Would anyone like to join in an effort to convince retailers to stop categorizing toys by gender?

[OneHandWavingFree]

Following on from this thread and similar ones, a few of us are interested in discussing ways to send a message to retailers that it is not acceptable to designate 'boys' and 'girls' toy aisles which reinforce the message that science and adventure are "boys stuff", while girls should be primarily occupied with looking 'sexy' or practicing for domestic drudgery.

The first steps might be to draft a letter and identify a few retailers to target for an email campaign. Other ideas of how to get the message across are very welcome too, though.

Would anyone like to join in?

I totally agree that fewer words are better (in general, but especially when people reading them on the screen). I also agree with avoiding phrases which sound too feminist / lefty as it'll put some off (sadly!).

The only thing I would put back in is our demands! It's important that people know what the alternative is, what positive things could be done instead - i.e. what we want - we're not just complaining, we have a solution!

Someone may be able to improve on the wording, but how about something along the lines of:

"Toys are for fun, for learning, for stoking imagination and encouraging creativity. Children should be free to play.

Isn't it time that toy stores and supermarkets stopped putting telling children, parents and grandparents that some toys are only suitable for girls and some for boys?

We'd like to see toys sorted by by theme or function instead rather than gender.

Let toys be toys - for girls and boys."

Although reading it back, my words are the least snappiest of that bit!

Can anyone improve on it?

I guess that the message doesn't have to go in the about bit necessarily, but it should go somewhere I think, as it is important to show what the shops can do to get it right.

It might be nice, as well as adding pictures of the worst offenders, to occasionally add a picture of a shop that's doing it right.

Also agree a page is more suitable than a group as our updates will appear in people's timelines, people can "like" and no need to join.

Groups have one advantage of being able to message members, but then group updates don't appear in the time-line IIRC. And timeline updates suit us better anyway than private emails as easier to share.

The only thing I would say is that if we're on a page, we need to make we remember to share any good pictures that others submit, otherwise they'll be a bit hidden in the little box of other people's updates ont he page (can't remember what it's called)

What about:
""Toys are for fun, for learning, for stoking imagination and encouraging creativity. Children should be free to play.

But many toy stores and supermarkets are limiting our children's imagination and choice by telling them that some toys are only suitable for girls and some for boys.

This is quite frankly ridiculous and needs to stop. We're calling upon retailers to label their toys by theme or function rather than by gender.

Quite simply, we're calling upon retailers to let the kids decide!

Let toys be toys - for girls and boys."

Does it sound a bit forthright?! It's just I got a bit eye-rolly whilst I was typing it!

I'm a bit fuzzy headed this morning or I'd try to get to grips with the blurb, have had a go but without success. Agree that more emphasis on fun, less 'shoulds' and words like indoctrinate, etc, It's hard to get that balance between serious message and not coming across as too lefty feminist. One line suggestion - 'No Limits on our children's imaginations.' ?

I know it's been agreed that we are primarily targetting retailers, but I do think toy designers/manufacturers should be in there as well, if we are going with a statement about who we are targetting, even if it's only because a successful campaign should at least make manufacturers/designers aware of the strength of feeling about the genderization of toys.

Re the cover photo, been having a search but not found anything that seems good enough ? I think it would be a good idea to have a picture of a girl and boy playing happily together with a mix of toys ? we want to make it clear that this is a campaign for all children. I have one of DD and a boy playing in a sandpit, and another of her and a boy in a car on a merry-go-round, but I don't think they're quite what we want. Surely one of us has a pic of a boy and girl playing with a mix of toys?

Also, happy to help out with admin or be a mod if needed. I already mod another group so check fb every day anyway.

Also, was looking over the thread to summarise the ideas people have been putting forward to flesh out our page and make it awesome...

photos:

• pictures of grown up occupations (eg. nurses) with "women only" over it and the tagline "if this isn't allowed, then why is this?" next to a picture of the girls' nurses outfit.

• of a boy and a girl playing with the same toy in a gender neutral way.

• a humorous one of Barbie and Ken (or Action Man better?) united together with a picket saying "let toys be toys!" (you know - just to subvert the accusations of fems not having a sense of humour!!

