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.

Thanks for answering, Samnella- sorry to pick on your post, but it helped me to make a point

Your DD sounds fab.

Think most children work thi out themselves tbh. I'm not keen on pink, mainly due to personal taste, but dd1 went through a phase of loving it. Then she grew out of it. Now dd2 is into pink and dd1 hates it. I have to explain that in all likelihood she too will grow out of it too...

Yes, you are right, Tethersend, good point.

On a different note my dd is coming to an age where all the clothes for some reason are too grown up going on sexualised and she isn't even out of the infants! I think that is doing more harm to girls than a pink toy iron and would like to see a change.

Always find this fascinating, as an interpretation of this, is that, in this day and age parents who allow their chidren to use toys were the colours are deemed gender specific, are not adequate enough role models, or unable to show their children that it is not subjugation or dominance, but just a colour.

There are so many female role models for girls to look at that surely this is an entirely outdated argument. As has been said already, many women grew up with pink toys, and haven't been steryotyped because of it. Yet this implies that they couldn't or would be unable to rationalise it as they grew up and are now permanantly second class citizens.

I have 3 dds I am happy and secure in the strong women regardless of their jobs they have in their lives from great grannys, nanas, aunts, me, friends etc not to care if they have pink morning noon and night.

I feel especially with the Pink Stinks campaign that again the emphasis is on women to change, to make choices other than the ones they want. Pink doesn't stink its a feckin' colour, stop giving it so much power.

Pink is vastly over-represented as a colour when it comes to girls toys and clothes. If colours are neutral and all equal then why does pink get chosen so very often as a colour with which to make girls clothes and toys?

I'm just back from shopping for clothes for my 3 of varying ages, I wasnt bombarded by pink, more yellow than anything else. And I was in the supposed big offenders : Next, Mothercare and Tescos.

I agree wigglesrock Our DDs have both got good careers despite at times choosing to play with 'girls' toys (I also deliberately gave them neutral toys but they wanted girly stuff.)

What Iam TRYING to say oxford I know i don't always put it very clearly is that if socialisation were as powerful as all that then there would be no one who was gay or transgender , transvestite etc. I think that genes have a more major role in people's eventual sexuality and life choices than playing with pink or blue toys.

YABU and a knob. Pink is a colour, nothing more.

YABU and a knob. Pink is a colour, nothing more.

So how do you explain the rows and rows of pink stuff in toy shops under the heading "Girls Toys"? If it's "just a colour" you'd expect it to appear no more often than any other colour.

Pink is vastly over-represented as a colour when it comes to girls toys and clothes. If colours are neutral and all equal then why does pink get chosen so very often as a colour with which to make girls clothes and toys?

Because grandparents are very fond of buying it

www.pinkstinks.co.uk/

lego girl

girl lego

the only pink in this house is worn by my massively tall hunk husband, he for some reason has a few pink shirts.

my daughter (9) would be really offend if you offered her pink shit, she already worked out why it's crap, and it all about dumbing down.

Recent party bags:

Boys - yo yo, bubbles, mini play dough pot.
Girls - pink bracelet, pink hair slides, pink ring.

Nearly wept.

I read this thread earlier, katy and decided to go to our local shopping mall and test out 'pinkification'.

My dd1 is kind of what you'd call a 'girly girl': she loves Disney Princesses and recognises differences between boys and girls (she's 4yo, btw).

However, she also adores cars, 'Jake and the Neverland Pirates', typically identifying with the character Izzy.

So, I went and checked out 3 stores: John Lewis, The Disney Store and The Entertainer and do you think I could find anything with Jake that included Izzy?

No. Izzy was excluded from 'Bucky the Piratr Ship' and a lunch bag with the crew on (well, only the crew that would appeal to boys.) my dd noticed this exclusion and wasn't happy with it. She identifies with Izzy and it would seem that she needs her to feel that the brand is 'right'.

The Lego 'Friends' set is ... well, stereotyping isn't the word. I much preferred the Western Native American Tipi Encampment (which is a stereotyping of a different kind, but perhaps one for another thread).

Reading this thread, I can't help thinking that the problem is not pink, or sparkles, or hairdressing and cooking toys - it is that people think there is something intrinsically weak in bring 'girly'.

TBH I think it is fashionable at the moment to sneer at all thinks pink and glittery and proudly proclaim that your little girl hates pink and loves playing with worms. Or go on about how your little boy loves dresses.

Of course girls shouldn't be conditioned to think they must wear pink but as the mum of several I have really never found this to be an issue!

There is lots of choice when it comes to clothes - yes you can choose the pink glittery stuff, as my youngest dd sometimes does, and there is nothing wrong in that. There are also clothes in every colour of the rainbow, today she's wearing red trousers and a green Tshirt, both from H&M, who offer a wide range of girls and boys clothes as do most of the main stores. It is perfectly possible to avoid pink, but no shame in buying it for your child or dressing her in it.

I definitely think that there is too much frothing about this. My eldest dds are perfectly well aware that they can aspire to be anything they want to be;both played with Barbies and Bratz as well as Lego as kids - they both currently want to go on to university to do science based courses. I think a lot more emphasis is placed on it than needs be.

