@LizzieSiddal no you’ve missed my point. My kids choose what they want, boys have both had pushchairs, dolls, kitchens etc etc. Daughter is the youngest so will probably end up playing with the monster machines and dinosaurs that the boys have out all the time.
My point is that being a girl, or being ‘girly’, or liking pink, isn’t something to be ashamed of. By teaching girls to aspire to be like boys (boys, not engineers!) you are reinforcing the idea that the ‘boy’ option is the better one. A girl can be bought the pink ball and be an engineer. Obviously if your child prefers blue buy the blue option, but before children can voice a preference the vast majority of people choose the gendered option, and by intentionally choosing opposite you are reinforcing the view that ‘girly’ stuff is second best.
Think about why, in many people's minds, it’s absolutely fine for a girl to play football but if a boy wants to do ballet there’s raised eyebrows. Because it’s fine to want to be ‘like a boy’, but not for a boy to want to be ‘like a girl’.
You might not agree with me but please don’t say if everyone thought like me women would still be chained the sink. I completely believe in gender equality, but that’s as much about getting society to value ‘girl stuff’ as it is about encouraging women into ‘boy stuff’. Why are nursery staff (qualified, mostly female staff) paid so much less than a building site labourer (unqualified, mostly men)? Because society doesn’t value ‘girl stuff’, and in my view making your daughter choose the boy version reinforces that boy stuff is more valuable than the girl equivalent.
I do also believe that we should be encouraging girls into science, engineering etc by the way. But we should also be encouraging boys into nursing and care roles