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.

tdttrtft

(toodamntiredtoreadthefullthread)

But: surely from the manufacturers' pov it's much better to have non-gendered books/toys to maximise selling potential?

or am I being daft? presumably there must be an advantage in targeting specific toys at boys/girls otherwise they wouldn't be doing it in the first place?

the comments below the fail article are a HOOT. Bloody Marxists getting rid of pink aisle in Toys R Us threatening our way of life in manner of ISIS

Shj - means parents with one of each do fewer hand me downs, more new buys.

Amusingly, I've never met an actual scientist (and I've met many) who uses the phrase 'scientifically proven'- that's more the remit of health food peddlers and quacks. Take from it what you will. Most scientists are sensible enough to qualify 'absolute' statements they make with descriptions of the sample groups/sizes, confounding factors, experimental methodology limitations, etc. Health care practitioners can range from surgeons (not people especially qualified to speak for science, since they are by definition practitioners, not experimenters) to people who take away the bedpans, so it's not really a sign of ability to comment on complex academic topics.

OP, perhaps you would like to come up with some citations for your gonatotropin (note no H) assertion? Most of what I can find is based on rat models- perhaps that's very relevant to your family, but probably less so to most. There are very obvious ethical issues that have prevented any real data collection on this subject in normal human neonates, so all you really have to go on are psychological studies which are rarely statistically robust (Simon Baron Cohen is the most appalling statistically illiterate pseudo-scientist to have ever published, so try to find something better than that, please).

Meanwhile, regardless of biology, you haven't come up with a reason that you require specifically gendered marketing from the perspective of consumers. You would be equally able to buy things you felt were gender specific if they were not overtly labelled as such. I would imagine someone with your outstanding level of education would be able to manage with subtler cultural cues than a 'for boys' label, no?

gonadotropin
ha

"But: surely from the manufacturers' pov it's much better to have non-gendered books/toys to maximise selling potential?

"or am I being daft? presumably there must be an advantage in targeting specific toys at boys/girls otherwise they wouldn't be doing it in the first place?"

If a parent bought the Ladybird 'Fairy Tales for Girls' and 'Stories for Boys' thats doubled the sales.

If a parent buy pinkified (and I mean that, not just pink) items for their DC1 (girl), they may well buy again for DC2 (boy).

Woodlice,

I no longer work as a scientist. I did a few research papers (hydrocephalus shut P/V relationship and innervation of muscle spindles), then did some time as a jnr doc and then did some work at Manchester Uni, specifically changes in gene expression in diabetic neuropathy. I am not a research neuroscientist because 1. I do not like vivisection 2. it is not well paid

I now run a business.

If you want to think I am some unqualified Catfish, just because I used an alternative (and perfectly acceptable) spelling of a protein hormone then that is just fine by me.

Perhaps you could elaborate on why rat models would be especially relevant to my family?

No, I will not be giving you an extensive list of citations because I do not have to and I am going out to work in 10 minutes. Go to PubMed and do a search yourself if you are interested.

Devora - how exactly is me buying DS a book marketed for girls limiting anyone's choices?

My kids don't care. If it says for girls on it or is pink and they would like it then they ask for it. They are not so sheep like to think that they shouldn't read that book, even though they want too, because it is says for girls and they are boys. Similarly DD will wear a t-shirt "for boys" if she likes the look of it. *It hurts and limits no one in my house" if I buy "opposite gender" stuff for my kids .

If your son wants a pink buggy to play with and you won't buy it because it is a girls colour then that's you being stupid and pathetic imo.

And for the avoidance of doubt, DS gets books "for boys" too and DD gets clothes for girls as well.

It's the marketing that is in question here, itsfab - not your personal buying habits.

Books should be 'for children' not for him or her.

Many posters plus entire publishig industry:
"Men do not read fiction.'

Some posters on this thread:
"Gendering books doesn't matter."

There you go then. Half the human race doesn't read stories - one of the most enriching experiences of the human condition, but that's not important and has nothing to do with genderisation of the publishing industry.

But why should they have to ignore sexist signs though? It's like saying that marketing execs are allowed to use racist slurs in toy adverts because parents at home can educate their children better. We shouldn't have to!!

And if your kids don't care - they won't care if there is no such gendered marketing, surely. So it's win-win - your kids are unaffected, but the dd of the poster upthread who was in tears because she was told the spiderman bag was 'for boys' will be happier.