-everyone's uploads of the toys / labelling that piss them off the most.

posts/articles:

• Name and shame - results of the survey and which retailers are the best (probs Ikea) and worst (probs all the rest of them!)

• linking to Scandinavian countries to show that it is indeed possible and that society hasn't broken down over there! An idea of how things could be...

• "Equal Play to Equal Pay" article linking the segregation of children's toys to the pay gap and limited opportunities for both men and women, not forgetting to emphasise that it's not just about expanding girls' opportunities but also that men lose out in the nurturing stakes (that was inarticulate but someone knows what I mean, right?!)

• What the kids say - some quotes from our kids as to what they think, what they would like to play with, to show that this really is damaging them and that there are many that cross the rigid gender toy divide.

• pinkification - maybe looking at the spate of manufacturers' current very imaginative policy of taking mainstream projects, painting them pink and banging on about makeup and patronising our DDs with such shite (ok not put that way!)

• and the petition for people to sign.

I think that was about it. Did I leave anything out? I know it goes from the realms of just retailers labelling and onto manufacturers and advertising but it's part of the same picture, IYSWIM.

Right, I'm off to enjoy the sunny day before my fingers become welded to the keyboard!

Trisha - yeah, a piccy of a blue "for boys" aisle and a pink "for girls' aisle" with the stamp "No limits on our children's imagination" next to a simple picture of a boy and girl happily playing together?

Right I really am off!

Good post CC, (the long one, not the one agreeing with me )I like the idea of recommending toys or shops that we like too, rather than just focussing on what p's us off.

Looking at the Swedish article that Nickel linked I liked the line "It's not a boy or a girl thing, it's a toy for children."

We could have something like "It's not a boy thing. It's not a girl thing. It's a toy thing!"

You asked for lurkers' comments earlier. Just to say I really like EqualPlay and EqualiToy.

Let toys be toys doesn't really get across the gender bias IMO. FairPlay is good but I think someone mentioned it had been used in other contexts.

Am enjoying reading the thread and links. Haven't posted much as my kids are beyond the toy stage.

Another thought wrt the FB page, we need to make it interactive. People are more likely to share it that way.

Easy way would be asking people to share pictures of their kids playing with gender neutral toys, or toys normally aimed at the opposite sex.

Or asking them to provide information on situations where their kids have changed their mind on a toy they liked due to it being labelled for the opposite sex.

Possibly also worth having a changing poster child every month or so from people's photo submissions. Gives people an additional reason to interact and to share the page. Also makes it fun.

MoG - I agree it should be interactive, but I thought more focused on the stores e.g. People posting snaps of dumb signs, products merchandised as for boys/for girls, and words on packaging etc....rather than making the case that "toys should be toys"

got the letterbix catalogue in post today. there is a girl in a green drs outfit but pages of fairy stuff with comments like 'girls will love...' plus the borders on the pages are pink or blue so the more 'girly' stuff has a pink border and the sciencey stuff has a blue border etc.

Is there anyone who is any good with graphics?

Loads of people like/share pictures, memes, those postcard things. If we could get some visuals that people can just click on it is far more likely to be passed on. I rarely click on articles that other people share or like, but almost always look at pictures.

This could be an ongoing thing.

I'm thinking about stuff like the 'dream' and 'reality' pictures.

We could do 'retail' and 'real' with the retail being a super pink thing and real being how kids play with stuff.

"Is there anyone who is any good with graphics? "

I'm pretty good at it

Only just got online - day unexpectedly busy, sorry! Thanks for all very useful feedback - catching up on replies on threads, changing the wordy wording on Facebook now and setting up admins, then will be back. Just letting you know I haven't forgotten.

Will post again soon with a link!

I had assumed the FB page would be a page for 'likes', not a group to belong to. It seems people will be most happy with that? I've taken bits from all the feedback on the blurb. Is this better?

Toys are for fun, for learning, for stoking imagination and encouraging creativity. Children should be free to play with the toys that interest them most.

But many retailers are limiting our children's imaginations and interests by telling them that some toys are only suitable for girls and some for boys.

Isn't it time that toy stores, department stores and supermarkets stopped putting signs up telling children and those who buy for them that some toys are only suitable for girls and some for boys?

We?re calling on retailers to sort their toys by theme or function, rather than by gender, in their shop aisles and catalogues, and on their websites.

