'Let Toys Be Toys' Organising Thread - Part 2

[OneHandWavingFree]

"Let Toys Be Toys - For Girls, and Boys" is a campaign started by a group of Mumsnetters, to convince retailers to categorise their toys by theme or function, rather than gender.

We're inviting everyone to 'like' us on Facebook, follow us on Twitter (@LetToysBeToys) and join us right here for discussion and collaborative decision-making about the next steps of our campaign.

Himalaya has been hard at work compiling the information gathered by our fantastic LTBT Mystery Shoppers, and we will be agreeing right here how the surveys will be ranked, which retailers we will be targetting with our message, and how we will go about it.

If you think that girls and boys should feel free to play with whatever toys that interest them most, and that they shouldn't walk into a toy store and feel pressurised to conform into archaic gender roles and stifling stereotypes, please join in the discussion!

It'd be really useful to have short list of reasons the campaign's important.

I've compiled a list of reasons from stuff all of you have said. I'm going to post them below. (It'll be a massive post!)

Please could you help by saying which are the most important / compelling reasons in your eyes from the list? (Perhaps to a maximum of 5?)

If you think anything is missing, let me know! Thanks :)

OK, here goes. Reasons this campaign is important.

Children?s development

1. Research has shown that the type of toys children play with develops certain skills and reinforces certain interests. Boys are encouraged to play with construction toys that hone their spatial skills whilst the toys labeled for girls encourage them to pay attention to their appearance. Toys aimed at boys encourage them to be more active. This kind of gender stereotyping leads to all manner of gender imbalances when they are older.

2. By limiting their play we limit their personalities and abilities, eg construction toys help girls develop spatial awareness; playing with dolls encourages boys to be nurturing.

3. Toys may seem frivolous to adults, but play is everything to a child: it's through play that a child develops and learns about the world. We think children have a better opportunity to develop when their choice of toys isn?t limited by preconceptions about gender.

4. Doing away with labeling based on gender-stereotypes is one small step towards removing the stigma attached to genders playing with certain toys. It's a step towards children being free to follow their interests without fear of bullying.

5. It is increasingly common for both parents to have to work. If we tell little boys that it is 'wrong' for them to want to play with dolls, kitchens, etc then surely we?re missing an opportunity to teach them to be nurturing, self-sufficient adults? Boys with dolls are seen as wrong - but why can't boys pretend to be Daddy in the same way that girls pretend to be Mummy, if they want to?

6. We want to expand children's options not narrow them

7. It impacts our children growing up. This generation is more subjected to the power of social media, advertising than ever before. Like it or not it does impact on our children.

8. Children's self-esteem and self-confidence can be affected by being told that what they want to do/wear/play is 'wrong'. Even if it's subtle, like pink packaging on dolls, it sends the message to a boy that he shouldn't want to play with it, that there is something wrong with him for wanting to do so.

Children?s rights

9. We would never label jobs as "for men", or "for women". Why not afford children the same choices?

10. It's important for the same reason that challenging stereotypes and assumptions about gender, race, etc. is important in any other sphere. It wouldn't be appropriate for an employer to advertise a job for an astrophysicist under a heading "jobs for men", so why should we accept that all of the rocketships and space toys live on a shelf under a "toys for boys" sign?

11. Play is the "work" of childhood, and we should be demanding at least the same standard of equality for our children as we would demand for ourselves as adults.

12. Article 31 of the UN Convention:
    ?That every child has the right to rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate to the age of the child and to participate freely in cultural life and the arts.
    That member governments shall respect and promote the right of the child to participate fully in cultural and artistic life and shall encourage the provision of appropriate and equal opportunities for cultural, artistic, recreational and leisure activity.?

We?re going backwards!

13. Toys are becoming more gendered over time, not less. We feel this is a backwards step and the issue should be brought to the attention of retailers.

14. Currently the toy market is reinforcing outdated stereotypes that people have fought against.

15. It?s crazy that at a time when we are making huge gains in gender equality, racial equality, equal rights for same sex couples etc. we have actually gone backwards with attitudes to children and toys. It?s reinforcing out-dated stereotypes and it stifles their play

Gender stereotyping and purchasing choices

16. People mostly don't realise that they are buying toys for their children from a limited selection. Unless someone has a specific toy in mind, many people shop by having a look at the shelves and making a selection from what's available. Unless you're actually looking for them, you might not notice if science kits and construction toys are missing from the "girls" section, or art & crafts and kitchen toys from the "boys" section.
    In this way, many stores are encouraging consumers to limit the selection of toys they buy for children, and therefore the child's development opportunities, without the consumer even being aware of it.

17. There is a social stigma attached to children playing with the ?wrong? toys. Many parents want their children to play with whatever they want but are understandably afraid of their children being teased by their peers.
    
    This is especially true when it comes to boys playing with ?girls?? toys, eg. toy kitchens, buggies and dolls. As any parent of a son will know, the taunt of being called a ?girl? or ?gay? is a common one for young boys.
    Taking down the signs will reduce that social stigma by making toys accessible to all children.

18. There is no reason for ?girl?s? and ?boy?s? sign: if relatives and friends buy for children solely according to gender there is a good chance they will get it wrong. Not all girls like pink and sparkly things and not all boys like cars and diggers.

Careers

19. Less than 20% of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) jobs in the UK are held by women. No one is saying this is directly donw to which toys they played with, but making science / construction / technology based toys available to girls who are interested in them can only be a good thing, surely? At the moment, many stores simply put all science toys in the ?boys? section.