. DH reads fiction. Books shouldn't be gender specific, nor should toys.

. DH reads fiction. Books shouldn't be gender specific, nor should toys.

Isn't that the whole point of the campaign?

OP I thought differences in the brain are now thought to be due to nurture, not nature? One statistic I read said that M/F brains exhibit around 0.05% differences. The differences found later in life are due to gender norms that are reinforced during upbringing.

Itsfab how old are your children?

Why are you seemingly arguing it's ok for books to say 'for girls / for boys' on them? I'm bewildered as this contradicts what the rest of your statement.

I really don't get some of the people on this thread. The point being made by those in favour of the op seems to be that because they or their children are happy to ignore gendering of toys that means toys should be gendered. Can't you see that this is crazy logic?

The fact that you or your DC choose to play with toys labeled for the opposite gender is a clear demonstration of why these labels should not exist.

If having gender labels on toys has such little effect on you then why does it upset you so much that some people want to remove it? It's their time and energy. They aren't causing you any bother. What's the issue?

We ended up having to put that Christmas idea on hold because he'd been told, quite plainly, by a retailer, that the new coloured pencils and craft kits he would have enjoyed using weren't actually for him because he's a boy.

This is it here, too. Ds loves drawing and crafts but will only consider ones that are ' for boys' since starting school. I don't like that message - either a) that some toys or for girls or b) that girls stuff is lesser and to be avoided. It's insidious. It reinforces ideas that activities you see carried out by women are not to be emulated if you are a boy. Not happy with that.

LittleBearPad - I am not arguing that it is okay for books to say "for boys" or "for girls" on, I am saying if they do it makes no odds to my children. I don't think it is okay for them to say so but it is happening and I am saying it makes no difference. You have to deal with the situation to hand.

I have said that things shouldn't be gender specific as I don't think they should be, but as they are this is how we deal with it.

For instance sandwiches are traditionally lunch time foods but if my kids wanted one for breakfast that would be fine. We make our own decisions about things.

Kids are 9-13 years old.

But the point of this thread is for the OP to argue against Ladybird removing the 'for girls / for boys' labels from books. Your children ignore labels, good for you and them as the numerous stories above mention lots of other children don't and are made to feel bad because the Spider-Man backpack they previously loved is 'for boys'.

has the pain I am in affected my brain? Am I thinking the opposite of what is going on?

I was thinking that people were saying they couldn't buy stuff that were labelled for boys if they had girls and I couldn't understand why they felt they couldn't ignore it and buy what they wanted. Also, no one is missing out, choices are only limited if you are too thick to realise you can buy for a girl something that is labelled for boys.

Heaves sigh of relief. I couldn't make out why you seemed to have so many of the same thoughts I did, ItsFab, while saying you agreed with the OP. You might want to go back and read the OP again. As I read it, it basically says "this campaign against removing heavily gendered books and toys - it's just PC gorn mad, innit?" Then again I'm recovering from the aftermarh of an ocular migraine so my reading comprehension skills might not be all they could be right now.

. I didn't even think I had been agreeing with the OP [blush. .

Hope you feel better soon, LurcioAgain.

You too ItsFab.

Woodlice:

"Health care practitioners can range from surgeons (not people especially qualified to speak for science, since they are by definition practitioners, not experimenters)...."

The research I did into hydrocephalus was in a lab run by a neurosurgeon and a neuroscientist. This professor of neurosurgery does not just spend his time in the operating theatre, he has also contributed to and was the lead author of many papers and is highly respected for his research work. So he would be qualified to comment on science.

"to people who take away the bedpans"

I am assuming you are referring to HCAs there. Could you be any more dismissive of people who work long hours on a low wage? When I trained at Uni we had to spend 2 weeks as an unpaid HCA as part of our course.

"Simon Baron Cohen is the most appalling statistically illiterate pseudo-scientist to have ever published"

Baron-Cohen is a Cambridge professor and director of the ARC. Not only that, he played a part in blocking the unfair extradition of the computer hacker Gary McKinnon who was facing life in a supermax jail. When I trained at Cambridge I never met any illiterate pseudo-scientists because getting a Cambridge fellowship is not exactly an easy task.

Although I guess you know better. As for your boast that you have met many scientists, I have met Vivienne Westwood a couple of times, does not make me a talented fashion designer does it?

I am still waiting on a response to my question as to why rat models would be "very relevant" to my family.