them as individual human beings, without being subject to the oppressive expectation that their interests are predetermined by their gender.
Toys should be for fun, for learning, for stoking imagination and encouraging creativity. They should not be tools by which to limit children's interests and aspirations, and indoctrinate them into archaic gender roles based on false and damaging stereotypes.
Let toys be toys - for girls and boys.
Good post CC, (the long one, not the one agreeing with me )I like the idea of recommending toys or shops that we like too, rather than just focussing on what p's us off.
I had assumed the FB page would be a page for 'likes', not a group to belong to. It seems people will be most happy with that? I've taken bits from all the feedback on the blurb. Is this better?
Toys are for fun, for learning, for stoking imagination and encouraging creativity. Children should be free to play with the toys that interest them most.
But many retailers are limiting our children's imaginations and interests by telling them that some toys are only suitable for girls and some for boys.
Isn't it time that toy stores, department stores and supermarkets stopped putting signs up telling children and those who buy for them that some toys are only suitable for girls and some for boys?
We’re calling on retailers to sort their toys by theme or function, rather than by gender, in their shop aisles and catalogues, and on their websites.
Let toys be toys - for girls and boys.
ConsiderCasey (I got your message btw ) I love your post above. Thanks for sorting through the thread for the ideas for the Facebook page - it looks promising when you list it all out like that!
I also like "It's not a boy thing. It's not a girl thing. It's a toy thing!"
And I am second-guessing 'Let Toys Be Toys' as the name now (still happy to keep it if it remains the most popular option among the group though). Partly because I wonder if we might be approaching MNHQ at some stage to look for some kind of support from them, and the name might be too close to the 'Let Girls Be Girls' campaign at that stage? I know the similarity works in our favour on one hand.
I wonder if Fair Play, Equal Play, or EqualiToy, with the "It's not a boy thing...." strapline might be a better option?
Murder - is that you volunteering to do visuals?
I'm thinking of this kind of thing reality
One question - are we aiming the fb page at adults only?
Again, with visuals we could use pictures which would appeal to children. There's nothing like pester power to hook in the adults. dd frequently looks at whatever I'm doing online (she thinks mn is part of my work now!) So pictures of toys that kids want, being shown as both boy/girl thing could have a lot of draw.
I like 'let toys be toys' for various reasons - it echos 'boys will be boys' and challenges the idea that there are set patterns of behaviour for each gender. It also resonates with the 'let girls be girls' campaign and reminds people that we are hooked up about teaching kids to conform to certain roles. It also puts the emphasis on the toys. We're not trying to drag children into a certain view point, more that we're trying to ensure their toys don't do that. ie, we're focussing on something that should be neutral - their toys - and trying to keep that neutral, rather than trying to tell children how they should behave.
Not sure I expressed that well, but I hope it makes sense.
I can absolutely do that kickass
If people suggest ideas, I'll give it a go
That's good, aunfaniae I know I tend toward wordiness - thanks for helping me out.
"UK and Ireland please!" Sorry
Ooh I like what you've done with question 5
The only bit of the blurb I'm still not sure about is "Children should be free to play" now that we've (rightly) eliminated from the blurb a lot of the explanation about why we think they're not free at the moment.
I'm afraid it will sound too strong and invite comparisons that will lead to "what a first world problem" type responses. The fact is, we're not talking about kids who aren't free to play because they're working in the mines, or kids who are going to be persecuted (overtly) by the church or government if they're seen with a toy that's not aimed at their gender.
So I think that line needs a little bit of qualifying - like "Children should feel free to play with the toys they enjoy most" or something like that.
Does that make sense? Or am I just adding extra words ?
I think it's about the same, Himalaya - Smyths, Debenhams, Boots, Tesco. There are some in the UK that aren't here (at least where I am) like John Lewis and a couple of others that have been mentioned.
That's great that the Association covers both - lends some rationale to sticking Ireland in there too
Once the 'launch' thread is up and running I will post somewhere higher traffic (chat, I guess?) and call for Irish MNers to come take part.