Let toys be toys - for girls and boys.

ConsiderCasey (I got your message btw :) ) I love your post above. Thanks for sorting through the thread for the ideas for the Facebook page - it looks promising when you list it all out like that!

I also like "It's not a boy thing. It's not a girl thing. It's a toy thing!"

And I am second-guessing 'Let Toys Be Toys' as the name now (still happy to keep it if it remains the most popular option among the group though). Partly because I wonder if we might be approaching MNHQ at some stage to look for some kind of support from them, and the name might be too close to the 'Let Girls Be Girls' campaign at that stage? I know the similarity works in our favour on one hand.

I wonder if Fair Play, Equal Play, or EqualiToy, with the "It's not a boy thing...." strapline might be a better option?

"It's not a boy thing. It's not a girl thing. It's a toy thing!"

I love that!

Goths I got your message too, and just pm'd you back!

Slightly reworded the blurb as I noticed a repetitive phrase. Sorry. New blurb:

Toys are for fun, for learning, for stoking imagination and encouraging creativity. Children should be free to play with the toys that interest them most.

But many toy stores, department stores and supermarkets are limiting our children's imaginations and interests by telling them that some toys are only suitable for girls and some for boys.

Isn't it time that toy stores, department stores and supermarkets stopped putting up ?Girls Toys? and ?Boys Toys? signs, telling children and those who buy for them which items they should want to buy? Why not let the kids choose?

We?re calling on retailers to sort their toys by theme or function, rather than by gender, in their shop aisles and catalogues, and on their websites.

Let toys be toys - for girls and boys.

OHWF I do think that's better, only the line some toys are only suitable for girls and some for boys gets repeated, how about something like;

^Toys are for fun, for learning, for stoking imagination and encouraging creativity. Children should be free to play with the toys that interest them most.

But many retailers are limiting our children's imaginations and interests by putting signs up telling children and those who buy for them that some toys are only suitable for girls and some for boys.

Isn't it time that toy stores, department stores and supermarkets stopped stopped telling us how we should think?

We?re calling on retailers to sort their toys by theme or function, rather than by gender, in their shop aisles and catalogues, and on their websites.

Let toys be toys - for girls and boys.^

I would also change 'toy stores, department stores and supermarkets' to 'retailers and manufacturers' (I'll stop going on about it now).

I still prefer Let Toys be Toys as a name - Fair Play gets used in football and I think Equalitoy and Equal Playsound a tad militant.

Murder - is that you volunteering to do visuals?

I'm thinking of this kind of thing reality

One question - are we aiming the fb page at adults only?

Again, with visuals we could use pictures which would appeal to children. There's nothing like pester power to hook in the adults. dd frequently looks at whatever I'm doing online (she thinks mn is part of my work now!) So pictures of toys that kids want, being shown as both boy/girl thing could have a lot of draw.

I like 'let toys be toys' for various reasons - it echos 'boys will be boys' and challenges the idea that there are set patterns of behaviour for each gender. It also resonates with the 'let girls be girls' campaign and reminds people that we are hooked up about teaching kids to conform to certain roles. It also puts the emphasis on the toys. We're not trying to drag children into a certain view point, more that we're trying to ensure their toys don't do that. ie, we're focussing on something that should be neutral - their toys - and trying to keep that neutral, rather than trying to tell children how they should behave.

Not sure I expressed that well, but I hope it makes sense.

I can absolutely do that kickass

If people suggest ideas, I'll give it a go :)

BTW I was in a different M&S today where there was a very obvious girls' toys sign which was definitely NOT in the one I visited on Saturday. So the more branches of shops we survey, the better. (We'd have to be a bit clever when it comes to interpreting the results though)

I think the text is getting much too wordy (sorry!) It will be displayed on a screen, and so should be much snappier than text for print.

Here's another go. I'm on my phone, may have another go when at home, but FWIW:

Toys are for fun, for learning, for stoking imagination and encouraging creativity. Children should be free to play with the toys that interest them most.

Isn't it time that shops stopped limiting our children's imagination by telling them that some toys are only suitable for girls and some for boys?

We?re calling on retailers and manufacturers to sort their toys by theme or function, rather than by gender.

Let toys be toys - for girls and boys.