Rubyroo I get where you're coming from. I agree that we need to zero on in a specific, relatively easy 'ask' of retailers, and one which is unlikely to have a negative impact on their sales.
That's why the idea of eliminating "Boys" and "Girls" sections in shops and on websites is so appealing to me. It wouldn't solve the whole problem by a long shot, but it would make a real difference to one aspect of children's (and parents') experience of shopping for toys, right at the point of sale.
I would love to see a day when there are no children's toys that are about practicing how to be sexy, and where the colour pink is no more or less prevalent than any other colour. But I get what you're saying - there are deluded parents out there who think that stuff is harmless, or even that it's a good thing, and as long as that's the case, manufacturers will make it and retailers will sell it.
So I don't think it would be wise or effective at this point to ask retailers to stop stocking Bratz, or pink versions of classic toys, or My Little Cleaning Cart or whatever. They're not going to do that, not for as long as it's profitable to continue selling them.
Some of the websites like PinkStinks and Toward the Stars (love that one, by the way, 5mad - so glad you directed me to it) probably have the right approach on that issue: remind parents that there are alternatives and keep banging away at why the harmful stuff is harmful. Raise awareness and chip away at the problem from the consumer end of things.
What we can ask retailers to do, which they might actually go for, is to stock the same toys in a different way. The coded messages will still be there and the marketing on TV and everywhere else will still resonate with consumers: they will still "know" that the pink things must be for girls, the action toys must be for boys, etc.
But I think it would be a genuine, significant "win" not to have a big sign over each aisle proclaiming that kitchens and mirrors are "For Girls" and cars and soccer balls are "For Boys". It is so ridiculously overt the way it is now, that it comes across as an actual directive. "You are a girl and so you should like this, or else you are 'like a boy'", and vice-versa.
I'm repeating myself now, but I think there's very little risk of sales losses by just stocking the shelves differently, and there's a potential for an increase if children and parents / adult aren't put off considering particular toys because they're in the "wrong" aisle for the gender they're buying for.
We know that some retailers have started to categorize by toy type rather than gender; I think someone said that Smyths now has "Fashion and Dolls" and "Construction and Vehichles" aisles. I wonder if we could get some information as to how the change has impacted their sales? If there's been no change in sales figures, or even a change for the better, surely that would be useful information in trying to make the case to retailers that are still stocking shelves by presumed gender-driven interest.
So... Who is getting it right? How do we get our hands on their sales figures? Are those figures publicly available?