Brilliant. Roll on 26 nov and getting started
Interesting! It would seem Hamleys need congratulating already for getting rid of boys' and girls' sections in favour of themes, about a year ago. Well done Hamleys!
Story here (Sorry for torygraph link!)
And, it may have been in response to a complaint from a mumsnetter! See this blog post by Dr Laura Nelson, who's got a "Mumsnet blogger network" badge on her blog. (Is she here on this thread already, I wonder?).
That got me thinking, Himalaya for your point 3 of the plan "identify key targets" do you mean targets as in retailers and manufacturers, or as in influential types we'd like to get involved? (e.g. famous types, journos and bloggers who are likely to support the campaign).
If you meant only the first, can we add "identify PR targets" to the plan? (Actually, is there a nicer way to put that? I'm not sure if I'd be happy to be called a "PR target"!)
Then, what should we do in the meantime if we come across people we think should be on the list? Is someone going to collect names offline, or should we post to this thread? Would it be sensible to post the list openly on this thread or not? (I'm not sure either way!) I'm asking as I have a mental list of people already from some articles I've just read, but my memory is pants!
A campaign twitter account would be good too, particularly to get people involved who tweet a lot - like Caitlin Moran for example.
Anyone object if I post it to chat too?
(I might cut the words down a little too. Sorry, can't help it! I write for the web as part of my job )
OK, it's posted in chat too.
I'm not sure I did manage to cut down the actual wordcount in the end! But I had a play with the words and laid it out in a way that's a bit more webby. (I just can't help it, sorry!)
A tip for writing for the web, just in case you're interested! It's good practice to use descriptive phrases as links, so:
An Escher picture made of lego
... for example, rather than:
An Escher picture made of lego here
This is for two reasons: firstly people very often scan web pages rather than reading them, and it's easier to quickly see the meaning of descriptive links rather than "here" links. Also, for SEO purposes, Google will pay much more attention to a descriptive link. (It does look at words next to the link, but the actual words of the link are more important).
Right I'll stop before I digress too far into the world of web. Hope it's useful
Okay, if anyone wants to get an early 'like' in to the Facebook page, please search for "Let Toys Be Toys - For Girls and Boys". I was going to link but was afraid people who clicked would end up logged in as me . That's stupid, right? Reassure me please so I can link on the launch thread without fear!
Will post a thread officially launching our Campaign tomorrow (at a time when there's more traffic and it has a better chance of staying in 'Active'), with links to the Facebook page and survey threads.
It would be great to have some posts up on the Facebook page before we put it out there, though! So far it's only got its profile pics (which can be changed once there are more pics up - as someone said upthread it could be a good vehicle for interactive interest) and the hard-won blurb
Totally blowing my "write less for the web" plan out of the window there
Have as yet not perfected the art of the concise rant!
OneHandWavingFree I promise you linking to a Facebook page will not mean people are logged as you
Here's the link to the facebook page
Love the picture of the little girl and her digger against the background of the barbie stuff btw
phew thanks aufaniae. I thought your reply on the other thread was spot on. But then, I like words!
The most wonderful little girl in the world is my dd The pic is just a place holder until someone volunteers another pic like it (maybe of an older child, or of both genders, or whatever) to use as the profile pic.
I think a new thread isn't too much. Probably.
I'm leaning towards thinking it's a good idea anyway, as if it's a launch, then it's easier if people see a fresh thread, rather than this one with nearly 500 messages to trawl through!
Don't forget the two survey threads will disappear in a few weeks / once we have the data.
Also, this is the campaign thread, so we're all in agreement here.
But once we launch the idea, people will want to debate the toss (this is mumsnet after all!) This thread is working brilliantly IMO. It'd be a shame to have this thread full of people arguing about whether it's a good idea or not!
We could use the other thread to announce stuff (kind of like the public face of the campign on MN) and for getting involved with debates with critics about whether marketing affects children. And save this thread for planning.
And anyway, if we're promoting this, the more threads the better, surely?!
What do you think?
Btw, can I ask which talk section it'll be launched it in? Reckon we need one with good traffic (but not AIBU of course, that would be just asking for trouble!) Is chat the best for traffic? Or somewhere else?
