...to feel like I'm on a one woman crusade.

[GroupieGirl]

Firstly, I'm well aware that this particular crusade is championed by many women and men!

But, my God, I have been surrounded by ignorant bigots this week. There was the taxi driver who seemed friendly at first, but became surly and monosyllabic when I not only refused to agree that "this gay thing is disgusting" but had the temerity to argue with him that, in my opinion, what goes on behind closed doors between two or more consenting adults has absolutely no effect whatsoever on him.

Then there was the sandwich marker in Subway who asked whether the kid's pack had ordered was for a boy or a girl. I queried why this mattered and was told that they had specific bags for boys and girls. When I pushed him, he conceded that he meant pink and blue. Looked at me like I was one of Those Wimmin...then handed me a green bag.

By the time I reached the card shop and was confronted by a particularly eye-grabbing card which said something like "Reasons why men like BLOW JOBS" I was all out of fight. My daughter is four, and unlikely to be able to read 'blow jobs'...but I really wouldn't have wanted to have to explain it to her if she were a little older.

Please tell me that the world is not completely populated by ignorant morons?!?!

And, if you would, reassure me that I'm not the only person who gets bolshy and challenges things with which I disagree?

Insomnia is making me reply when I should probably agree to disagree and go to bed.

SquigglySquid, please could you point me towards the scientific proof that all girls develop language earlier than all boys. Or, that most girls develop language earlier than boys.

I would also like to be pointed towards the scientific proof that boys and girls brains are wired differently.

Where have I said that some traits commonly ascribed to gender are better or worse than others? I don't think I have explicitly or implicitly done this.

If we're talking bell curves and outliers, it's worth remembering that the majority of boys and girls will in fact populate the middle ground. Gender stereotyping, IMO, encourages us to take the gender outliers to actually represent the supposed gender "norms".

Where have I said anything like "I know a girl who likes cars, so not all girls..." etc? I've deliberately avoided personal anecdote in this conversation as it's irrelevant.

There is marketing problem, for me. Perhaps not always by the manufacturers but often, and also often by retailers. Often science and discovery toys are labelled boys toys in shops and online. Retailers use the blue/pink code to indicate this as well. Have you seen any of the campaigns that Let Toys Be Toys has been involved in to change this?

And I'm not naive enough to think that retailers have anything other than profit in mind. It's interesting that many retailers have changed their approach to categorising toys when there has been a lot of publicity from Let Toys Be Toys.

I would also like to see the evidence that Culture has asked for. There's a great book called Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine which debunks the idea (which some people remain hugely invested in) that boys and girls are 'wired differently'

Girls language

Different Brains

In any case, if gender neutral colors did better in focus groups and product testing before they hit shelves, there would be more gender neutral toys. The problem with the bell curve is that the majority of children (whether by nurture or nature) fit within those stereotypes. Companies are marketing to the majority, not outliars. They don't care that some girls like Batman, or that some boys like barbie. They care that if they market Batman to boys it sells more, and that if they market Barbie to girls it sells more.

There's two problems to this. One is saying that you shouldn't be allowed to be a stereotypical girl who likes princesses. The other is saying you have to be. Both are equally harmful for different reasons.

I am all for allowing kids to play with whatever toy they want.

I still stand by the fact that it doesn't matter that some toys are for girls and some are for boys. Children are into tribalism, they want to be a part of something where they belong (and race is a taboo marketing point). It's a phase, most children out grow it, and marketers are smart to profit off it. Companies wouldn't market with such gender rigidity if it didn't maximize profits.

Really, there isn't anything wrong with girls being proud of being girls and boys being proud of boys. I stand by the fact that the real problem is feminine things are devalued and seen as the lesser trait. We don't get upset that boys love legos, but girls liking princesses is "harmful". Why can't a princess be as good as an scientist? Why can't a SAHM be just as valued as a CEO?

YABVU in giving the poor chap in Subway a hard time. Write to head office, it's nothing to do with him, he didn't design, make or promote the bags.

Lottapianos I find it shocking that people can believe that we're wired the same. PMS affects the brain because of hormones. Do you really think a brain loaded on estrogen works the same way as a brain loaded on testosterone? They're different. One's no better than the other, just different.

But we shouldn't say that just because you're a certain gender you need to do a certain thing or shouldn't be allowed to do something else.

Books like that are half right. If we chose blue as a girl color and pink as a boys, little girls would be clamoring for blue. But, I think we'd just have a bunch of blue dolls, Barbies, and girl centric toys, while still having pink legos, cars, and boy centric toys.

SquigglySquid, you're bringing in lots of aspects that I haven't even mentioned and you appear to be discussing this topic mostly with yourself, and not with me. I'm not going to persuade you, I'm quite sure, but I don't draw the same conclusions from those two links that you do.

