Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to be fuming at sexist Christmas Presents?

475 replies

WomanlyWoman · 02/10/2011 15:40

I attended my first PTA meeting the other night, during which I discovered that the pta have bought Christmas presents for every child in the school. Nice, right? Then I realised the presents were different according to gender, the older children get books, the younger ones such as my child, in reception, get crafty things from Yellow Moon. Great, except - the girls get flower presses, the boys get cars.

This has really p-ed me off bigtime. For one, my daughter likes cars, car was one of her first words, she adores Lightning McQueen and doesn't seem to realise that it's meant to be for boys. So what message does it give her about herself when she sees the boys getting cars while she gets a flower press? Admittedly she would probably like a flower press too, but that is not the point. What about nature loving boys? Why are these children being given the message that active dynamic machines are for boys and pretty, passive things like flowers are for girls? A nature theme for all of them or a transport theme for all of them would be fine by me, but this just seems so wrong.

I'm very shy by nature and I hardly know any of the other parents. The pta meeting itself was quite an ordeal for me, so I didn't speak up at the time. I thought it was pointless because the presents have already been bought. Why make myself unpopular, so soon, when it's already done and dusted.

Then I started thinking, it's only October, there may be time to send them back and order different ones if enough parents express an opinion similar to mine. Not sure how to go about it though. Opinions and advice appreciated.

OP posts:
Glitterandglue · 03/10/2011 17:01

Laquitar ...what?

I'm talking about kids constantly getting the message that they are wrong and aren't allowed to like/do a certain thing because of what happens to be between their legs. A constant. repetitious message that boys are X and girls are Y and if you're not then you must be in the wrong.

I can't compare that to what you've just described.

minipie · 03/10/2011 17:01

Nothing of substance to add to what has already been said, but I wanted to add my YANBU and good luck.

I was very disappointed to read a lot of the responses on this thread.

GandTiceandaslice · 03/10/2011 17:03

It's a free present.

I wouldn't be at all bothered about it.

Next year make some alternative suggestions.

Laquitar · 03/10/2011 17:08

And i said that in my opinion one present at one christmas is not 'constant' message because children these days have too many toys and too many types of toys, especially when they have siblings.
And that children will always find something to laugh about or to antagonise each other.

Glitterandglue · 03/10/2011 17:13

Right, I'm with you now. Difference of opinion here then because I don't think one present is a constant message either, but that it is part of a constant message being sent out to kids all the time. Even relatively progressive companies buy into it - look at the kids on Waybuloo and see how many of the girls are wearing pink and how many of the boys aren't. It's little things like that, all the time, constantly, that lead to kids like my nephews, who are told repeatedly at home that they can do/wear/be whatever they want, still believing that they can't, because society at large says they can't.

And yeah, kids will always find some way to tease one another, but something like, "I've got green flip flops on so I'm the best," is unlikely to be a constant message that child will receive throughout their life. That nonsense is much easier to brush off as a kid than the nine billionth person telling you, "You can't have that! You're a boy!"

Glitterandglue · 03/10/2011 17:15

Also, forgot to add, my nephews have a younger sister, so they have plenty of opportunities to play with different toys. But will they in public? Will they hell. Haven't since they were in nursery school because that's when they got the messages from peers (and probably school themselves through little things like what started this post) about who they were supposed to be. The youngest one adored dressing up as a princess when he was three. Started nursery school and about two weeks later when his mom said, "Are you being my pretty princess?" he yelled, "NO I'M NOT! I'm not a princess!"

Laquitar · 03/10/2011 17:29

Ok (very quickly because i have to go) i do sympathize about your dns. I think what happens is that we post from every corner of the country so sometimes i don't relate with some posts and i'm sure others don't relate with mine. Tbh i haven't seen what you describe (this doesn't mean i don't believe you of course). In my area i see the opposite: mothers who insist that their girls play with cars and never touch a doll or anything pink. I can see why they do it, it is a reaction to what you have discribed, but i think it is equally unhealthy.

Whatmeworry · 03/10/2011 17:36

To all those accusing the PTA here of rampant sexism, it may be useful to remember that the opposite of gender-neutral is not sexism, its gender-differentiated.

Sexism only exists if the differentiation deliberately disadvantages one party (usually women). We choose to gender-differentiate many things in this life, without people howling "sexism", so its not a sin.

In this specific case, only if the flower press is a deliberately worse present (cheaper, nastier, creates less happiness for less people etc) is that then sexist.

As you were.....

ElaineReese · 03/10/2011 17:39

No - only if the flower press connotes a different set of values (passive, decorative, nature-based and 'pretty', and NOT a car which connotes engineering, power, freedom, mechanics) and promotes them as female ones is it sexist. Which it does, and it is.