Your reasoning for a new thread makes sense. I was thinking Chat, but I'd forgotten about the threads disappearing thing. Open to suggestion!
I don't mean to be presumptuous re: being the one to launch the campaign on a new thread, I realise that this thing has taken on a life of its own (yippee!) and lots of people have put effort into it, so if you or someone else wants to be OP, that's okay too.
Just let me know so I don't miss it and then look stupid trying to re-launch a campaign that already lives on an existing thread
Think I just found our campaign spokeperson
This girl is great!
I think the graphics/memes need to "remind" people to notice the way that toys are targetted by gender and feel angry about -- which is why I think parallels with education and employment are worth making.
Like if nurser school teachers said "OK Jane is going to sit on the pink table and make biscuits and learn to knit, and Jack is going to sit on the blue table with the Lego and the cars" ..... I think 100% of parents would recognise how inappropriate that is and be . The graphics need to get them to have the same feeling.
Rikers she sounds like my 3yo DD. She was invited to a pirates and princesses party for her friend's birthday and was the only girl there dressed as a pirate. She had a great time but really wasn't impressed with the sparkly fairy wand in the gift bag!
She brought it home and turned it into an aerial on her toy Octopod.
That's odd, nickelbabe - I've just checked permissions on the page, and the right boxes are all ticked for "everyone can post to timeline", "everyone can add photos to timeline", "visibility allowed on page."
euphemism I hope to have the main thread launched (I think PuddleJumper has convinced me that Chat is the place - anyone else want to weigh in?) this evening, with links to the survey and the Facebook page.
There's only the name issue to be resolved, which will be important for Twitter of course. I've counted back the posts that weighed in on the name question, and after eliminating duplicates and posts that cancelled themselves out with "well, on one hand I like Equal Play, but then again, Let Toys Be Toys is good too..." type responses , the tally is 2 for Let Toys Be Toys and 6 for Equal Play.
So I'm thinking we should go with LadyKinbote's suggestion of combining the two options with Equal Play as the name and Let Toys Be Toys as the tagline. That way the survey threads will still make sense in relation to the campaign, and anyone who's liked the page or followed this thread will know we're still talking about the same campaign.
If this is a terrible idea, please post to say so within the next hour!
I think it makes sense
i sometimes fucking hate my sister
Oh God, Somerset, if I wasn't convince before... would not love to be mistaken for "let's tell the toy makers to stop trying to teach our kids! Play should not be educational!"
could you make two facebook pages?
one called Equal Play ans one called Let Toys be Toys?
(fighting for Toys because that was my idea.... )
Murder - i ranted exactly how i felt.
and it's true - my little sister is very very very very "boys should do/have this and girls should do/have this"
she even takes the piss out of me not wanting DD to have "girlish" clothes!
My main concern with "Let Toys Be Toys" is that it begs the questions "... Let them be toys instead of what? Who's keeping toys from being toys?". I mean, a Bratz doll is still a toy, a digger is still a toy, etc.
What we mean of course, is "Let toys be used as objects for fun and exploration, instead of tools of gender oppression", but I don't think many people are going to get all that meaning from "let toys be toys".
I also see the issues with "Equal Play". But I think the other group (the study on young gay athletes) is small enough, far enough away, and different enough in its focus that if we include the strapline about toys, the two things won't be confused and we won't do them any damage. I also tend to agree with euphemism that the people who would be turned off by "Equality" (I know they exist but seriously, ) would not see any problem with the status quo anyway. I don't think it would actually lose us anyone to use the word "Equal".
I think what we're going for is to galvanise the support who people who are sick of this gendered stuff in toy aisles already, and hopefully to pick up some more people along the way who haven't thought much about it before but can see our point once we make it. I don't think we could possible choose a name that would change the minds of people who would actively argue against removing the "Girls" sign from over the doll shelf.
Would it be much to long to say Equal Play : Let Toys Be Toys, For Girls and Boys ? Because if we drop 'for girls and boys', I think that toys being toys thing is still not making terribly clear what it is we're on about.
