AIBU about gender segregation of annuals in WH Smith?

[Catsize]

I think that MN is getting to my inner core.

Photo was taken today in a lovely market town branch of WH Smith. Went in with my partner and 3yr old daughter to see weird subliminal messaging in the display of annuals.

If you are a girl, you'll be interested in the 'Disney Princess, Frozen, pink Paw Patrol(!!), MLP, Beauty and the Beast' shelf.
If you're a boy, you'll be interested in 'Star Wars, Minecraft, Doctor Who, blue Paw Patrol(!!) and Lego Ninjago'.

I've a 5yr old boy and 3yr old girl who like a mixture of these things but the subliminal messaging won't be lost on them.
Tempted to send them an email but want to know if I would be unreasonable in doing so.

My partner stopped me from rearranging the shelves there and then (I felt slightly entitled as I worked there as a teenager).

"and I'm fairly sure that magazines for adults aren't kept in sections for men and for women."

They were last time I looked.

you encourage independent thinking then they'll grow up without being fettered by such ridiculous thinking as we seem to see regularly on here.

You would think so wouldn't you? But studies show that this isn't the case.

I will say it again, anyone who has doubts needs to watch the BBC documentary. Then maybe you will understand why some of us have a problem with this type of marketing.

To shut down a conversation and say it doesn't matter is just narrow minded. No one is offended, we just want an open and frank discussion. Why are some of you so vehemently against these issues being discussed?

there are so many depressing replies on this thread.

If you can't see the problem then you are the problem.

@Nikephorus what do you think about how it influences children, particularly under 7s, as this is the age that children tend to get firmly fixed ideas? What are your thoughts about the research that shows that children are very aware of packaging and that sex-segregated packaging does influence their choices?
I think they're more likely to be influenced by their parents' attitudes than they are about the packaging. If their parent always encourages them to look beyond the packaging then they will just the same as other decisions in their lives like what to eat, how to behave, what sports to do.

"and I'm fairly sure that magazines for adults aren't kept in sections for men and for women."

They were last time I looked.

We must be shopping in different places - everywhere I go there's no heading at all.

To shut down a conversation and say it doesn't matter is just narrow minded. No one is offended, we just want an open and frank discussion. Why are some of you so vehemently against these issues being discussed?
Surely an "open & frank discussion" allows people to say that they don't believe that there's a problem? everybodysang seems to want to shut down the discussion by slagging off everyone who disagrees with her....

I really think there's more in the world to worry about than this!

@Nikephorus, so do you think the research is wrong or flawed? Do you care about children whose parents can't or won't counteract what they see around them? I also think it's naive to think that parental attitudes can outweigh all social conditioning and peer pressure.

I cannot see why there is this dogged defence of sex-based stereotyping when it has been shown to be harmful to children.

I'd think that, like most research, it was partly flawed & partly biased. Some bias is deliberate depending on who's paying for it, and part is sub-conscious on behalf of those arranging it (everyone's personal opinions affect how they approach something). No research can get a full view - it's always going to be based on a relatively tiny sample and may be taken from an area of the population that over-represents one view.
Yes some children will have parents who won't or can't steer them in the right direction, but as they reach adulthood themselves I'd assume that most (not all I admit) will work out what their own opinions are regardless of those around them as they work out who they are and gain confidence from that.
I'd have thought that peer pressure & social conditioning was more of an issue in the teenage years when kids are trying to fit in (and girls seem to become more bitchy - or was that just my school?!) and where parents' views are more likely to be scorned on principle. That's where you need teachers encouraging study in different areas & that's why I think single-sex schools are a good idea because you can introduce subjects for all to try that might not be seen as an option in a mixed-sex school.
I genuinely don't see that there are going to be scores of kids "harmed" by sex-based stereotyping. It's not a dogged defence, it's just an opinion.

The last time DS1 wore brightly coloured nail varnish was the day that another child asked if he was a girl. He was in reception class. Since that day he's rejected wearing it.

In itself it doesn't really matter, but the big picture is that children want to fit in. They look for markers of identity. They don't want to be labelled as being the wrong sex. It's probably easier for a girl to make more "masculine" choices and be a "tomboy" than for a boy to make more "feminine" choices.

