DD is pink and princessy and cares about hair etc and is only 5

[NormaStanleyFletcher]

So not like me.

I was brought up by progressive parents in the 70s, and got nothing but electronics kits for my birthdays - there was a cartoon I saw once with a little girl opening a chemistry kit and thinking "I would kill for a barbie" - that was me.

So I have not tried to sway in any particular direction. I am going to have to come up with a reasonable answer to "how do I become a princess?" "Mummy when are you going to be a princess?" Erm, never is the answer to both so far...

Sorry, that was a big cross-post and I may have set you straight already dittany - but no, I really don't!

I think that, because pink is only a symbol that society picked out of thin air to designate this concept 'femininity', if we insist on resisting it, we're pretty much dignifying that concept of femininity with a response. Whereas, IMO, the thing to do is to insist that it is not a helpful concept, no matter what symbolism is attached to it.

dittany - I think the issue is you're providing solutions for here and now, which I would agree with, and I'm wondering about how those long-term those solutions could be - but we're not actually disagreeing?

So we're pretty much agreeing?

As I said, I think what is important is letting little girls (and little boys) know that what makes them a girl or a boy is physical, not social. I think we can agree?

The issue with 'resisting' pink as a symbol is, how do you then avoid little girls getting the message that being a girl is to do, not with their biology, but with the fact that they are the ones who must resist pink sparkles? It's not as if children won't notice what adults are trying to get them to do - so I think they will know that, for their parents, this resistance of pink is an important and gendered issue.

I do think it is really tricky, and I don't know how you get it 'right' (if there is such a thing), but I see tethers' point on this one.

Given that the overriding social contract of femininity vs masculinity is so strong, and our children will be exposed to this eventually, are we not in danger of creating a 'sub-class' of women/girls in their minds by actively resisting pink?

Only if we actively resist ALL gender stereotyping male/female would this work.

Hmm... Just working through this for myself...

Sorry, cross-post. What I meant is:

We have a here-and-now problem, which is that our society chooses to use pink sparkles to symbolize femininity.

And we have a long-term problem, that our society has long believed that there is such a thing as 'femininity' and that this is a helpful concept - as opposed to believing in female-ness, which is a matter of biology.

If by approaching the first problem, you end up replacing it with another socially-constructed idea of 'how to act as a woman/girl', you may make things better short-term (eg., it is good that women now don't feel being a doctor is un-feminine necessarily), but you might not be tackling the long-term issue, which is that we do't really want any social construct of what it is to be a woman, we want to say femaleness is biology and no more, no less.

Whether that's possible, I don't know ... so it makes sense in RL to try to look at both problems and do what you can.

(Btw, above, I should have said I see the point I think tethers is making. If I'm reading you wrongly, I apologize.)

I think it does, though.

I think if you make the resistance to a symbol so important, children will pick up on that, and part of their gender identity will be to do with resistance to a symbol. It's a negative imagine of having their gender identity constructed by identifying with that symbol - whereas what would I think be better (if we could work out how to do it) would be making it so children did not feel they had to conform to any gender identity at all, positive or negative.

I don't follow the comparison to porn culture, btw.

Porn is inherently harmful to women (and men). Pink is a symbol, and not inherently anything to do with gender, nor harmful.

True. Have you seen the thread on active convos in chat atm? It's some puke-making stuff directed at girls, too.

Here, in case anyone doesn't see it:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/1290714-I-am-too-pretty-to-do-my-homework-so-my-brother-has-to-do-it-for-me

It's depressing as a product but the comments are predictably quite cheering.

But how do you get to that point, where you are resisting a gender identity (ie., defining a part of yourself against it?), but not doing so consciously? I think the resisting femininity threads were really good for this. Whether it is something a child can be expected to do, I just don't know.

What worries me, you see, is that I very much grew up with the whole 'resist pink girliness' message. I knew quite clearly that many people considered pink to be for girls, and that my parents expected something 'better' of me. Not a great message, obviously! My parents didn't do it on purpose, but I'm not sure how easy it would be to avoid giving that message.

Looking at the threads on being a 'housewife' or about the value of childcare, I think we can see the same problems. Women shouldn't feel ashamed to be SAHMs, that work should be properly valued. But instead, resisting teh stereotype that it is feminine to be a SAHM, women just end up feeling they've failed. It's not fair.

Good for him (and you).

Please understand I'm not belittling that achievement, but I wonder if it's easier for boys to think of things in a gender-neutral way as society sees being male as the default and female as the alternative version a lot of the time? Maybe this doesn't come up when you're 5, though?!

Lenin - that was strange, you replied before I posted!

Thanks though. I get what you're saying - I guess you just have to try and find what works.

pomme - No I dont mean you need to not do anything with your looks it just shouldnt be the only focus for a child. I want her to think like me, and know she is pretty but not because she puts loads of effort in but just
because she is. Its not about not looking feminine both me and her are the natural 'barbie' type looking girls as such but that doesnt mean I dont want to play outside and have fun, or spend ages doing her hair and make up.

Also I mean extreme cases I dont want my DD to grow up not being able to climb trees, get her clothes dirty get messy etc. I see it in my line of work a lot. I have had parents say ther girl must stay inside as they dont want her to get dirty. I do Forest Schools and we have had parents shout out their girls for getting muddy and we have been told not to do it next time. We have had cases in the past where a mum didnt want her 2 year old on the decking as 'she is only a little girl and might fall over' and get messy. We have had 3 year olds in small heeled knee high boots, totally ridiculous sandals, mini skirts they cant move in. Its very common place if you worked in the early years a long time.