There is a perfect name out there.... I'm not going to rush to change the name tonight if people are still kicking it around; I think that we'll hit on something we can all get behind. But you can only change the name on a page with fewer than 200 likes, so if we're looking to spread the word even as we discuss names, we do need to decide on one soon.
I'm itching to spread the word, accidentally invited a few people already .
I think Let Toys be Toys says they are just toys, not gender specific toys, not boys toys, not girls toys, just toys. I think it works, (and I like the way it suggests 'let boys be boys' which is often said as a way of agreeing with shite behaviour), but if a few people think it's unclear then I don't mind going with Equal Play.
My OH baulked at all the other names for sounding too lefty feminist - not that there's anything wrong with lefty feminist, just that we want to cast the net far and wide. I see the point about the shut ears already being shut though, quite possibly.
That's a thought, Goths - but at the moment I think there's a lot of overlap between this thread and the Facebook membership (and if I'm wrong, what are you lot waiting for?! Come 'like' the page! ).
So we'd be unlikely to reach a clear decision unless the discussion on a name went on for awhile, in which case I'd be afraid it would make the campaign looks terribly unorganised...?
Why don't we do a shortlist of names and taglines, do a vote overnight on this thread, tally it up in the morning and then stick with it? I'd offer to write up the shortlist myself if only DS would GO TO SODDING SLEEP!
I have fallen out of the loop a bit so please forgive if this has been said.
I think both Let Toys be Toys AND Equal Play are brilliant names however,
I think it would be easy for certain factions to roll their eyes a the 'equal play' one because of its associations with equal pay/feminism etc.
They cannot accuse us of being man hating if we use Let Toys be Toys because of its nod towards let boys be boys and its lack of any political connections (however tenuous)
I speak as an ordinary WC gal who mixes mostly with apolitical (at best) or distinctly anti political people. Women who are terrified of being labeled feminist (sad but true).
I would like for this campaign to gently draw those in who would run a mile from anything they deem 'bra burning'
Sorry if thats a bit garbled, I am rambling a bit. I hope you get what I am trying to say. Sorry if it has been said already
Grimma I know it's not clear, that's what I meant. Something with that idea, only clear and catchy (in a way that "Free to Play" is not)!
Darn, I'd been thesaurusing and about to suggest 'Just Play'.
Just amazed they featured it all tbh
I like It's A Toy Thing (Not a Girl or Boy Thing) Anyone else? Other than ashes who suggested it, of course!
trisha did something happen on Facebook? I've been logged of for an hour or so.
Glad some like it. Hope it's not a problem that it was inspired by the quote from the Swedish toy bloke in that article?
Flatmate says they're all pretty snappy.
Equal Play is "A bit ambiguous as to what is means"
She likes "Let Toys be Toys" best.
She's least so keen on "It's a toy thing"
Too tired to give reasons why, needs sleep
Okay, so I think we should give the name thing another day to give LURKERS the chance to weigh in and to give a few frequent posters on this thread a chance to make up their minds! Can we say 8pm is the deadline, so that we can give people who might be working a chance to check in, but still launch the thread and the name (if different) on Facebook in time for some evening traffic?
The main contenders are:
Equal Play (possible tagline: Let Toys Be Toys):
Arguments in favour: would make a good hashtag / less ambiguous / short, sharp, to the point.
Arguments against: might put people off by sounding too 'strident' / some ambiguity in regard to whether it's about gender, race, disability, etc. / existing campaign on Facebook, though small and in Australia.
Votes I've counted for Equal Play (please correct me if I've gotten your vote wrong): 5: Goths, Somerset, Grimma, Kinbote, feelathome.
Let Toys Be Toys (tagline, or part of main name: For Girls and Boys):
Arguments in favour: resonates with 'let boys be boys' / less militant sounding / doesn't sound like a 'threatening' ask / it's a direct ask, not just a related phrase / useful phrasing for targeted campaign (i.e. 'Tell Boots to Let Toys Be Toys').
