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?

Whoops 'mischief, magic and slime' on one site.

Girls can do better than just looking at pretty things and boys can do better than just throwing things.

I should add that if dd picked out a pink doll from a lucky dip stall, she'd say thank you and give it to one if her friends or cousins who would like it. She'd not be asking to change it. She knows these things are hit or miss, you can't always win /have what you want, and she'd feel rude if she asked to change it.

That's not a lucky dip scenario then? You're saying that's her own free choice? So quite different from the scenario under discussion here

strawberry I mentioned my dd picking pink glittery stuff because often on these threads pink is seen as lesser.
I find it really annoying that people talk so disparagingly about things a lot of girls do actually like.
As if my daughter is letting herself down everytime she picks a doll over a car.

StrawberryTeaLeaf - I was referring to toys in general; the thread had moved on from just discussing lucky dip offerings.

If it really bothers you the way to disrupt this is simple, buy a lot of "fluffy pink shit" and wrap it in blue, then buy a load of trains, dinosaurs etc. and wrap it pink. Problem (for you) solved.

than you can sit back and watch the "fun" as various children meltdown due to getting the various prizes that you have stashed in the "wrong" sections.

I disrupted the boys and girls hampers - I just got sticker books not 'boys' and 'girls' sticker books - because, they're sticker books. Gender unnecessary.

and DS1's mate's mum bought frog skipping ropes I seem to remember.

I'd like to know where these vast numbers of girls who won't play with vehicles, or huge numbers of boys who don't play with dolls are - because I see plenty of girls on scooters, and boys with 'action figures' (ie. dolls) where I am. DS2 has often tucked a teddy into bed, and DS1 used to spend plenty of time serving us imaginary tea and cake at his nan's house. DS1 has had glittery trainers from the girls section ('boys' shoes all boring), DS2 has decorated cupcakes with god knows what in whatever colours there were. You know who has ever commented or cared? One parent commented on DS2's pink dungarees, and his grandad made some comment about wearing a glow bracelet like a girl once - the kids, they just don't care.

How about just putting toys in the lucky dip and letting kids get a lucky dip.

Y'allz being daft. pink & blue lucky dip is fine by me.

Was there something to stop the girls reaching for blue or boys reaching for pink? Thought not. Move along.

Missing the point spectacularly there ljkk

All toys are for both girls and boys.

But pink and blue lets kids know if they're getting a toy geared towards their gender or not.

A boy may not want a pretty pony. A girl may not want a hot wheel car. Some boys like boy toys, and some girls like girly pink toys.

As long as you let the kids pick whether they want pink or blue, I don't see the problem.

Actually, yes there is. Societal expectations. You can't expect (most) small children to deliberately shun societal expectations, they are programmed to learn by socialisation. You need to remove/change the expectations first, which is what we are saying by remove the pink/blue labelling.

Chronic You can wrap a doll in green paper and give it to a boy.

That boy knows that it is not a "boy toy".

You are right we need to remove expectations. But part of that is making acceptable for kids to play with "opposite toys" in the first place. Not just dumping pink crap on boys and blue crap on girls.

But why is a car a 'boy toy'? Why is a pony inherently more 'girly'?

Clue: it's not. Boys (tend to) like cars because they are expected to like cars, and they are expected to like cars because (most) boys yield to the societal expectations and therefore do like cars.

The only thing more 'boyish' about a car is that in days long gone, (I think) women did not have the right to drive cars, they were driven about by men. So men had the freedom but women couldn't be trusted and were too weak and 'hysterical' to be allowed to drive or look after themselves at all really.

(I'm not 100% sure on the driving! but I do know that there were many things that women weren't allowed to do, and they were expected to stay home and look after the family/home, hence why many 'girls' toys revolved around housework and childcare)

Do we really want to continue that message by encouraging the genderisation of toys?

I think it was summed up nicely a couple of pages back. DD was free to play with DS's trainset, DS free to play with DD's doll.

And if they somehow get the idea that dolls are for girls and trains for boys, it's just their innate preferences and nothing to do with who was given the doll and who got the trainset.

I'm missing a

Part of making it acceptable (IMO) is removing the idea that toys need to be genderised at all. Why encourage boys to play with 'girls toys' (which brings in a cognitive dissonance, the child will naturally resist) when we could just encourage them to play with toys and push the message that there is no such thing as boy/girl toys, just toys that you like and toys that you don't..

'Somehow' Bimbly?

Oh you're being sarcastic. Phew.

sorry. Yes, but obviously not very well :)

Thank god, I was about to spontaneously combust!

Seriously though, isn't it nice to have a discussion/debate that hasn't degenerated into name calling and GF accusations?

Chrohnically sure, that is what lots of do try to do (though opinions differ on whether we exist IRL or only on MN).

However it's very difficult to talk about the issues without using the concepts of "toys traditionally given" to girls and, separately, to boys. I see "girls' toys" and "boys' toys" as shorthand for that. Ideally the conversation wouldn't have to happen and there would be no such thing as girls' and boys' toys, but while that division still exists we need a name for those groups.

Seriously though, isn't it nice to have a discussion/debate that hasn't degenerated into name calling and GF accusations?

Yes!

I have always just told my kids there are no such thing as boys toys and girls toys, toys are just toys.

I make sure my kids know that they can play with and be who they want to be. But you are fighting a tidealwave of messages from society, the media etc.

It's why @lettoysbetoys campaign is so good and important.

Btw there is nothing wrong with pink or glittery stuff. What's wrong is the idea that it is seen as just for girls and somehow 'lesser'.

I am not a fan of pink myself, I like purple and greens and blues... But some of my kids like pink, it's pajama day at school on Friday for children in need, ds3 (10) will wear a pink, furry onsie and dd (4) will probably wear a sparkly frozen onsie, whilst Ds4(7) will wear a superhero one... They all chose them themselves.

I'd very much like to see all the ones about to demand the PTA request gender neutral lucky dips a) actually run the stall and deal with disappointed kids and b) go shopping for these small toys at x price point (most lucky dips are 50p so you're looking at 20p soend max). There's not much out there...
There are times to beat people up about gender politics - this isn't one of them imo.

If this is a school-related event, then aren't there equality rules to be followed?

I agree Pica, for 20p and relying on parents to donate items is not the time to fight the battle.

I think the conversation had moved on into more general terms though.