Am I wrong to let my daughter enjoy being girly then?

TBH I'm not sure that it was deliberately driven by an anti-feminist agenda - just that we live in a more consumer-driven society with (up till relatively recently) credit/excess income that allowed people to buy toys in pink and blue, lots of impractical/'fun' clothes rather than what a kid needed (if s/he wasn't mainly clothed in hand-me-downs anyway).

I believe that as girls and women are getting more independent, free and able to choose their lifestyle the stereotypes have got stronger. It was hardly there when I was a child, not bad when my DCs were little (they are now in their 40s) and, to my mind, pretty horrific now. It's not that there is anything intrinsically wrong with pink (it's just a colour) or camouflage (for boys for that matter) is just the sheer amount of the stuff in many stores and the way slogans on e.g. T-shirts are directed in a sex specific way. Even toddlers' books are coming in pink or blue covers FFS.

It's almost as if there is a backlash against children just being children and society (or more probably marketing) deciding it's time we put girls (who are getting far too uppity for their good) and boys back into their boxes.

tether "It is often used almost as a badge of honour by posters describing their DD's play."

If you're talking about FWR, I would say not more so than that DSs play with dolls, reject guns etc. Feminists challenging culturally-imposed sex-based stereotypes which, relation to toys and childhood, are getting worse. Who'da thunk it?

Tether I think you have explained much better than me what I am trying to do with my boys.
Instead of focusing on 'protecting' girls and women to get equality, I want to teach my boys what being equal means and that starts with the fact doing 'girly' things such as cooking is a good thing to do.
And also for me to avoid vying into the 'boys are strong' paradigm.

Interestingly I also have two boys and a girl and have definitely noticed a difference in the toys DD is given by relatives and different behaviour expectations. DD isn't overly pinkified but she's definitely been pushed towards it by other people and has had access to it in a way my DSs haven't (well, apart from from me)

tethers - I would say that is an argument made frequently on the FWR board (that rather than stopping girls from doing 'girly' things boys should be allowed to do both too. And it is a case of allowing as many parents/Gparents try and steer their boys away from the 'girl' toys) but unfortunately it's not accepted in many other places.

I think the problem really lies with anything traditionally female being perceived as a 'lesser' thing. Being a mother, cooking (rather then being a chef), sewing etc. All things that are seen as 'female' and all arguably as useful as anything 'male' - they just traditionally have a lesser status.

Denigrating a love of pink, as so often happens, could easily send a message to little girls that their opinion doesn't matter. Little boys are just as likely to be influenced as girls so perhaps we should try and work on bringing them up to see the value in 'female' things.

There have been a couple of occasions where I have been shocked to see very young little boys displaying contemptuous behaviour towards little girls their age and younger and I wonder where that is heading in a few years time.

I think we have to be careful- like it or not, (and I don't), in our society, pink and sparkly does signify 'girls'; pink in particular is used to denote gender.

In addition to this, there are activities traditionally associated with girls- hair plaiting, making daisy chains, skipping, handclapping etc.

What I am noticing more and more, particularly on MN, is a 'climbing trees' mentality- by this, I mean, climbing trees, getting messy and playing with trains is seen as the best form of play and something which all children should do. It is often used almost as a badge of honour by posters describing their DD's play. Where does this leave all the play traditionally associated with girls? Is getting muddy and climbing somehow better than skipping? Or do those activities have a higher status because they have been traditionally associated with boys?

I think we are in danger of inadvertently communicating the opposite message to the one we are trying to when combatting gender barriers: pink=girly and girly=bad.

We should not be encouraging our girls to eschew any form of play, colour or toy- instead we should be encouraging boys to play with pink sparkly things too.

I love pink .....so do my three daughters!!! Woohooo

Pictish, just thinking again about your MIL's reaction and trying to deconstruct it.

Is there a chance that she does the eye-rolly thing about the fancy dresses and the tutu not really because they are so 'girly' but because they are slightly 'grand' or 'outlandish' for everyday wear? As in, in her day, tutus and glittery stuff (and their small-boy equivalents, capes and swords) would probably have been confined to the realm of the dressing-up box special occasion wear. So the eye-roll might be rooted in a kind of disapproval re. things not being 'proper' maybe she feels that children should know their place and dress appropriately and not get pandered to when they want to wear something 'unsuitable'? She probably has no clue that it the tutu costs £6, for example.

I just wonder because I've heard a few grandmothers friends of MIL grumble vaguely about this kind of thing but they don't quite know what they're grumbling about...because otherwise they love nice little dresses on their grandchildren, soft cardis, the works.

Could it be that?

Urgh, the doors thing, yes because being treated like a fragile little petal is a privilege .

@ WoT. I feel the same whenever a (male) friend of mine bangs on about women having doors opened for them as if it's some kind of goddess treatment!

Sorry... I realise that's a bit off-topic ....

No. I think your addition was important. People don't see that that is what underlies it. They see female preferential treatment.

And penguins had said basically the same thing but better

Sorry for the double post - took ages for it to appear then appeared twice ...

KaseyM - that's because it's okay for girls to aspire to being boys but boys would some how be lessened by being ' girly' . But people don't seem to realise that that's the message they're putting across.

So true, Penguins.

KaseyM - that's because it's okay for girls to aspire to being boys but boys would some how be lessened by being ' girly' . But people don't seem to realise that that's the message they're putting across.

But the reason girls can wear boy things is that being a boy is basically aspirational. A boy being a girl is demeaning. Hence why there is no male version of tom boy (sissy is as close as it gets).

it is rather delicate looking dress. and really isn't a playing out dress. my only rule is wear when the weather is warm as its thin. it has survived the summer, so has been worth the £13 we paid for it in the spring :)

The problem I have personally with clothes is for DS is that they are not colourful and always seem to have football or "I'm so much trouble" slogans which he doesn't like.

I think that girls have more freedom because it is more acceptable for a girl to wear a boy's t-shirt than for a boy to wear so-called "girly" colours.

misdee, you see I really like that dress and would no issue with that.

I think that when she is 8, she will think that pink is for babies and Little Ponies are for babies.