CristinadellaPizza · 03/10/2011 17:39

Actually I think the flower press is a worse present - it's a delayed gratification thing, whereas the car is instant toy.

But slow handclap for your oh-so-clever analysis Hmm I don't agree with any gender differentiation actually

Whatmeworry · 03/10/2011 17:47

Actually I think the flower press is a worse present

That may be what's really at issue here :o

Glitterandglue · 03/10/2011 17:49

Oh, I agree with you (dunno if you're still here to read but anyway) that it's equally unhealthy to push it the other way and insist children have to play with the opposite toys they've been pushed into playing with for decades. That doesn't make any sense. I'd just like it to be free choice for all children, seeing as gender is a social construct anyway.

KatieMiddleton · 03/10/2011 17:50

I note no one defending the sexist policy has commented on whether it would be acceptable to divide the class by another protected characteristic like race or religion.

Whatmeworry if I substitute the words in your post relating to sexism with words relating to racism do you still defend the point?

To all those accusing the PTA here of rampant racism, it may be useful to remember that the opposite of race-neutral is not racism, its race-differentiated.
Racism only exists if the differentiation deliberately disadvantages one party (usually non-whites). We choose to race-differentiate many things in this life, without people howling "racism", so its not a sin.

minipie · 03/10/2011 17:58

Whatmeworry I disagree. I think gender differentiated is inherently sexist because it assumes that all girls will like toy X just because they are girls, and all boys will like toy Y just because they are boys. Making assumptions about someone based on their gender is exactly what sexism is.

WoTmania · 03/10/2011 18:00

Yofluffles How is your post of 16:15:34 in anyway relevant to this thread? Boys are damaged just as much by this sort f casual sexism as girls and influenced as much. No one is saying that we're somehown simpering little idiots, quite the opposite.

Whatmeworry · 03/10/2011 18:19

Making assumptions about someone based on their gender is exactly what sexism is

No, Sexism is attempting to discriminate or disadvantage or be prejudiced someone because of their gender.

Making assumptions about someone because of their gender is not sexist unless the assumption disadvantages or discriminates or prejudices against them in some way.

Whatmeworry · 03/10/2011 18:36

Whatmeworry if I substitute the words in your post relating to sexism with words relating to racism do you still defend the point

Of course I do, because my point states facts - we choose to gender differentiate (and differentiate on so many other things as well) in so many areas, and no one turns a hair - because it works! And it works because the sexes are different. That is a fact too.

Where it doesn't work, and it disadvantages one sex, then that is sexism.

Bringing up racism as a comparison is like the OP comparing handing out presents for small kids to handing out yellow stars of davids. If you're going for a reductio ad absurdum ploy, ensure it is not you who is being absurd.

minipie · 03/10/2011 18:40

But for every assumption based on gender, there will be someone to whom that assumption does not apply. That person is disadvantaged by the assumption.

So for example, if the assumption is "all girls would prefer a flower press to a car" then the girls who actually would prefer a car are being disadvantaged by that assumption.

Glitterandglue · 03/10/2011 18:47

Just would like to point out that sex and gender are different things.

Sex is based on chromosomes and usually comes down to what's between the legs/in the chest area and so on. Male, female and intersex.

Gender is a social construct based on whatever a certain society deems is correct for them, which is why in some societies cooking for example is a man's job, in others it's a woman's job. Gender is defined by things/people being feminine, masculine or androgynous.

Differentiating based on sex would be for example giving teenage girls bras and giving teenage boys groin cups.

LadyClariceCannockMonty · 03/10/2011 18:50

'I'd just like it to be free choice for all children, seeing as gender is a social construct anyway.'

There can be no such thing as genuine free choice in a society where there is a social construct. Which is why I'm in favour of the OP (and in fact everyone) sticking their heads above the parapet to challenge aspects of that very construct.

Glitterandglue · 03/10/2011 18:54

I agree with that.

KatieMiddleton · 03/10/2011 19:06

Lol at Whatmeworry's last post. What utter twaddle Grin

Whatmeworry · 03/10/2011 19:28

Lol at Whatmeworry's last post. What utter twaddle

Which bit is twaddle, pray tell - that we commonly gender differentiate, that men and women are different, or that you resorted to using Godwins Law (or whatever the race-card equivalent is)?

projectbabyweight · 03/10/2011 20:01

I thought the race comparison was quite useful.

Meteorite · 03/10/2011 20:09

And many of us here would say that the assumption that girls and boys are "different" in terms of the toys they should automatically be given, is incorrect and does discriminate.

"Making assumptions about someone because of their gender is not sexist unless the assumption disadvantages or discriminates or prejudices against them in some way."