I've tried to keep options open for my DCs. They do have prams and dolls. I've tried where possible to buy things in more neutral, varied colours. But I haven't made those choices in a vacuum. Quite often the choice is blue. Or pink. If I'm buying a pair of sons toothbrushes, do I buy a pink and blue toothbrush because that's all that's on the shelf, or do I buy identical blue toothbrushes because society constantly drips the message that pink is for girls and my sons reject overly "feminine" choices.

It's a fine line between giving my sons an open choice of a full range, free of artificial gendering, and exposing them to ridicule for being excessively feminine when they are too young to have a reasoned conviction of their choices.

The display may not have explicitly stated boys and girls, but that message is already ingrained across society. Displaying this way creates inconsistency; isn't Star Wars a story now owned by Disney and now featuring a princess, therefore a Disney Princess. Doesn't Dr Who succeed with the support and intervention from brave, feisty female assistants. By closing down choice with superficial pinkification we are denying children to a full range of play and role models, and further down the line that does have an impact on their experience and aspiration. It wasn't ingrained nearly as deeply in the 1980s as it is now.

They're quite clearly organised by what someone who likes X might be interested in.

E.g. if you liked the Hannibal Lecter books, you might be interested in the Dexter novels. Or if you like Power Rangers annuals, there's a good chance you might be interested in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

It really isn't segregated by sex.

I've also never been somewhere that has magazines segregated by gender. Every shop usually has them listed under categories like "Fitness, Sport, Lifestyle, Cooking" etc. The only time they're segregated by gender is if it's for men's health or women's health, which are going to be pretty useless to the other gender, aren't they?

They aren't arranged by type. If they were, a much more sensible and practical way to arrange them would be to have the stuff for younger kids e.g. Paw Patrol, Frozen all together and the stuff for older kids e.g. Doctor Who, Star Wars together. A ten-year-old isn't going to be interested in a Paw Patrol annual and a three-year-old isn't going to be interested in Minecraft.

And if they're arranged by type, why on earth aren't the two Paw Patrol annuals arranged together?

Definitely email. As PP have said, this is part of a problem that results in boys only being able to understand anger and girls growing up with no self esteem - which has real and serious issues when they become adults, and is a contributor to mental health issues, DV, etc etc etc.

Any shop that smells like the nineteen seventies and won't let you leave until you've bought ten cut price chocolate oranges, is likely to be shit in other ways.

The whole shop is a nightmare, never mind subliminal messaging (and I agree with you except that it's not all that subliminal) escape with your sanity intact and your bag chocolate free and you are doing well.

I logged onto Iplayer and watched the start of the linked documentary , the first one is no longer available by the way.

I have been brought up to be analytical and independent thinking and am conscious whenever I read or view something that it is coming from the viewpoint or purpose of the person who commissioned the documentary and for that reason there will be an element of bias for the view it is trying to promote.

I felt that the broadcasting was very one sided to promote the view of the producers and presenter. The part I watched was a puzzle to show spacial awareness and the programme wanted to show that girls have worse spatial awareness than boys due to the fact differences between the way we treat genders rather than physical factors in the brain. I can see some logic in the argument that if girls don't play with lego they won't be as good at these things (however I'm yet to meet a girl who does not play with it!). I found the reporting biased. It only showed children who met the theory. I will bet my bottom dollar that there will have been girls in that class who were better than some of the boys but they didn't show it because it doesn't suit the argument so I am afraid to say the programme has lost me. My daughter is exceptionally good at puzzles like that and is a similar age. She would have given any boy in that class a run for his money.

The next part showed a doctor who purported to say that girls are better emotionally because they played with dolls not lego. This again is way too much of a generalisation. My daughter does not play with dolls because she doesn't like them (she has had them in the house but rejects them). She makes her lego bricks or for that matter whatever she can find into characters.

I get the message that the programme is trying to put over but I think it is fairly poor reporting. I'd have a lot more respect for it if it was done in a balanced way.

I will say that I haven't had time to watch all of it that was my view from the 10 minutes I had to watch it.

as they reach adulthood themselves I'd assume that most (not all I admit) will work out what their own opinions are regardless of those around them as they work out who they are and gain confidence from that.

That's kind of the point though. By the time they reach adulthood, their critical thinking skills have been established within the social framework they've grown up in. The 'facts' they believe to be true can't suddenly be unbelieved.

