To think the 'pinkification' of girls is only going to do damage in the long run?

[katykuns]

www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/10075913/Meet-the-mother-who-hides-pink-toys-from-her-daughter-and-uses-blue-boy-diapers.html

Very feminine, pretty clothes, in specific colours. Toys that encourage vanity, motherhood, no real aspirations... AIBU to think that if this doesn't stop, that we are actually going to go backwards? Obviously parental influence plays a strong part, and most women do not reinforce the idea of the 1950s housewife is something to aspire to, but surely these gender stereotypes are just unnecessary?

I also think the article should acknowledge boys that don't fall under the 'rough, mischievous, mud riddled' stereotype that I see in toys aimed at boys.

WRT en/discouraging girls to play at being mothers, housewives etc... the real problem is that the low status of these jobs is because they are done by women, and that is a massive problem which needs tackling on a much deeper level than giving girls different toys and dressing up costumes. Otherwise it's like putting a plaster on a broken spine.

In the same way, to eschew everything pink and sparkly is to concentrate on the signifier instead of the signified- we should be asking ourselves why we associate 'girliness' (which pink is shorthand for in our society) with weakness and want to reject it. It is a dangerous message to be sending young girls that they should reject anything 'girly'.

The best way to tackle the problem is not to reject the pink sparkly crap, but to encourage boys to play with it too, without fear of being 'girly'.

"YANBU. I am proud of DD aged 7 who refuses to wear pink, has never been interested in dolls or tea sets and her favourite hobby is football. Anything 'girly' is rejected."

Samnella, can I ask if you would be less proud of her if your DD were 'girly'? And why?

damn, tethers has beaten me to it! :)

I was just about to say that sometimes the message seems to be girl = inferior, and the mothers who are proud their girls like tractors/blue/mud/proper lego are reinforcing a damaging message that 'female' things are not as good as 'male' things. I tell DD that it's all just 'stuff' and it's for everyone, boys and girls, but the shops want us to buy different versions so it sells more.

I actually like pink as a colour (didn't wear it much as a child of the 70's) but DD can't stand it because she doesn't want to be identified as 'soppy' and it saddens me that that's the message she's taking, that girls are somehow soppy and not as exciting as boys.

Having said that I have just returned from Toys R Us on a birthday prezzie buying expedition and God almighty that is a depressing shop! The Lego is all together - except for the Lego Friends which is stashed in the "Girlz" section next to Barbie and Sylvanian families. DD loves Lego but mainly the LOTR and Spongebob sets plus 'useful' stuff. It infuriated me that the pink box of random bricks was half the size of the blue box and didn't have half as many interesting pieces, but it had the 'proper' animals (DD currently constructing the world's largest pet shop out of lego so would like the animals). And I know lots of little boys who like Sylvanian families, why are they in the pink section?

Exactly QueenCadbury

Ppeatfruit, my brother wore a dress when very little too.

Btw, those children were not talking about vaginas or penises, were they? They were using hair and clothes to express an 'otherness', yes? At the ages you describe, they will have had zero or very, very little understanding of genital difference. At that agem when they talk about boys or girls, they don't mean sexual difference, they mean gender difference, ie hair or clothes. Sex is different from gender - sex is innate, is your genitals, gender is the male or female expression your society proscribes for you. By pretending to have long hair and wear a dress, or wearing masculine clothes and saying she was a boy, those children were exploring notions of gender, which is completely normal for toddlers. They learn from birth which hairstyles and clothes mean male or female, don't let their young age make you see it as something different than it is. Otherwise, you'd be suggesting that long hair and dresses are innately female (and vice versa), which is absurd and simply untrue.