Arguments against: ambiguity - let them be toys as opposed to what? educational tools? etc. / doesn't lend itself as well to a hashtag / might overstate or mis-state the issue - is anyone actually keeping toys from being toys, even if they are being segregated inappropriately?
Votes I've counted for Let Toys Be Toys (again, feel free to correct me): 3: trishawisha, MrsDevere, Himalaya
It's A Toy Thing (tagline, or part of main name: Not a Girl or Boy Thing):
Arguments in favour: When the full name is used, it's the least ambiguous and most to the point / good hashtag / catchy without relying on another phrase (equal pay or let boys be boys) / might appeal to kids themselves.
Arguments against: Loses clarity when full name isn't used, and full name is too long for a hashtag.
Votes I've counted for It's a Toy Thing (correct me as above!): 6: ashes, PuddleJumper, Casey, euphemism, InigoMontoya, OneHand.
aufaniae and RikersBeard - you so effectively argued both sides of the argument for two or more names, that I didn't know where to put you! Let us know!
am landing in favour of LTBT
can I count as a vote for Let Toys be Toys please?
(as I made it up )
Let's Play Fair
?
Sorry guys!
I've just seen this thread, and I think it's a fab idea. Well done to all the brains behind the idea/s
I think I prefer Let Toys be Toys for the same reason as RikersBeard. They are all very catchy and memorable though.
LAST BUMP BEFORE CAMPAIGN NAME TALLY
Any more late votes?
I do like the name really, Well done to nickelbabe for coming up with Let Toys Be Toys.
As for the "For Girls and Boys" bit (which was added after the original LTBT suggestion) - should it be a strapline or part of the name (except where we're restricted to short names, like on Twitter)?
I think it needs to be part of the name, in order to clarify what the campaign is actually about.
That is depressing, ashes - only one item on that list is an actual toy!
Now is as good a time as any Reckon this sort of time is good for traffic.
We can always bump it tomorrow and keep it in active convos.
Okie dokie ashes
GAH I just saw a typo - double negative Damn. I must have re-read it twenty times before posting, too.
Well, when I ask MNHQ to fix the error, anything else I should mention they might do for us?
Typo where?
Can they put it in discussions of the day tomorrow?
Oops, I just posted this on the wrong thread - I put it on the survey one! Shall I ask for it to be deleted? Sorry !
"I thought of something to add to the survey! Sorry - is it too late?
Could we add a tick box, asking people if they'd be happy for us to use their pictures on our facebook page, in case we get any really good ones?
(If it's not possible I guess we could always PM to ask for permission to use, if they leave their MN nickname)"
This is more exciting than Christmas
Thanks, Himalaya ! Well done too to Admins / Content Creators trishawisha , aunfaniae , MurderOfGoths and ConsiderCasey
I think it'd be great to become a Mumsnet campaign, we'd get great publicity.
I don't think it'll hurt to contact them sooner rather than later would it?
They can let us know what they need from us to become an official campaign.
I imagine they'll support it - I mean why wouldn't they, it's a great campaign
MrsMushroom not yet. You are witnessing the birth of a new campaign!
AFAIK no one's spoken to mumsnet about becoming official yet, but it's on the to do list
Aufaniae I wonder how they'll react when asked about it! Do you think they'll get behind it?
MrsMushroom oh that's a real shame about the Sainsbury's website! They've got it so right in my local store.
Their web designers need to take a leaf out of their own store designers' book!
I feel hopeful that Mumsnet will get behind us, it's a great campaign.
MrsMushroom I'm so glad you joined us! Please get involved with the surveys - the things you've noticed about Sainsbury's search results is exactly the kind of thing we're trying to highlight.
You're right about the overt signposts and the pink/blue coding being two aspects of the exact same issue, of course. It's true we're starting with the most overt way in which retailers segregate toys by gender (with the signs), because we think it's the argument least likely to get sidetracked into a "but what's wrong with pink" type debate. Also, it's completely in the retailer's control and can be changed overnight, whereas the pinkification issue will have to target merchandisers, advertisers, parents, etc. as well so it's a bigger project. We'd like to build some momentum with the removal of gendered signposts as our first success!
