Hello again all.
A couple of you have made similar points, which all seem to be covered in TheRhubarb's 09:27 post. I'll use this to answer some of the questions put my way (but my responses are not to be taken as a direct response or confrontation of that poster).
My overall concern is that no matter what we do at home, society shapes how we treat people of different genders. I see this already when I take DD to nursery in the morning and see how the staff interact with girls and boys. Girls are routinely complemented on their appearance - boys aren't. Yesterday, one of the staff members immediately spotted that DD had new shoes and made positive remarks about them. I would put good money on the fact that this wouldn't happen for boys.
So what's the message here? To me, the message is that the most important thing is how a female looks. Style over substance.
If DD grows up wanting to be "girly and ultra feminine" I won't necessarily be disappointed - I just happen to think that this stuff is icing on the cake. I'm reminded of the song 'Independent Woman' by Destiny's Child - the chorus talks abour the things that make a woman look good but the continual refrain is about how she put them there herself ("The shoes on my feet - I bought it... 'cos I depend on me"). Looking the best you can is important, but still secondary to function, and I think it applies everywhere, from the food on our plates to the cars that we drive to ourselves as human beings. Some commenters last night seemed to class appearance as important solely because it's a predominantly female interest. I wholeheartedly disagree with that - in fact, I believe that thinking along those lines encourages parallel societies that we wouldn't want to tolerate if we were talking about race as opposed to gender. Obviously, some people here disagree with me from what I read last night - we'll just have to agree to disagree (I'm not here for a flame war).
If DD grows up and wants to become a hairdresser then yes, I will be disapponted - but in exactly the same way as if a son wants to sweep roads for a living. The disappointment comes in not seeing someone fulfil potential, and what worries me is that I think society still to some extent allows and/or encourages women to settle for less. I know someone may be tempted to have a pop at me about judging hairdressers and street sweepers, but let me try and give a real example of my thought process - one of the items in DD's dressing-up box is a nurse's outfit. Nursing is a very important job and not necessarily gender specific - I have a male friend who is a senior ICU nurse - but seeing the nurse's outfit appear immediately made me think "why did she recieve a nurse's outfit and not a doctor's?". Call me judgemental if you wish, but I think that Rosalind Franklyn is more important than (picks a name out of thin air) Amy Childs or any other woman who appears on a till-side magazine rack. But DD is already picking up on these subliminal messages and she hasn't even started school yet. DW and I can only do so much in the time we have.
Anyway, I just came here to ask about what we can do about this, and I did get a few good hints and tips for which I'm grateful. Further to which, I'm thinking of us visiting the National Space Centre up in Leicester this weekend - and maybe tell DD about Valentina Tereshkova?