AIBU to think Selfridges have got it wrong, here?

[SpaceForAll]

DD1 is 6 and loves space.

She was given a pair of fab astronaut pyjamas. She thinks they are great and loves wearing them.

She liked them so much, we recommended them to a friend and went to send them the website link. DD was SO put out to read that the PJs are supposedly "for him", i.e. boys' clothes.

So I emailed Selfridges to point this out, hoping they might consider changing the wording on their website to something less sexist. They replied "sorry for the inconvenience, we've passed your email on..."

No change was made to the website, so I emailed again.

In the light of their "agender" gender neutral campaign that they are running at the moment, I think they are being short sighted and somewhat hypocritical.

I've had no response, and DD has decided to put pen to paper and write to them herself...

I know IANBU, just wanted to raise a bit of feeling...

Here's her letter...

I have just signed up to Twitter and done my first tweet about it!

If anyone is on there and looks for @narnia125 (that's me! ) I've used the hashtag #spaceforall.

Why does it matter how selfridges classify their clothes?!

They're not the arbiters of who wears what. I actually think that the Clarks thing and this is kind of sending a message to children that mass retailers' classifications really, really matter. They don't. Different if they were refusing to sell the clothes to girls. Can't your DD just do what she wants without worrying about selfridges?

There is so much genuine discrimination in the world that I really cannot get exercised about this

But it's so ingrained.

In this case, it's telling girls "space is not for you, so go back and be interested in something girly!" In the case of Clarks shoes, it was "Dinosaurs are for boys, stop being interested in them and get back to your flowers and fluffy kittens"...

It's only ingrained if parents confirm that message to their DCs.

It is granting retailers much more power than they actually have.

Presumably, you showed DD the link? Even if you didn't, couldn't you just say: "oh who cares what selfridges say? It's not important. We both know that you can do and wear whatever you like". Rather than subconsciously confirming that selfridges' pyjama classifications somehow have some actual bearing on what your DD can wear or do.

My 2 year old DS' favourite toy is currently 1 year old DD's pram. She is currently napping wearing DS' hand me down "boy" farmyard babygro. I do not feel the need to start a campaign about how John Lewis categorises these items as frankly I couldn't care less - they have absolutely no bearing.

She wanted to look up the link, she was sitting on my lap as it opened on the computer - not so much a case of me "showing" it to her as us seeing it together.

She read it, and made a face like

Her point was that they should not be saying something that is incorrect as it might make other people think that girls can't like space.

I agree with her.

Retails do have massive, massive power. It's silly to pretend otherwise. They have invented this pink / blue thing.

on the other hand BHS do not have boys and girls clothes split separately and my recent search for "boys pajamas" brought up tonnes of pink and very few suitable. Commend them if you wish but its harder to find stuff on the website.

as it might make other people think that girls can't like space.

This must be a joke. Are you truly saying that there are people making important life choices based on the voluntary classification of selfridges' pyjamas. That their are parents highlighting this to their children and telling them that this overrides the messages about gender equality that they as parents give to their children? "Oh sorry DS/DD. I know that I, your mother, told you that you can pursue whatever career you want. But I've just seen that Selfridges voluntarily classify astronaut pyjamas as male so, sozzles, that is an absolute classification. And you can't actually be one".

Separately, retailers did actually not start the pink/blue thing either

Your 6yo came to that conclusion completely independently, without any input from you? Ok.

Nope, not without any input from me. Plenty of input throughout the rest of her 6 years!

I've always encouraged her to do what she wants to do, and to questino people who say she can't do something because she is a girl. That's the point.

She didn't say "oh those are for boys"
she said "that's not right, mummy..."

Don't get me wrong, she's currently wearing a purple and white tutu floating about the house!

It's the insidious drip drip drip of low level sexism that's hardest to challenge. Good on you and good on your daughter for challenging it.

Don't waste your time trying to persuade those on here who take a perverse pride in 'under thinking' though.

I think there are greater gender battles to be had than Selfridges pyjamas!!

I don't think it's underthinking at all. I've done a lot of work on discriminnation issues

It's trying to focus on things that are actually import and to teach DCs not to be "victims" of this type of thing.

I'm actually quite proud that DD wanted to do something about it.

Next generation anti-sexism. Lower level stuff is where we can actually make a difference and teach our children right from wrong.

The fact it's Selfridges is totally irrelevant.

Surely she's done quite the opposite of "wibble in the corner" and I am supporting her?

She's acknowledging (presumably with encouragement from you) that the classification has merit and/or actually has some bearing on her life and life choices.

Well done to your DD

I totally agree with you btw, I bought a similar onesie from mothercare last year. There was a whole range of career pjs - clearly someone somewhere had been given the job of 'sorting' them into 'girls' and 'boys' with correct hangers. They'd clearly tried to be neutral so doctor was with girls and astronaut with boys, but it was bizarre and pointless, just put thEm on plain hangers (mothercare do also use plain hangers) and list them all in both the girl and boy section of the website. Job done, no fuss, no children or well meaning relatives saying "can't have that it's for a girl/boy"

Gobbolino, if retailers and marketers had so little power, then there would be equal numbers of males and females taking sciences, doing certain degrees, becoming management in companies, in government, and no pay inequality. Yet all of those things are problems which society faces. So, yes, they should be challenged. Complying to stereotypes endorses them and perpetuates them. Many people are so used to them that they are blind to them, and don't see them as a problem.

If you took someone who had never been to earth before (but could speak English etc.) and told them that we have laws protecting gender equality, then started showing them these examples, they would be highly confused. Every time we divide by sex, then make things different we endorse sexism and the tiny but daily examples of these build into a society where yes, girls fails to enter the sciences, or find the work place too hard, or don't get paid as much etc. Ask the women who work in IT what their experiences are.

If it doesn't matter, btw, then it doesn't matter if space pjs are put in both boys and girls, so why bother to raise an objection?

kickassangel you are far more eloquent than I am. Thanks. :)

kickass - if you think that retailers and marketers are the reason for fewer females working in science roles then you are quite deluded. Same with equal pay - try looking at historic maternity/parental leave regulations for that one

As I have said before, there are far more serious equality issues to contend with than how selfridges classify their pyjamas.

Just because there are bigger battles, it doesn't mean the little things should not be challenged.

You are right to highlight this.
Gobbo, it isn't really a case of pick something more serious. Sexism in all its forms contributes to gender inequality. Gender inequality limits choices for men and women. Gender stereotyping tells boys and girls how they are expected to behave. We all lose out.
At its worse it contributes to violence and abuse against women, girls and those who don't conform. And this all starts with a girl who doesn't get those pj's because they are in the boys section.

At age 6, that would be a choice that the child's parents made not to buy the pyjamas.

If the parents are inherently sexist, then that is a serious, probably cultural/familial issue. Not one that is suddenly triggered by how Selfridges categorise their pyjamas .

Honestly - how patronising to the vast majority of parents and care-givers to think that they don't have the wit to see that and would suddenly tell their child that their career aspirations have to be curtailed as a result of this.

Only on MN do boys wear girls' clothes and vice versa. I have never met anyone in RL who does this.

Wow, OP, your DD is fantastic - more power to her! what a fantastic letter.

You have raised a wonderful girl!

I agree RachelWatts - "just because there are bigger battles, it doesn't mean the llittle things should not be challenged" - it's all part of the same problem.