But we are tracking colour coding on the survey too, and the results will inform our next steps.
Oooh 98 'Likes'
I'm standing by with 
to toast #100! Would anyone like to join me?
<refresh page; refresh page; refresh page>
Ooh! Twitter! The great voice of the people. They were saying on Radio 4 the other day that Twitter affords ordinary people more power than any other form of media ever has before.
I'm off the booze as upduffed!
I'll definitely join you in a virtual though, I can have as much as I like of that
101 !! all around (you too, preggers )
Well done everyone!
Yay! Congratulations everyone!
Mmmmm even virtual tastes good!
well done to you all for starting this. Am v pleased to be here and to see what happens!
I think that's a damn good start for the first day, here's to keeping the momentum going!
I think I was the 100th or possibly 101st...
Fantastic page
OHWF
Point taken re. the keeping the focus onto our main aim of taking the signs down. I guess if we want to respond to any debates that arise on the FB page we can post as ourselves but when posting as admin it would be best to keep to the point of the display signs and how they unnecessarily limit choice. I totally get that.
The only problem I have with the one and only aim = "for boys/ for girls " signs is that in many places the signs don't have explicit wording but will have clear pictures of only boys OR only girls which is effectively the same as explicit wording. Eg. The construction aisle in ToysRUs has a massive label poster with 4 jumping boys, not a single girl to be seen, which is just as, if not more exclusive than a worded label.
Now you're gonna say "baby steps, Casey, baby steps!" I know I know!
Sorry I missed all that as I was typing with one finger! The 100 mark! Congrats to all, big thanks to H and OHWF!
Casey - cheers!
I get what you're saying about signs with pictures, and pink and blue writing in shops / catalogues. I think that's the same thing as "Boy" "Girl" signs, because they're about in-store marketing by the retailer. Similarly, I think when the retailer comes out with their own range of toys that are called "Boys Stuff" (like M&S has), that's the same thing too.
I think the focus (intially) needs to be on how retailers limit choice, for now. All fo the above are examples of that.
Lego Friends, Pink Jenga, Pink V-Tech Walkers, etc. are very, very much a related issue, but not the current focus of the campaign. So people needs to be able to get into discussions about it, but as you say, I think that when we post 'officially' as the campaign, our current focus should stay on retailers, not on toy companies / manufacturers.
But I'm not trying to 'run' this - it has a life of its own now I'm just posting my own opinion as one of the people involved, and am happy to be argued with if people think that's the wrong approach.
Sorry about typos!
Welcome, ginandtonic - will you settle for a ?
Thanks OHWF I completely understand. it's good to discuss these things cos there are so many things that are intertwined it can be hard to unpick.
Like with the colour pink. In theory pink is just a colour, nothing wrong with that, boys are free to choose a pink toy. But the reality is that you'd be hard pressed to find a boy over the age of 5 who would choose a pink toy because he's been socialised to believe its for girls and that this means if he admits to liking a pink toy he will be teased. It's all so sad. I see it happen to DS and it really feels like an uphill struggle.
Still I'm getting maudlin now so I better get myself to bed. I will probably dream of giant pink toys hitting me on the head!!!
Himalaya I totally agree the self-organising aspect of this campaign is great, and working brilliantly.
I'd quite like to see them come here to join the chat, it's in the spirit of the rest of the way we've organised things!
I'd be really interested to hear what makes a mumsnet campaign from their point of view, and what it would mean for us in practical terms.
It'd be great to get their support (in whatever way works best)
I meant to say, I don't have Twitter and I'm no good with graphics or anything like that, but if there's anything I can do just shout!
Facebook Content Creators I am at work and on my phone so can't do this myself, but there is a fantastic 'flow chart' on the Toward the Stars page (we've liked the page so should be easy to find) on 'how to tell if a toy is for boys or girls'. Will someone please share it on our page? Thanks
Hi TenTonTruck from one of my all time favourite songs I'm sorry if my posts here gave you the impression that the images you've posted aren't welcome! They are, and very much appreciated too We really want as much discussion / posts / interest as possible, from as many people as possible, about the issue of gender segregation in toys.