Lovecat, mothers do that because all the pinkification and genderisation of toys and clothes tells girls that female means 'other' and/or inferior, not that those mothers personally think more traditionally female toys and stuff are inferior. When science kits are marketed as boys toys, and girls toys are things like hairdressing studios or lego shopping malls, there's no clearer message that girls are trivial and shouldn't be deep thinkers. Nothing wrong with a shopping mall toy, of course, it's when girls only get these girls things and boys only get these girls things. It's more acceptable for girls to play with so-called boys stuff than vice versa, believe me

I must read the threat later, but I have grown up in the 80s to believe that men and women are the same - but they are not!

From what I see girls seem to go for pink, princesses etc, girls develop quicker, are more socially aware, more articulate and better at school and if they like pink then they should stand up for it. Who says pink should be annonymous with low aspirations? My DS's headteacher has blond long hair, likes pink and seems very good at her job.

I think girls need to be proud to be girls and not try to be more like boys.

I agree to some extent, but I hate how some mothers regard having a tomboy as the reason to be proud of their daughters and congratulate themselves on having no pink or sparkles at all in their house. It's just as bad an attitude to have.

"When science kits are marketed as boys toys, and girls toys are things like hairdressing studios or lego shopping malls, there's no clearer message that girls are trivial and shouldn't be deep thinkers."

I think we need to question this assertion. Why is hairdressing and owning a chain of shops or even shopping so much less worthy than being a scientist?

I would argue that science is seen like a serious career simply because it's a field traditionally populated by men.

"It's more acceptable for girls to play with so-called boys stuff than vice versa, believe me "

Agreed. And it's this which needs to be challenged, as it's just perpetuating the myth that boys are worth more than girls, albeit in a different way.

"women are hard wired to nurture"

Really?
Really?

I wish someone had told my grandma that - she was hard wired to persecute children and adults as she saw fit. A cactus has more nurturing abilty than she did.

I think that should read "women are told from birth they are good at looking after people and should look after them, men are not told this so generally don't. Many women are unsuited to nurturing anything and are just as capable as being bullies and sadists as men are. Also, men are as capable of being nurturing as women are - they are just never given the chance."

Men and women are people and it is sad that some people are obsessed with identifying and magnifying the differences rather than looking at the similarities between the sexes.

oxfordBags Of course long hair and dresses are not innately female as I have said but surely Celia Fine is saying that because girls do tend to have them it is a socialised phenomenon and I disagree. IMO and E it is genetic. Apart from the 2 DCs I mentioned (and they were not playing BTW they have grown up to be gay) I didn't know any DCs who wanted to actually BE the opp. sex (and I was an E.Y. teacher, C.M. and nanny).

Thank you for pointing that out, miggsie- perhaps I would have been better phrasing it as "women have spent the best part of the last 30,000 years plus acting as primary carers within their community".

Yes, men can do it too, but historically females have carried out these roles. It's not that odd that girls gravitate towards this stuff when they're little, that's what I was getting at.

Traditional men's jobs always seem to be better paid than girls' jobs as well, e.g. carers and supermarket staff are usually on about minimum wage, whereas lorry drivers or dustmen are better paid. Neither are skilled jobs but men's work always seems to be more valued than women's, because they used to be seen as the family's breadwinners (and still are I suppose). That's what needs to change.

DH and I we both work part-time (3 days), we both do housework, I like to cook though. DC don't think that cleaning is women's work.

Why is hairdressing and owning a chain of shops or even shopping so much less worthy than being a scientist?

They're not "less worthy". But on the whole, hairdressing and shopping don't require anywhere near the same level of rigorous academic study or attainment as being a scientist, and are less respected.

Or an employed hairdresser and plumber for example, similar level of skill, I think - but who is better paid?

Ppeatfruit, are you GENUINELY asserting that female children genetically have longer hair - hair that would naturally grow longer than males if society dictated that neither boys or girls should jave their hair cut? And how on earth are dresses or the wearing of them genetic? I mean, HOW?

