Right, this is really grating my cheese right now.
My kids love Paw Patrol. Obviously. They are 2 and 5, so... of course they do.
They are boys. This is relevant (though it shouldn't be).
Their favourite character is Skye. Probably because she has a helicopter and is a nice bright colour (pink). I can promise you I have not encouraged this in any way (Chase is obviously the coolest imho).
Bought PJs for the youngest DS, he was pleased as punch. Bedtime comes, he puts them on. DS1 is puzzled. "Someone's missing," he says, ominously, pointing to his brother's chest. I spot exactly who he means. There are five pups featured and Skye has been omitted. Presumably she's not a "primary" pup. WTAF? She does way more rescue missions than, say, Zuma. Or even Rocky. Cue me going on a rant about everyday sexism etc etc. To the bemusement of my offspring.
Since then I've noticed that EVERY SINGLE BIT of PP merchandise is the same. If you want a t-shirt, bag, sock, shoe, lunchbox, drinks bottle etc with Skye on, you have to buy one with JUST her (or her and Everest) and it will be 100% pink or purple, or covered in frills. I've got no objection to buying these for the boys whatsoever, but I know that other people think I'm making an aggressively feminist statement with my DS2's pink frilly Skye socks. And he'd be way more pleased with socks that have all the pups together, the whole point of the show is team work right?
Just - why? Why to the manufacturers and designers think boys won't buy PP merchandise with all the pups on? Or that girls (or boys) who want pink and frilly will somehow be put off by the inclusion of the male pups on their things. Kids clearly love the show - they won't stop buying it because there are all the pups on all the things.
Fully prepared to be told 'there are bigger problems in this world' - there so clearly are! This has just been bugging me for a while and I needed to get it off my chest!