Sorry I?ve been away from the thread ? I am a transplanted Yank and yesterday was Thanksgiving so I?ve been busy with that :) . Himalaya and I have exchanged a couple of PMs on the survey, but I said I?d share my thoughts here too because I think it would be great if more people were involved in feedback and in contributing to the final version.
Big thanks to Himalya for being the one to get us started with an action plan rather than just an idea to do something. The idea of using the womanpower of MN to survey lots of stores in different locations, and to track where certain iconic items are shelved, was a stroke of genius.
Have people (other than the few who requested PMs) had a chance to look at a draft of the survey before we finalise it? Is there any reason not to post a link to it on the thread so that everyone can weigh in if they want to?
I do still have the one main concern that I?ve expressed upthread, and that?s the view that by not keeping it to clearly marked ?boys? and ?girls? aisles / sections / web search filters, we will make the findings much less objective and therefore much less powerful.
The current draft of the survey asks:
Were there obvious sections for ?boys? and ?girls? toys in store?
Yes with signs
Yes but without signs (clue: if you are not sure ask a shop assistant, or your child)
No, toys were arranged by theme / function
See, I think that the question should simply be ?Were there signs indicating which toys were for girls, and which were for boys?. I don?t think it?s useful to include a subjective assessment of a section being clearly meant for girls or boys, if it?s not labeled in that way, because we are only inviting a response of ?if you think that pink is just for girls or Lego is just for boys, that?s your own hang-up, nobody?s saying they can?t go into that aisle, blah blah blah?.
I know that when I see a ?wall of pink? in a toy store I think ?grrr?. ?girl?s section?, and I know that other MNers interested in taking part in this will, too. But however right our judgment may be, it?s still our subjective judgment and therefore should not be part of a survey for gathering facts.
Besides, if the retailer groups toys by function and puts all the domestic roleplay items together, then there is going to be a row of dollies and prams and kitchens. And because manufacturers and advertisers are also a major part of the problem here, most of those things will be packaged in pink. So there will be a wall of pink, which we?ll assess as clearly a girls? section even without a sign. You can already anticipate the retailer arguing that they?re doing what we want, grouping by function, and the problem isn?t them at all, it?s the fact that all the play kitchens arrive in pink boxes; take it up with the manufacturer. I really think it will weaken our argument.
Whereas if the aisle is actually labeled ?Girls? Toys? or ?Boy?s Toys?, then it?s much more straightforward to say it?s the retailer?s responsibility that those signs are there, and we?re asking them to take them down because they perpetuate damaging stereotypes and assumptions.
I think we have to anticipate the argument from the other side and try to conduct a survey that isn?t going to give them that kind of ammunition.
There are enough retailers who do explicitly label sections as ?Boys Toys? and ?Girls Toys? that we could do a really effective piece of work without including those that don?t say it explicitly.
Besides, if we?re not sure and ask the shop assistant or child, and the shop assitant or child says ?yes that?s the girls section over there, with all the pink stuff and the dolls and kitchens?, then are we measuring how the retailer is labeling things, or how conditioned members of society (such as the assistant or the child) already are to read those items as ?for girls?, even with no sign present?
That said, if the consensus (and it would be great to have some discussion of the survey on thread, so that there is a sense of consensus) is that we should include gendered sections that are not explicitly marked as such, then I think another category has to be added into question 4.
Question 4 is the brilliant one about where certain iconic items are displayed. Things like chemistry sets and doll buggies. The choices are:
In the ?boys? section or with a label ?for boys?
In the ?girls? section, or with a label ?for girls?
In a common section with ?girls? and ?boys? version (e.g. pink / blue)
In a common section / unisex
Not in store
I think it will be a majorly missed opportunity to have people recording this information, without the final results showing clearly whether chemistry sets and kitchens were stocked in sectioned with signs explicitly stating that they are for one gender or the other. There?s just far too much subjectivity in saying that something was ?in the boys section? just because all the boxes were blue. It muddies the water as to whether the ?blue is for boys, pink is for girls? assumption is the retailer?s, or the surveyor?s.
I?ve probably said enough. Sorry about the length and repetitiveness of the post and for the delay in weighing in. And I really don?t want to take anything away from the work that Himalaya has done here, I think it?s fantastic.
To summarise:
Can we please have more posters' input on the survey, possibly post a link on the thread?
Can we please think again about whether it?s wise to include sections that we perceived to be gendered, but that are not explicitly marked as such?
And if we do include sections that aren?t explicitly marked, can we please separate out the ?marked for boys? and ?perceived to be for boys? options in Question 4?