Fwiw, I actually think that being a princess is crappier than being a scientist or engineer. The general view of a Princess is that they are not responsible for anything, they don't do anything significant with their time. There is a heavy emphasis on them being judged on their looks and their perceived femininity. They are wealthy without having to earn it. People are expected to bow and scrape towards a princess for no other reason than a quirk of birth. I would rather be Marie Curie than Princess Diana. I also think that being a Prince is crappier than being a scientist btw for the same reasons.

I don't think that being a SAHP is less valuable than being a CEO, these are different but equally valuable roles. The world could do quite well without princesses and princes though.

My original point was that gender stereotyping of toys is damaging and limiting to both boys and girls. I make no value judgement about qualities that are perceived to be female versus those that are perceived to be male.

In my distant youth I worked in a toy shop. I remember one little two-year-old boy who had obviously been told he could choose his toy. He first wanted a pram and was roughly pulled away from it, then he wanted a dolls house, the mother is starting to panic and then he wanted a doll. I lost sight of him for a while, but eventually he left the shop with a toy sub-machine gun.

I always preferred "boys'" toys myself and Christmas and birthdays were marred by being given girls' toys. My daughter strongly preferred "girls`" toys and got them. But why oh why are the poor wee mites being made to suffer because of our worries about possible homosexuality if they happen to prefer something that society has decided is for the opposite sex. I am not a lesbian by any means, I just thought guns and cars were much more interesting.

And really, I boycott all these big retail outlets, like Subway and MacDonalds. If I get annoyed by something a small shop is doing, I can speak to the owner and they will care.

Squiggly, you are the reason the op is banging her head against the wall, my darling.

12yo ds is a Brony. Largely because it is subversive, I'm sure. We all know how teens love to rebel against what their elders are telling them is culturally acceptable.... (Apparently children grow out of 'tribalism')

He did have a doll though. And breast fed it. And was the earliest to speak out of the three of them (other two girls) by miles.

Your argument about choosing something else as a gendered colour just proves the point that it's gender itself that is culturally dictated - and that it is businesses like god damned subway that are reinforcing that claptrap.

You can't on the one hand believe that any child should be allowed to play with whatever they like, and then believe it's okay for subway to dictate that girls play with my little pony, and boys play with Star Wars (or whatever the hell it was).

The focus groups are meaningless. They just 'prove' that it makes more money for the company to market two of x in different colours, and that by the time that kids attend a focus group, they have already been successfully socially conditioned.

You could equally argue that as research has shown that newborns are more attracted to black and white (with possibly a hint of red) then all toys should be made in those colours. Wouldn't make anywhere near as much money or be as aesthetically pleasing (and marketable - sell more!!,) for the mummies, daddies, grannies, grandads etc, though...

DS loved toy babies and prams for a bit. Picked cheapies up from Sainsbos which were (predictably) pink. Was then approached by man in park to ask did I know that I could get a blue one from Argos. I said I didn't care and I didn't think DS did either ( was 2). The man asked did I want to be responsible for turning him...y'know ( as he put it). I laughed in his face..there was so many layers of fuckwittery right there it was hard to know where to start!

I would also have said what you did to the Taxi driver

I don't confront newsagents, but I do turn porny or sexist magazines and papers round if they are in eye line of kids (bit pointless but makes me feel better).

I also shop whenever I can at two local shops who don't stock porn or lads mags

Pink stinks

YANBU

I often despair at this unnecessary gendering and it makes me angry.

Squiggle, I do agree that we shouldn't be sending our children the message that traditionally girly things are 'a bit shit'. But I think we need to look beyond that to why these things are traditionally girly. Is it because they actually ARE a bit shit, or have they been valued that way because a girl/woman likes to do it? Or indeed have women/girls over the ages become conditioned to go towards these pastimes (I'm struggling to think of them with a raging hangover, but playing with dolls, mini household items, doing craft and things like that are almost tools used to socialise girls into the 'mother' and 'housekeeper' role).

I really don't agree with your wired differently premise. That's the reason we get this shite situation of "boys toys" and "girls toys" - DD was really disgusted the other week to be given (without reference to her wishes) a bag containing a Hello Kitty plastic handbag (of no practical use whatsoever) instead of a Hot Wheels car. She's not particularly into cars but the 'girls' gift was utterly rubbish in comparison. We swapped it. Thankfully McDonalds only pull this shit once in a blue moon - I don't see why they can't have Hello Kitty Week followed by Hot Wheels Week and not make that distinction in the first place.

FYI, DD (9) loves lego. Plays with it constantly and has done for the last 4 years. Is VERY unimpressed with the crappy range of stuff designated "for girls" and their rubbishy little figures with boobs (Lego women do not need boobs and waists!!) and has told off a (male) assistant in the Lego store before now for welcoming her in with the words "Hello! The Lego Friends range is over in that corner. And we have Disney Princesses too!". Her reply was "Why would I want that just because I'm a girl?" I told him in no uncertain terms that he was cutting down on potential sales if he confined the female customers to one tiny corner of the shop.

She also gets down about the fact that boys exclude her from conversations about Minecraft because she's a girl (obviously you operate the game with your willy...). Ridiculous and infuriating.