What I meant to convey (and didn't manage to, particularly well) is that the discussion on facebook and on MN is bound to include discussion about the colour pink, about children's clothes, about multiple versions of the same toys being made because it suits the manufacturer if they 'can't' be handed down from big sister to little brother, etc. And it's good that we might prompt those discussions, because it is all related and all equally important.
But in order to not lose our focus on the actual ask we are making on retailers right now, I think that those of us invested enough in the campaign to be organising it on this thread (and that includes you now, TenTon) should be mindful that we keep bringing the discussion back to the labelling of toys (by words, colour coding of shop aisles, and in-store advertising) by retailers, in their shops, on their catalogues, and on their websites.
Only because we've agreed to target that first, not because we want to ignore (or stifle discussion about) the many other ways in which boys and girls are sold the message that their interests should be predetermined by their gender.
what!!
that means that my entire family is going to be gender-divided this christmas!
my parents always buy everybody the exact same selection box.
now look what's going to happen.
Cadburys? FFS.
xpost mushroom!
Also wern't cadburys the one to come out with the womens choc bar that can be closed for later consumption..because women find one whole candy a but hard to deal with in one sitting
that's the problem isn't it?
i only eat cadbury's.
i would be cutting off my nose to spite my face.
it's because they're owned by kraft now.
one one hand they give us chocolate philadelphia, on the other blatant sexism.
Twitter is great!
I don't understand twitter
Thanks Ashes! I'm feeling a bit challenged socia media wise at the moment! I don't really use twitter that much and don't really understand how it's going to work. In fact, I'm feeling a bit and
Are we going to increase our profile by following people that we think will be interested in our page, in the hope that they will follow us? Or do we blatantly tweet people inviting them to look at our facebook page?
Sorry are those really silly questions?! I feel like I need a twitter lesson!!
ashesgirl, good find they've definitely got a lot of common ground with this campaign.
The only people who can comment / share on their group atre group members however. I've asked to join. We can't join as "Let Toys be Toys" though as that's a page and pages can't join groups IYSWIM.
Are you a member already? Could you comment on that post and point them in the direction of our campaign maybe?
Himalaya, I have been trying to design something, but sadly I have a crappy 7 year old laptop with no memory or decent picture-editing software.
Didn't MurderofGoths say that she was a graphics whizz ?<looks for MoG>
Not ignoring you, Himalaya - I am useless with graphics
I honestly just clicked on for an update - had no idea I was being mentioned
Your post reminds me of one very weird trip to Tescos. I kept finding stickers attached to Harry Potter merchandise (and a couple of other innocuous things) saying 'Do not buy this satanist abomination' (or something like that).
It was hilarious and scary in equal measures.
Not that I am comparing our noble cause to such madness <oops>
Been racking my brains to think up a good logo but can't <boo>
Yes I think it needs to be positive. I wouldn't be crazy about the idea of telling people not to buy dolls for girls or cars for boys. And I much prefer the idea of business card type things rather than stickers. I don't particularly want to be a vandal, just a persistent nuisance!
Would a boy pushing a buggy have a different impact than a boy holding a doll?
What about silhouetted images, maybe more defined than traffic / restroom signs, though. Boy and girl (harder to identify in silhouette - girl with pigtails, boy with very short haircut - I know those are assumptions too! ), holding hands or arms around shoulders (something to show that they're in this together).
Next to the boy, a doll's house that maybe he's leaning on with his other hand? And in the girl's other hand, she's holding a rocket / airplane type thing as if it's flying?
oooh tougholdbird we are on the same wavelength with the silhouettes and the airplane
(not with the boy holding a doll though!)
I think boy pushing buggy is less inflammatory than boy with doll (it's a wheels thing ). But maybe inflammatory is good - I dunno.
Oh I see, I think I'm getting the logo and cover photo mixed up!
It's a bit mentally exhausting all this planning a campaign business. There's so much to think of. I need a 
?
Maybe we should ask MNHQ for advice on how to organise the whole shebang?