Also, why are people obsessed in 'proving' that girls and boys are the same? They aren't! They have different bodies which perform entirely different functions, have different amounts of various hormones in their bodies - of course they are wired differently!

Ppearfruit, you are partly right but also very badly wrong. You are getting sex and gender mixed up. For a start, it's very ignorant to lump transvestites, transexualism and homosexuality together. Transvestism is absolutely a social thing - when a society has rigid gender codes about dress, expression, etc., this creates cross-dressing (women also cross dress, albeit to a lesser extent), which allows the transvestite to experience parts of himself that are feminine but which he can't otherwise express in daily life.

Homosexuality and transexualism are both BIOLOGICAL. They are both processes with happen in utero at quite an early stage. Homosexuality and transexualism exist in all societies and cultures, throughout all of human history (however hidden or taboo), regardless of what a society calls feminine or masculine.

There are some biological and genetic differences beween the sexes which are gendered. However, the proportion of these is much smaller than what we think it would be, and are also not always the ones we would believe they are, based on what our society dictates is male or female.

And most importantly of all, NONE of these innate differences between the sexes means that females like long hair, pink or shopping or that males like short hair, blue and football, for example. All that stuff is cultural. If any of it had a basis in genetics then how come gender behaviour differs wildly in different societies? Men and women would behave the same way in both matriarchal and patriarchal societies, which they most certainly do not. Of course hormones and body differencs create difference between males and females, but it is preposterous and utterly illogical to then go on to think this means that pink is for girls, blue is for boys! The differences are not well-represented by culture. The differences we are told are innate were and are all very carefully crafted for various political and social reasons, mainly the subjugation of women.

The final point is this: even if you were right (you're not) about gender being genetic, it still does not mean that anyone has to stick to rigid gender roles. It still dosn't mean that pink and frothy toys should be labelled for girls, etc.!

That was poor of me to put about motherhood not being a real aspiration. I don't actually think that. Part of me objects because I feel like women get a bit of a hard deal when it comes to child rearing... its just not as socially acceptable not to have children, but if you are male, people react differently.

Since when has biological and genetic been different oxford?. I was not saying pink is brilliant I was saying it makes no effing difference to ones outcome in life whatever you play with as a lot of other posters have also commented .

The reason i dislike pinkification is that is simply a way to target marketing at girls. Our society identifies femininity with that colour. Its what is being marketed i have a problem with. Or the message behind it. The overwhelming majority of pink toys are related to cleaning, cooking and making yourself pretty. The toys in blue which we link with being male are often aggressive, weapons or cars etc. Its the stereotyping and the reinforced message i dislike. And yes in my opinion the message from these stereotypes have a greater negative impact for girls.

The same message continues into adulthood. How many cleaning and beauty products are marketed at men? Again its the same message. This is what women do. The serving role and the pretty object.

I see it as a bigger picture. I dont think DD playing with a pink dustpan set will mean she will be doomed to a life of no aspiration.

I would like to just see toys that weren't linked to gender by their colour. A red hoover that is marketed at girls and boys. I would also like a toilet cleaning product to be aimed at all not just women. This is 2013 after all!

I think the most damaging form of marketing to girls is clothes. Some being sexual from a very young age.But thats another thread.

Thurlow - I agree, everything feminine seems to be rejected on this thread. What is so wrong with being girlie, wanting to look good and liking pink? I think typical feminine characteristics are more valuable to society than the typical male ones, e.g. being sociable, empathetic and caring. And girls usually achieve better at school ... but what happens then?

It doesn't have to mean that girls have no aspirations and see it as their job to do all the housework. The key is a balance and men need to give a little to achieve that.

Ppeat, biology is universal, genetics are specific. That's the only distinction I implied. If genes were universal, we'd all be clones.

It is not the TOYS kids play with that can affect them, it is the MESSAGES inherent in one sex being restricted to one small scope of colours, toys, activities and skills that affect them. Pink in itself will do bugger all. Pink as part of a wider group of aspects that restrict your expression, activities, choices and way you see yourself... that's what all the fuss is about. It's an easy concept to understand.

I think you are presuming that gender is genetic, ie getting sex and gender mixed up. It is not an opinion that gender is a social construct, it's fact. Male or female genitals = your sex. How you act male or female, depending on what your society says is make or female = gender. Only sex is genetic.

I'm not going to keep saying all this, because it's clear that people either can't or won't grasp this stuff.

Samnella, ELC do a great blue, red and green unisex cleaning set. My Ds loves it!

Pink is just a colour, its not going to shape anybodies life just because they own something pink. My niece loved her disney princess doll but is now a goth, tastes etc change as people grow.

Barbie is very pink but very career orientated, shes had most jobs and doesnt send the message that all girls can aspire too is to find a husband and live off him.

Parental factors shape our children more than toys or colour.

Honestly, are the toys going to raising your children.. Toys are toys. Clothes are clothes.

I had my whole room pink and Barbie, spice girls everywhere, I wouldn't wear anything other than pink. And I have dreams, aspirations and a brain to boot.

I think we as parents need to realise that "toys" really don't pose that much of a risk in the grand scheme of things. If you teach your children to chase there dreams, self respect, and ambition, they will be fine.