To think gender colour coded lucky dip is unacceptable?

[asharah]

Helping out with the PTA I discovered kids were being asked to bring in lucky dip prizes, wrapped pink for girls and blue for boys. I was really shocked. Surely our kids should be encouraged not to discriminate and play with all toys? When I shared my concern that this reinforced unhelpful gender stereotypes some parents came back saying they didn't want boys to be upset or teased for receiving pink fluffy toys, or vice versa? I've never come across gender separated lucky dip before, and encountered hundreds. Is it normal?

The reason children go for the gender specific stuff is precisely because society is forcing the stereotype down their throats at every opportunity

I completely disagree. I have a ds and a dd. It is fascinating to see how they play so differently.

A couple of years ago, I bought them both identical toy Santas for Xmas. My ds picked him up and another toy and pretended they were fighting each other. My dd sat the Santa on the floor and made a tea party for it. How would explain this?

But there are also girls who wouldn't like the pink glittery stuff, yet because they are girls and are 'supposed' to like this stuff they don't necessarily have the option of abstaining from it.

As far as I am concerned you either get to see and choose the toy/prize that you want to make sure you DO get something you like, OR everyone gets a random one, no colour coding or gender specific, and if you like it you like it, if not then it's unlucky. It's not fair to restrict the choice based on what someone should like.

Tbh, if you think your child is going to be disappointed with what they receive, maybe lucky dips aren't your best choice.

Does a lucky dip have to have pink glitter? Can't the stalls sell sufficient pink glitter to meet demand?

Of course not, but as there's nothing wrong with pink glitter then why shouldn't it feature in a lucky dip?

No one ever suggests not having toy cars, or trains, or builders tools, but there are plenty of children that wouldn't like those things either.

But there are also girls who wouldn't like the pink glittery stuff, yet because they are girls and are 'supposed' to like this stuff they don't necessarily have the option of abstaining from it.

Hear hear.

Tbh, if you think your child is going to be disappointed with what they receive, maybe lucky dips aren't your best choice

Maybe grooming female children to be bimbos is the problematic choice?

former because they have been taught (maybe not by you, but by school/nursery/older children) that that's how boys and girls play.

At DD's nursery, when she was in toddler room (2 year olds) it wasn't unusual to see a boy in a fairy costume or playing with the dolls when I picked her up. Now she's in preschool (3 and 4 year olds) I can't remember the last time I saw it- yet these are the exact same children, they moved up in the past couple of months, and they're now in a group with older children. I presume it a the older children's influence that has led to the demise of boys doing 'girly' things- 2 year olds don't comment on the gender specificity of a toy, but 4 year olds do.

Tbh, if you think your child is going to be disappointed with what they receive, maybe lucky dips aren't your best choice

Yep. The clue is there 'Lucky' dip. You may get something you like, you may not.

Of course not, but as there's nothing wrong with pink glitter then why shouldn't it feature in a lucky dip?

Because a majority of DC don't like it. Which causes mathematical difficulties for a game of probability.

osolea so we're back to- you either remove all toys that aren't necessarily a popular choice (so no cars because lots of children don't like them, and no glitter because lots of children don't like that)

Or you allow all toys and if you don't like it, tough

But there are also girls who wouldn't like the pink glittery stuff, yet because they are girls and are 'supposed' to like this stuff they don't necessarily have the option of abstaining from it.

There are boys that don't like stereotypically boys stuff too, I think it's much harder to be a boy that doesn't like boys stuff than a girl who doesn't like boys stuff. So why is it that people object to the pink glittery stuff and not the the cars and the trains?

I like how boys who dislike pink fluff are clearly to be protected from it, but girls who don't presumably just have to lump it? Or be told that they can pick from te 'boy' pile, basically telling them they're getting this whole girl thing wrong.

So let's break down the barriers and abandon the 'boys and girls' stuff so children feel free to like what they like. And the first step is to stop labelling things as 'for boys' and 'for girls'. Ie not doing things like gender specific lucky dips!

Because a majority of DC don't like it. Which causes mathematical difficulties for a game of probability

But in my experience of small children, the minority that do like it are still a large number and they're just as significant. So why should the children that like the pink glitter be denied it when the boys aren't denied the things that their stereotype dictates?

For goodness sake. Would your son be thrilled to receive a Barbie? Saves an awful lot of fuss at the Lucky Dip, particularly as so few children are grateful for what they receive.
Have you nothing more important to worry about?

YABU my dd would hate to get a car or something similar. She is very much a pink glitter and dolly girl.

I like how boys who dislike pink fluff are clearly to be protected from it, but girls who don't presumably just have to lump it? Or be told that they can pick from te 'boy' pile, basically telling them they're getting this whole girl thing wrong.

That's why it's better to leave the stereotypical stuff out of LDs altogether.

DC have plenty of chances to chose the two extremes of their own volition.

This would be a hell of a lot easier if they just bunged a load of bouncy balls, pots of bubbles and colouring books from the pound shop in and let them all at it.

That's it educated! Boys have to be protected from pink glitter in case it turns them into weaker females. But it's fine for girls to be exposed to 'boyish' things because boys are stronger and girls should aspire to be boys anyway.

Maybe grooming female children to be bimbos is the problematic choice?

Why the assumption that giving a little girl something pink and glittery that she will genuinely like is grooming her to be a bimbo?

Wouldn't it be better to get away from the assumption that pink glittery stuff is somehow less worthy than a train?

But in my experience of small children, the minority that do like it are still a large number and they're just as significant. So why should the children that like the pink glitter be denied it when the boys aren't denied the things that their stereotype dictates?

If I was running one, they'd ALL be denied the stereotypical stuff.

You could quite easily fill a LD with science toys, craft toys, whistles, harmonicas, sets of jacks, silly putty, notebooks, bookmarks; All those things.

I wouldn't compare or euqate pink glitter with train TBH

Well, for a start, as has been mentioned, pink glittery stuff is often something to make the person look good, whereas a train is an actual toy that can be played with.

The problem is more like to be that a boy gets offered a train that looks like an actual train and a girl gets offered a pink glittery train resembling no actual train ever seen on any track anywhere.

See lego for a shameful example of that phenomenon.

A pink glittery purse is a toy that can be played with too.

I can't see much difference in pretending to be a hairdresser with a pink comb or pretending to be a train driver with a blue train.

There isn't that much difference. The problem comes when you put the blue train in the 'boy' pile and pink comb in the 'girl' pile, then children get the message that girls can't be train drivers and boys can't be hairdressers (unless they're gay of course). Why not just have a comb and a train in one lucky dip?