"but also can't really see retailers getting onside"
Hamleys scrapped categorising by gender and changed over to categorising by theme last year.
In general businesses will make changes like this if they think it'll get them some good publicity - and it could well, especially if we manage to make the campaign big enough. Hamleys for example got features in the Telegraph, Mirror and the Guardian (possibly more, this is just what I found by a 10 second google) as well as plenty of blogs etc across the internet.
They'll also make the change if they think to not do so will tarnish their reputation.
Oh and I suppose also if they get an attack of conscience / insight and realise it's the right thing to do (not totally impossible?!)
A good / wide-reaching campaign can definitely help change the behaviour of businesses.
Or to put it another way:
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead
Great MoG!
Oooh great stuff MoG!
Oops had only been 11 hours. And it's been updated now. But still, please post your pics!
Thanks Aufaniae!
What kind of things would be libelous? I don't want to find myself in jail!! Can you give us an example?
That's great Annie thanks to your friend. All the help we can get the better....
OHWF - dont worry, I think that'll work fine, we don't have to be glued to our laptops and we can always check in here to see who's about.
And honestly! No one could accuse you of being "selfish" when it comes to this campaign
ConsiderCasey I really don't mind
How about you do tonight, and I'll do tomorrow daytime?
I'm working from home all day tomorrow anyway and so that would work well for me.
In general, Thursdays or Fridays are good for me.
I'll have a look
In keeping with very helpful, sensible social media tips recently posted, is there a Facebook admin available to change the bright minds post to question form?
Sorry for ordering people around instead of doing it myself, it's just that I'm on the phone and can't see an edit option.
Done
Aufaniae, ok. I will be on networking duty tonight! Actually the whole idea is making me feel v important
Feelathome, do you speak any languages? You could have a look for similar campaigns in other countries that we could link to? We can't be the only country this mad gender segregation happens in.
I've posted this in the facebook page, but thought I'd link it here too.
A reply from Smyths asking if there was an algorithm that picked out "girls" or "boys" in the search box, and they said:
"With regards to searching under the word 'girls' our web team have advised that we do not have an algorithim in place which would designate certain items as 'girls' or 'boys'. Items which are commonly selected or purchased by customers using these key words in their searches may be shown when these words are selected."
so, it just picks up key words from searches and links them together
ConsiderCasey good luck for tonight, have fun
>Items which are commonly selected or purchased by customers using these key words in their searches may be shown when these words are selected."
eh? but the items have to have shown up in a search for the user to have selected them so I don't quite get how this works. Or is it that if you did a search 'girl+science' but didn't find what you wanted and then found your chemistry set using some other search it would then start linking 'girl' to the chemistry set? But how does the search ever find anything first time its used
dunno.
I bet it's just based on search history.
so each visit, maybe? if you search "girl chemistry set" then click on that chemistry set, it'll remember that you askd for that.
and if you go "boy crayola" maybe, and choose that crayola, it'll remember that as a boy choice.
I have a feeling that the IT dept probably didn't know either!
It was me! I don't think it'll hurt to start following people now we've got some content. Just cautioning not to go mad on it! If we have 70 followers but we're following 500, some people might think we're not worth following. I don't think it'll hurt to go a little over.
(IIRC, the maximum you can follow is 2000 btw).
In general it's a great idea to follow people, as many will follow you back You can give them a while to follow you back, and then if they don't ditch them! <ruthless> - unless of course we genuinely want to follow their tweets.
Hello. Just checking in, saw this a few days ago but RL has been taking over.
Firstly I think I luffs you all, this is really great stuff if there's any way I can help out, please please let me know.
The best Twitter tip I was ever given was actually chat with people and engage, don't just beg for RTs.
Edu - you're right - I have good rapport with those who I tweet to and reply to
there you go, you've had macmillan kids replying - it's now polite to follow them
I thought it was pinned there deliberately!
Well thanks to this campaign I am no longer a Twitter virgin but have been following and tweeting merrily away. As if I needed another online addiction!
Have we heard anything from MNHQ yet? Even if they just retweet some of our tweets it would help as it would put them in front of a huge audience.