Your first sentence contradicts itself, so excuse me if I got that wrong BUT - you say that you don't agree that dresses and long hair being innate and yet you don't agree with Fine when she says that are socially conditoned. Welll they can only be innate or socially constructed, so which is it?! If long hair is not innate in girls, then it can't be genetic for them to have long hair or want long hair, do you see? Makes no sense whatsoever.

You're also getting into some primo homophobic territory with the growing up to be gay stuff, there. I hope what you must mean is that, as children who were homosexual,before they realised what that meant, they felt uncomfortable with the gender constriction available to them, not that they wanted to be the opposite sex due to homosexuality!

I agree that too much pink is a bad thing, as is the division of toys into "boys" and "girls". However, the underlying message in anti-pink campaigns such as PinkStinks is that femininity and girlyness are bad things and to be avoided. The implication is that so -called "boys' toys" are superior and that children who like dolls, and make up and kitchens - which are all valid toys - are inferior.

The best gift we can give our children is choice and freedom. Give them opportunities to explore the world as they see it and choose the things they enjoy. If that's football and toy garages fine, but if it happens to be princesses and barbies that's fine too. There is nothing wrong with being female and a bit dainty and into princesses; it doesn't make you any less worthwhile than being interested in toy cars. And, chances are, by 20 all that pink will be a distant memory.

There is nothing wrong with hairdressing and the like, nothing whatsoever. It's the limiting of options that girls are taught by genderisation are available to them that is the problem. If this wasn't a sexist society that firstly categorises certain jobs as inferior and then categorises those inferior jobs as female, it wouldn't be a problem. These toys that are classified as for girls all too often require no real analytical thinking, no inquisitiveness, no problem-solving skills, no great imagination, etc., etc., and can actively prevent these non-gender-specific skills developing in girls, just as all-'male' toys can stunt empathy, sensitivity and creativity skills in boys. THAT is a big part of how gender difference and equality is created and maintained. Kids come to things with very, very little difference between boys and girls, and from their birth, we teach them in myriad subtle and unsubtle ways that girls are X and boys are Y. People see kids acting in certain genderised ways and respond to that, not realising that they are further entrenching it, and study after study shows that far too many people actively ignore or seem to be blind any signs of gender-different characteristics, skills and interests in their children, yet again entrenching gender notions.

This is why gender is created, not innate. Far too many people get sex and gender mixed up or wrongly prsumenthey are the same thing.

Presume, not prsumen! Dunno what went wrong there.

Tethersend,

No of course I wouldnt be less Proud. I am proud She makes her own choices. I am equally proud my son plays with doll and sleeps with a pink teddy. I dislike the force feed of pink on girls and i am proud my daughter doesn't fall for it. She loved it at 3 though!

My DC had a choice, we didn't buy girlie toys when DD was born, she played with DS's stuff in all colours, she doesn't see traditional roles at home - and still, at age 4 its all pink and girlie. At the moment DD copies teenagers ... she wants to wear what she sees them wearing, so we are slowly moving out of the pink phase.

Yanbumthe genderficatiom of toys is crap. Re the pink thing, other is nothing wrong with pink,'the issue is it is marketed solely at girls and therefore made to seem interior.'it fine for girls to like bonus things but not the other way round. That is the problem, pink is fine its just a col our but it needs to be fine for boys to like it as well!

I cannot stand the colour division in toys. For example a toy doctors kit doesn't need to be either coloured pink for girls or blue for boys. Just make 1 in red or something and all children will play with it.

Same for toy keyboards.

Also today I bought huggies pull ups for my ds and they are either pink or blue- why????

Broadly, I agree with you, Oxfordbags. However, one point-

". If this wasn't a sexist society that firstly categorises certain jobs as inferior and then categorises those inferior jobs as female, it wouldn't be a problem"

I think the second part actually happens first- in other words, women didn't take the inferior jobs, the jobs became inferior because women did them. The status of secretarial work, for example, was highly regarded and relatively highly paid when men were secretaries. Once women took over the roles, the status and pay dropped dramatically.