To be disappointed with Mumsnet for campaign for gender neutral books.

[raltheraffe]

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2843801/Rapunzel-definitely-not-just-girls-says-publisher-announces-plans-make-children-s-books-gender-neutral.html

Apparently this all started with a MN campaign. What is so bad about books and toys for that matter that are biased towards one gender? I do not understand it at all.

I am donning my hard hat for this one, since it was people on here who came up with this daft campaign.

The point is to avoid limiting choices though, which otherwise can happen at an early age without it even being something youre conscious of.

^^ This is why it's a good idea.

My DS likes frozen as much as his sisters - enjoys fairy stories as much as them - but does pick up the things aren't for boys stuff messages that float around and that does affect his enjoyment of such things for no good reason.

Lego adverts were very much boy focused few years ago - I would have said lego was a gender neutral toy. Yet DS perceived it as a boy toy after seeing some adverts and my oldest girl stopped play and only wanted to play with the heart city stuff - which you have to be very careful what you bought as a lot required little to no construction. Few years down the line and adverts like that being seen less - and thankfully the lego movie having a very involved female character - and more gender neutral construction sets being done - and they all play with lego.

bully for you U2 but society is giving children the message that they can only choose X or Y. It may not be noticeably affecting your children so far but it does have an effect overall - look at the proportion of girls studying maths and science at A level, or avoiding sport because they don't want to get sweaty in front of teenage boys.

DS2 got Usborne's "Illustrated Classics for Boys" for a school prize in Year One. It contained retellings of "Moonfleet", "Around the World in 80 Days", "Robin Hood", "Gulliver's Travels", "Robinson Crusoe", and "The Canterville Ghost". All lovely stories and a great prize, but I was a bit that they should be aimed specifically at boys; I remember enjoying them when I was young.

bunnies, your point is v good but even more depressing, Jo Rowling had to use her initials to avoid putting boys off the books - or booksellers and parents off.

YABU. There should be a choice. My Mother hated pink and dolls and girl stuff. So I was hardly ever allowed anything pink. I didn't like dolls that much but had quite a few bought always by other people. She never bought me one.

I am so baffled by this thread it is nothing to do with forcing boys into a princess dress. It's about making any decision a child makes about what they play with, what colour they like normal. Some posters saying they are against it are then commenting as if they are in favour of removing gender stereotyping from toys and colours. The renaming of six books from 'stories for girls/boys' to 'stories for children' is a good thing! It's not making a point about gender it's making gender a complete non issue, which it should be when choosing a story book.

Exactly Edam and it affects male readers for life - men do not read novels by women* (indeed if they read novels at all). Pat Barker chose the shortened version of her name for that reason - her publishers said that men would not by war fiction by a woman.

*NAM

'buy'

Children like what they like.
Their parents hopefully buy them toys/books/clothes/duvet covers/shizzle what they like.

Whether it's a baby doll for James or a toy truck for Annabel.

It's just another thing to wring hands over.

middleton I agree. I've only seen it made into an issue on Mn.

In RL people just buy what the children like, no big deal made about where in the store it is or what colour it is.

yanbu
why does it matter, surely kids will read a book because they want to read it.what a daft campaign

I wish they would stop only using pink and purple for "female" characters on children's tv aimed at preschoolers too. It is completely unnecessary. I'm guessing it helps sell the merchandise but quality programming should at least try to not reinforce these stereotypes.

My 2.5yr old told me she didn't want to wear her blue dress yesterday as it was "not pretty" (fine) and "for boys" (wtf).

YANBU. There's a new thread every other day of mumsnetters trying to earn their gender neutral badge. The items and children aren't the problem, parents are.
'My DD wants a top with dinosaurs on but all the girls top have flowers and fairies on' go buy a boys top then and stop making an issue.

TondelayoSchwarzkopf, I didn't know that about Pat Barker. Sad.

Those saying it's a non-issue - do you think marketing and branding and PR have no effect at all? You'd better tell every business because they are clearly wasting billions of pounds... and you need to keep an eye on MN because threads about dads or grandparents who want to stop a little boy playing with dolls or wearing pink are a perennial.

Can somebody whose fine with this explain why a book like Rapunzel should be labelled "for girls" though? I think some people might be under-thinking this.

It is an issue and an important one, it affects children's choices. My daughter has never cared what people think about her choices she wore practical clothes, granted that I bought for her, she also has pink princessy stuff, bought by Grans, which she toyed with a bit.

My son on the other hand is very sensitive and petrified of being teased, not at home I might add, and always makes his choices from Boys stuff.

In a world where nothing was labelled as for boys or girls who knows what his interests would be.

I read those books to fairnotfair as a young girl and enjoyed.

Problem is if they came into this house labels as boys collection it could well mean - as we've had this happen - that DS insists they are meant for boys only and/or DD1 will decide they are not meant to be enjoyed by her.

While if the same books come in just as books on the shelf or classic collection both would try reading them at some point.

DH and I wouldn't buy this kind of thing - but DGP have form for pushing boy/girl toys and books at our DC or thinking about buying something they think DC would like but see all the marketing directed at other gender and either not buying or looking for other gender version ( think pink or blue).

They also seem to pick this idea up at school - some books being boy only books or for girls - I'm not sure where it comes from other than publishing marketing.

and you need to keep an eye on MN because threads about dads or grandparents who want to stop a little boy playing with dolls or wearing pink are a perennial

That has nothing to do with me. If parents want to react like that they will, whether the toys are labelled or not.

As I said before it's the parents who need to change.

A 2 year old can't read that it says it's for boys or for girls. They are told that.

I cannot understand why anyone would think that labelling The Three Billy Goats Gruff a 'boys story' and putting it in a book called "fairytales for boys" is a good thing.

Why do people not understand that calling a book "stories for boys" would make a little girl not want to read it.

When I was a child, the books were just called fairytales.

I am always baffled by posts saying "you're criticised for giving a girl pink but applauded for giving it to a boy."

Dezza if you could find me one single post ever written anywhere on MN ever that actually says that, I will eat my own knickers.
Because it doesn't actually happen.

What people on MN say is, it's fine for girls to choose pink, of course, why wouldn't it be. What isn't fine is to tell boys pink is a girl's colour, or they can't wear a dress or push a pram or do "girly" things. Equally it's not fine to tell a girl that diggers aren't for her, or football is a boy's game.

All that it's about is ensuring that all children have access to things they like whether they're girls or boys and not giving either gender the idea that they have no access to certain parts of the world because of their genitalia.

Labelling something as "for girls" or "for boys" is fucking moronic. Why should having a vagina or a penis dictate what book you read?? It is so utterly ridiculous I can't even fathom it. And yet people are objecting to it being changed, as in, the "for girls" is being deleted. So now it's just a book for anyone. Great. What's not to like about that?

Reading some of the comments under the newspaper article makes me realise some people really are hard of thinking.

cheese it's great your DD chooses her toys from whatever section they happen to be in but do you think she'd choose a book entitled 'adventure stories for boys'?

My DD seemed to pick up pretty quickly after starting at school that pink is a girls colour and there are boys toys and girls toys. I found it a bit sad really.

I wonder if the starving boys and girls in Third World countries think about this First World dilemma?...........Thought not.

I don't think changing the labels will stop parents who are worried about their son turning out gay because he likes prams will change their views just because the toys are no longer labelled.

I don't think parents who don't think their daughters should play with trucks because they are boys toys will change their views either.

So yes, I agree that it is parents who need to change.