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.

Yes it does happen and I have seen it hence why I posted it.

I have seen threads where people have asked where to buy princess items and been told to buy something less naff. Even when stated the birthday girl loves it.

I have seen threads where people have asked about putting boys in dresses and have been applauded but not when a girl wants to wear a princess dress.

I have seen threads full of 'pink tat' comments unless it's abouta. Boy having a pink Hoover then it's fine.

I won't have been the only one to have seen it either.

I could trapse through the whole of MN to prove my point but why should I? Feel free to trapse through and prove me wrong though.

The problem with the current trend of gender specific toys is that there is just so bloody much of it. Stickers are gendered. Books are gendered. Colouring books are gendered. It's just plain dull.

I know there are a lot of girls who genuinely love pink. I have one. I don't have a massive problem with searching for 'pink scooter' rather than 'girl's scooter.' She wants a pink one so she'll get a pink one. The crucial point if, if Adam at school also wants a pink scooter, he shouldn't be made to feel that he's wrong for wanting something that's marketed as being for girls.

I really struggle with the fact that very young children are under the impression that some toys are for boys and some are for girls. Apart from anything else, it makes it very difficult for children who don't fit the 'ideal girl!' or 'ideal boy!' stereotypes.

Plus, it's just boring being that restricted.

The children's school changed its uniform policy in September, and one of the things I really love about it is that the whole lot has been listed as gender neutral. The old one had different coloured trousers for girls and boys, and the cardigan was listed under the girls' list.

Now it's clear that all and any children need to wear the school t-shirt, a jumper or cardigan, and grey skirt or trousers or shorts. All of them can wear anything from that list. It feels really liberating, and I'm pleased there's a greater push towards 'the children wear what they feel most comfortable in' (while remaining in uniform).

Blimey, the Daily Fail comments are wilfully stupid.

YABU, OP, it's a step in the right direction (and back to the seventies, when amazingly, this 'for boys' and 'for girls' guff didn't seem to exist).

I also believe that the only way in getting parents to change, is to get them young.
Like really young.
So the next generation of parents hasn't been force fed gender based stereotypes.

But small boys do like to play with dolls, like dressing up in clompy high heeled shoes etc it's not something they think about they just prefer it sometimes to playing with train sets, cars and spiderman outfits.

Someone making them feel wrong for that is stupid quite frankly.

The adults in this situation are the ones in the wrong and have gender neutral toys/books etc isn't going to eradicate such ignorance.

Dezza I've said the same thing before on here myself, it happens. No poster is going to state it but there is a concencus amongst some people on here that a girl in pink shouldn't be aspiring to be a princess but a boy in pink is fantastic.

No word from the OP??? Start a daft thread with no explaination, get people wound up, then vanish

Children get these gendered ideas from adults - whether it be parents, relatives, parents friends, teachers, anyone. If a child goes into school and tells your DS that he shouldn't like pink 'it's for girls' then that child has heard that from somewhere else. An adult with these ideas of 'pink for girls' 'blue for boys' isn't going to change their mindset because 'for girls' or 'for boys' is removed.

I wonder at what point it does become acceptable to market books in a gender-specific way? A lot of adult fiction is quite clearly marketed specifically to women or men. Even as adults women's books are pink or purple. Unfortunately there must be a market.

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

At 2 it wasn't a bloody problem what books were read to them - all were and it GP bought very gendered books they could be misplaced or supplemented.

It's much more or a problem now when they are older. When they start nursery and school and other read to them and pick their books - other people who may go along with the prevailing social norms as dictated by publishing pr.

Now my between 5 -10 DC - as they are picking what to read - off school shelves/public libraries and our shelves at home - and even off kindles. Their understanding of adverts and how we are sub-consciously influenced when making choses isn't at an adult level because they are children.

Sticking boy/girl label on stuff does make them think it's not meant for them -and if not them their peers. Yes home environment is a big influences it's not the only one.

I don't get it...pink is a colour. If a bike is pink, its pink. A parent can buy it for their son if they want. Likewise a book about princesses is a book about princesses...it doesn't say it is only for girls. Any child can read it.

I really don't understand why anyone would have an issue with this.

The books themselves aren't changing - the stories are the same.

And hopefully I'll no longer be asked why I read "girl's stories" to my sons and be thought odd for wanting them to hear stories where the girls are strong and clever...

YABVVVVVVVVVVU Of course children's books shouldn't say they're for boys or girls on the cover, what a stupid decision. I'm glad there's people out there who actually bother to challenge rubbish like this.

I don't have an issue with it as such, I think there is a lot more better things to be campaigning about.

There was a thread recently where a parent asked if she should be worried that her child wants to be a princess. I have never seen a thread from someone worrying that their son wants to be a super hero. EatShit is right, parents here are often applauded for allowing their boys to wear a dress while it is looked down on for a girl to love sparkly things. I have seen many a thread where people were pretty smug that they produced a girl who was into trucks and not princesses, like a girl loving all things sparkly is some how a negative trait.

However, that said. Perhaps this will have a positive effect on the next generation like someone said.

I think its a great idea. My DH who wouldn't consider himself to be sexist and certainly doesn't come across that way, but he won't read most books by female authors or about women because he automatically assumes he won't like them. That's at least partly because he was bought "boys books" as a child. He remembers reading the hardy boys as a child, my sister and I read the hardy boys and nancy drew etc. So he did read female authors then but only the "boys books" I've just this week got him to agree to read a Jodi Picoult and he's still reluctant. I think anything that stops limiting childrens reading is a good idea. I think its actually more of an issue for boys in some ways. Being a tomboy is okay, what's the boyss equivalent? A mummys boy? Some other derogatory term. If boys can read books about strong female role models then surely they will grow up with more respect for women

formerbabe the point is that the book about princesses does actually say that it is "for girls".

Formerbabe- I think the problem was that the book about princesses Did say it was a book for girls.

Without the "for girls", then that is fine. Anyone who wants to read a book about princesses can.

I get fed up by the same toys being gendered. For instance wooden walkers which were identical apart from one being all shades of pink, yellow etc, and the other being blue, red etc. This is something aimed at 1 year olds yet already they are being gender stereotyped. It is insidious from very early on and hard to reinforce that they can make their own decisions.

I think this is a fantastic campaign. It is not a radical new step. In the time since my childhood (30 years) things have regressed - normal Lego used to be marketed at both boys and girls back then, books rarely labelled in this weird way/pinked and glittered up for girls etc. In my view all that's happening now is that some of the damage (and I see limited stereotypes as damaging) is being undone.

I meant limiting stereotypes

I don't think either of my children would ask for or choose a book that was labelled "for boys" on the front as they are girls and therefore it is not for them.

They are 5 and 7.

DD1 has already told me that various things are "for boys" - she learns this from her peers at school. Why add to it by labelling stories - stories FGS - as for one person and not for another person. Stories - and especially things like classic fairy tales - should be for everyone surely.

Eustacia it's a nasty combination of misogyny and homophobia, the reason why there is no positive boys equivalent of "tomboy".

Affect, not effect.