The BBC documentary referred to demonstrated that by 7 years old, children collectively believe that boys and girls are different. That boys are stronger (they're not), cleverer (they're not) and will earn more money (they probably will).

Our society creates 7 year olds who believe this - they're not suddenly going to stop believing it when they become adults.

It really isn't segregated by sex

Then why aren't the two paw patrol annuals on the same shelf? Why does there need to be pink and blue paw patrol annuals in the first place?

I will say that I haven't had time to watch all of it that was my view from the 10 minutes I had to watch it.

You can't really write a whole programme off based on 10mins of a 2 hour programme. It's a shame the first part is no longer available. Wonder if it's on YouTube or something.

@CastIronCookware as a parent I see it as my responsibility to create a social framework for my children to grow up in, not the job a shop that sells annuals or clothes. Their job is to make money. That will always overpower corporate social responsibility or anything else.

I have children of both genders / sex - I daren't even call it one or the other on here anymore quite frankly - and they are and will be brought up to develop their own preferences and intuition regardless. I don't feel beleaguered by this sort of thing I just get on with it.

Surely if we all work to nurture confident, challenging insightful and loved children that is the key. If we fail in that as parents it doesn't matter how right on and inclusive / fluid anything and everything our children encounter is because on a longitudinal and sustained basis it will be offset at home?

Delete I will watch more when I have time. I hope the rest is more rounded and gives the full results from the classroom rather than just picking the bits that suits the theory the most. I fear from the part that I have watched that it will not. But I will watch the rest and see.

lol I can't bear it, the girls party shown next is terrible. My DD just turned 8 and took her friends go - carting!

Where do they find these people! (to support the view the programme is trying to make! )

So yes my daughter has been to a 'pamper party' for one friend, but for another girlfriend the boing zone (trampolining) and to a swimming party.

Again biased reporting imo. I'll continue to watch though ...... perhaps the unbiased part will come but I'm a third of the way through now so not holding out hope.

I would never buy annuals in W H Smith at this time of year, wait till January when they have slashed the prices.

Boys things or girls? When my kids were young they would definitely have seen Star Wars and Dr Who as girls things as much as boys. My daughter had no interest in Disney Princess stuff, her tough looking brother was very fond of dressing up as a Disney Princess and loved his Wendy doll. He was quite fond of Beauty and the Beast. My other sons would have been looking for the football ones.

They aren't arranged by type. If they were, a much more sensible and practical way to arrange them would be to have the stuff for younger kids e.g. Paw Patrol, Frozen all together and the stuff for older kids e.g. Doctor Who, Star Wars together. A ten-year-old isn't going to be interested in a Paw Patrol annual and a three-year-old isn't going to be interested in Minecraft. Ageism. At 3 my DD was reading Secret Seven, at 5 her favourite was Aesop's Fables. Not all 3 year olds are going to be into Paw Patrol, not that it was around when mine were that age.

Thing is you are looking at it from your own perspective. Your dd had a go karting party and that's great. But there are parents out there who wouldn't even consider such a party for their dd's because they perceive it to be a 'boy activity'. One parent said they wouldn't buy craft things for a boys birthday because they don't think a boy would want craft stuff. There is an assumption that girls do crafts and boys don't but there's no logical reasoning as to why that is.

It's not about you, or me on a personal level, this sort of gender stereotyping is widespread and ingrained across society. They find these people quite easily because it is very common, unfortunately.

Genuinely can't watch any more. Sorry.

I don't buy labelled T-shirts because they are pretty naff.

Going from 'forever beautiful' to 'boys are better' and 'made to be underpaid' is putting a spin on it that I just can't see. I have been brought up to take care of my appearance but to expect to be equal to males.

As for the next bit that talks about kids perceptions of parental chores. They ought to have interviewed my kids is all I will say!

delete I'm not disputing that there are people who follow these gender lines but they are not forced to any more than you or I.

How ridiculous is it that someone could believe that a boy doesn't do craft. It's akin to mothers of girls who say they were glad they don't have boys as they are not so loving.....

All parents of boys know that boys are at least as loving as their sisters often much more.

There is so much more to this than packaging, shop displays and clothes line. I'm not disputing that there can be a link I'm just saying that there is way more to it than that.