20. Because we can't afford to waste the country's talent, be it in fashion design or designing bridges, just because someone is the "wrong" gender. Discouraging children from exploring their natural talents is just daft. It's detrimental on the national level and it's detrimental on the personal level.

21. Scientific studies suggest that trends in gender-specific toys "may impact on children?s developing skills and preferences, even influencing children's later education and career choice, with boys excelling in maths and science while girls continue to achieve high results in literacy and humanities" e.g. Roehampton University 2008 study www.roehampton.ac.uk/news/genderedtoys.html

Benefits for retailers

22. It?s a win-win: we're talking about retailers offering children more toys not less ? simply by changing signage.

23. If toy stores were arranged by themes they might sell more baby dolls, dolls houses, science toys, construction toys and arts and crafts if they broke these toys out of the pink/blue divide

24. It?s not necessarily even good for the profits of retailers to divide the whole world of play into ?girls? and ?boys? categories.

25. An increasing number of customers are just not buying these products. Parents are telling us that they can't find what they want in the shops and are looking online instead. A growing number of websites now specifically offer toys, clothes and books that don't stereotype.

Other

26. Toy retailers have a responsibility to their youngest customers to give them opportunities to play and learn and explore their own interests.

27. There are no downsides (for children) to having toys sorted by theme rather than gender.

28. We keep hearing stories about children who have been upset, confused, had their minds changed etc.

29. It?s true that the problem is bigger than just the labeling in stores. But this is a small positive step in the right direction and it will hopefully make people think about those issues. Besides, we all have to start somewhere!

I think that list is great, but it would be more robust to the charge of 'is this just about getting girls into science and making boys more sensitive' if none of the examples actually used girl/boy comparisons.

e.g. 5. It is increasingly common for both parents to work. If we indicate to children that they are emulating mothers when they play with dolls and kitchens then surely we?re missing an opportunity to teach all of them to be nurturing, self-sufficient adults. Why can't all children play the whole range of role plays emulating adults of both sexes in their lives - "going out to work" or "doing the cooking and cleaning" or "putting a shelf up" or "shushing the baby"?

More statements rather than questions. If this is going in press release form, journalists need to be able to just pick up sentences from it. If it is all questions, any resulting article is either potentially going to be mis-translated by the journalist or it's going to look like a screechy diatribe of why why why.

Its a rather long list - I think some of the items are repetitive/overlapping, maybe could be compacted?

I also think point 28 is hugely important - I think its one of the main reasons for the support for this - many parents get it when they actually see a child being messed around by genderisation. Maybe can beef it up somehow?

grammar- the science museum stuff was in boys' toys in boot's.

grimma . that was bloody autocorrect.

i like the list. i do agree with tenton's amendment to 5 and that one is a very important point for the campaign.

yes 28 hugely important from the chd's point of view, but i think it needs clarification in the point. at themoment it reads like an after thought

Thanks for thoughts These are going to be condensed down into 3-4 key points - as lots of overlap currently

Sorry I should have been a bit more clear! The list above is pretty much unedited - it's a collection comments people have made in answer to the question "what's important" and there is a fair bit of overlap.

I posted it as I wanted to ask which you feel are most important / compelling?

AndIfATenTonTruck good food for though, thanks :)

grimma and nickelbabylyinginamanger it's vital, I agree. We're also compiling a list of quotes so this will be well covered there. Does it need to be spelt out as well? Will ponder that ...

Whoop whoop! We're in the Independent!

And it's pretty positive

Absolutely fantastic, well done all!

And the success with Next - that's amazing too.

Yes hopefully that'll encourage the other retailers to see it as a bandwagon that they want to hop onto!

Yes, although Next is very marginal as a toy retailer - I doubt they put a lot of thought and research into it. I think the bigger battle is with the Supermarkets and Toyshops who will say "this is what our customers say they want"

Have we been.in touch with m&s? Do they have twitter/fb they are a main offender but they are also good at responding to customer complaints.

Just seen you in the Indie. Well done, it is a good article.

I agree, great article well done to everyone who has put in all the hard work.

I think the hardest thing will be the combatting 'that is what customers say they want stance'. I don't think it is particularly what parents' shopping want (although there will be some), but more that other people buying for children they don't know very well (relatives, birthday parties etc.) think it is easier.

Nothing annoys me more than purchasing something at my local ELC (latest example a red shape sorting bus) for DD to be asked at the till 'do you want the pink one of that, there is a girls' one you know'! When I have spent hours finding something not in pink as she doesn't like it.

Sorry if it has been posted somewhere, but to prevent me searching - could you send me a link to the research if it is online, or email it to me. Is it still ongoing?

There is a thread with the links on, will try and find it and bump.it as i cant do links on my phone.

Have bumped it so should be in last 15mins or active convos.

Well done on the initial list aufaniae. It's going to be quite a job distilling that: I'm afraid my twopennorth is limited to saying that I think (3) is important and good as it is.

And to ask if there's anyway we can incorporate into (17) the (anecdotal) reports of shop staff actively challenging children who don't chose the "correct" gendered items, as wth MrsHP's DD's bus? There's an example here, where the staff member actually told a girl to give up her pirate costume to a boy.

Here is the link: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/1621810-Help-us-find-out-which-toy-stores-are-best-and-worst-about-pink-blue-segregation

Are the customers really saying that in the first place, though? In answer to what question, exactly?

I can't imagine anyone who's had to trawl round half the shop to find the glue under "girls" is going to be particularly enamoured of it.

Parsing...maybe they use 'market researchers' who don't dare approach those of us scowling and muttering under our breath at inane signage.