People (of whom 50-odd per cent are female) like stuff. I really can't get over why this is still an issue, and becoming far more of a one than it was in the 70's when I was a kid. We NEED to push back.

It really doesn't have to be and shouldn't be gendered.

btw pink doesn't stink, it's just another colour and it's as harmful to say it's rubbish (because it's aimed at girls) as it is to say that blue is best because it's "for boys".

OP YANBU.

YANBU.

I had a bit of a rant in the Entertainer once because all the Lego was in the Boys Toys section. The person behind the till informed me the reason for this is that Lego is a construction toy and therefore for boys. I walked out and have not shopped there since.

manchester, no no, Lego can be a girls' toy as long as the brick are pastel coloured

DS2's favourite colour was pink until his peers at nursery taught him otherwise. He is now 10 and at least I can have a conversation with him about why that is crap.
DS4(4) still likes pink.
I have nothing at all about pink, but I detest how all pervasive its presence is and that whatever it touches is 'for girls'.
Gendered KinderEggs and all that tripe

Same goes for navy blue and camouflage colours for boys - why on earth would I want my toddler to look like a mini-soldier?!

I loved the toy flowchart btw - thanks for that

OP YANBU. Bullshit needs to be challenged or else it will be deemed acceptable.

Whao, I'm actually amazed at how backward everything has become again. Though as a historian I knew women's rights were going to take a backwards turn as soon as women took their eyes off the ball.

Actually pink used to be the colour for boys. I think it was last used for boys in 1928, or something like that.

Anecdotal evidence does not equal scientific fact. I loved ninja turtle action figures as a child and hated Barbie. I have boxes of old Batman, Ninja Turtles, and Beanie Babies.

Just because I had individual tastes doesn't mean more girls than boys are going to be drawn to Barbie, so therefore you should market Barbie to girls. If boys want to play with Barbies they should be allowed to. I see nothing wrong with that. If boys want MLP toys, by all means get them the Rainbow Dash plush/action figure they want. My husband has a Fluttershy Funko on his desk (and I have a Pinkie pie). But if you look at the demographic watching the shows, it's mostly men still living at home little girls. So it would be stupid to market to boys and lose money on it by marketing to an audience that is simply not interested.

It's not hypocritical to say we should make toys geared towards both genders, but still allow those genders to pick whatever toys they want to play with. If a boy likes Hello Kitty over Hotwheels, good for him. But the fact of the matter is more boys than girls like Hotwheels. As I keep saying to a brick wall apparently it is not the fact that the toys are geared towards girls or boys, its that we look at the other gender as "less than".

And you can disbelieve scientific evidence all you want. I can stop believing in gravity, but I'll still end up on the ground if I jump off the bed. What you believe isn't really my concern. My point is that men and women are wired differently. They just are.

The problem, once again comes into valuing some traits more than others. It's why boys are falling further and further behind in schooling because we've made schools geared to much towards girls. Boys thrive with more physical activity, visual learning, and competition. We've taken that out of schools, and catering to both genders would also benefit those boys that do have good language skills or girls that are active. Saying both genders are the same though, is what's causing this dilemma.

(and not to get hung up on details, but CEO's rarely do work for their money either... just saying).

CultureSucksDownWords Using examples to illustrate my points isn't changing the subject, it's using examples to illustrate my points. Don't get petty.

Had this at McDonalds a few weeks ago. Girls toy vs. boys toy. I just said "please give me the hello kitty thingy"... My 5yo DS is a big fan of hello kitty.

YABU
I certainly wouldn't take any lectures from someone who uses the offensive term "moron".

Blimey, SquigglySquid, I'm getting a bit fed up with this "debate" now. You are consistently referring to things that I haven't said or even implied. You're not talking to a brick wall, you're just not actually engaging with me properly and actually responding to my points. Clearly you are far more knowledgeable than me and far more intellectual and therefore nothing I am saying is of value or worth responding to. Thanks for that.

I am not trying to disagree with scientific facts (your gravity example is patronising and dismissive by the way - was that what you were aiming for?). Within those articles that you linked to, the authors were both very clear that they were not putting forward an absolute truth, or even drawing any firm conclusions. There is plenty of room for interpretation and the need for further research. The human brain is very complex (as I'm sure you know being an expert and all) and there is currently much more that we don't understand than that which we do.

I agree with you that different qualities (often associated with each gender) are equally as valuable as each other.

I also think that the best thing to do for children in education is to treat each one as an individual and tailor their learning to suit their own specific needs. Not to make assumptions about them based on their gender or anything else for that matter.

Culture I was make a broad response to everyone's posts that replied to me. I didn't say anything largely specific to anyone, except the CEO comment.

I'm not sure how you would like me to respond to you. I use examples to illustrate a point and I'm "bringing up points you never mentioned". I make a broad response and "I'm not responding to your points". So what exactly would you like me to respond to?

Disagreeing with you isn't "missing your point".

Also, I'm not an expert nor have I claimed to be. If I was, I'd be applying for grants to do more studies. Not debating on MN. :)