Gendered objects for kids

[IamAporcupine]

Help me out here please

I was shopping yesterday and saw some drinks (actually just plain water) for kids, one with a dinasour, the other one with a unicorn. I took a picture and sent it to a couple of friends with a face.

Their reply was that because the bottles do not actually say 'for girls/boys' then there is no real issue with it, as you are free to pick whichever you want.

I somehow agree but I still find this gendering of objects totally unnecessay and in the end, damaging.

They claim it is just marketing, and that dinasours and unicorns sell, and it is up to us to teach our kids they can pick what they want.

Again, I agree, but I would prefer it of things like water, when marketted at kids, had less stereotypical boy/girl options.
Or I am looking for issues where there is none?

My daughter loves dinosaurs. Don’t know why as I can’t stand them, and she doesn’t know what a unicorn is so she’d pick a dinosaur one. But I know what you mean. This is how it starts and pink biros for lady hands is how it ends.

I know what you mean, even if one doesn’t explicitly say “for girls” things will often be marketed at girls (eg pink, girl modelling it etc).

To be honest with food/drinks I’d rather it was all just plain.

Interestingly I recently cleared out my parents attic and got rid of my toys from the 80s. The vast majority of things like kitchen toys/shops toys were red/blue/yellow and seemed very unisex. I think toys have got more gendered since the 80s

I hate these stereotypes too, it makes me unnecessarily angry
It’s supply and demand though, as long as people have ‘little princesses’ and ‘adventurous boys’ these things will always be marketed at us
I remember always despising the girls aisle in Tots ‘R’ Us, all just pink shite

Toys not tots!

I agree its better that it doesn't say for girls/boys

but there is a huge industry pushing very strict gender roles with the whole blue /pink - predator/ prey dinosaur = boy and unicorn = girl so it would be quite hard for a child to not make those associations and go against this. Maybe a very young child, but I cant see an infant school age child not immediately making that association and knowing which they were supposed to pick.

@AnneLovesGilbert - that's exactly what I mean.

I was told it was me who was sexist for seeing gendered options, when in fact there were simply 'two options'.

I think you should have at "water marketed for kids". The dinosaur/unicorn thing is a secondary issue.

Just water, or was it flavoured water? I've come across different flavours of water with an associated animal/mythical creature/prehistoric creature.

@MillieEpple - that was my point too - that it would be very hard for a kid not to pick 'the right' one.

My son has extremely long hair, has been mistaken for a girl plenty of times, and is quite aware of these stereotypes and how meaningless they are. Still, I doubt he would pick a unicorn.

It starts with unicorn water and never ends. When I was in my early twenties I used to smoke cigarettes called Vogues. They looked like a box of tampons, I kid you not. (I'm quit many years now!!)

Everything marketed at the "fairer" sex looks like this. I bought my daughter 4 plain white vests from the supermarket last week and there was a pink butterfly next to the world "girls" on the packaging. Totally unnecessary. The vests I bought for my son (also plain white, same supermarket) just said boys. No football, tractor or dinosaur required.

@AuroraBor - I totally agree with you, I have no idea why a bottle of water should be marketted at kids, but believe me, it was.

I used to get really annoyed as a child actually, pink is my favourite colour but they never had sharks or dinosaurs (obviously the cooler animals) on any of the pink clothes. It was always kittens and bunnies 🤢 They're missing out on a big market! My dsis was the same

@Aroundtheworldin80moves - just plain water, I could nto believe it

It doesn't say for boy or girl, it's not gendered. I think you are looking for issues where there is none, OP. I think the 'gendered' bit is from your own projections tbh.

@BolloxtoGender - thanks, that's exactly what I am trying to understand.

So you think that these are simply two options for kids, and that's all.

@BolloxtoGender,
and also why do these two options exist, and who are they aimed at?
just kids in general?

And also, would you also say that they are not gendered if they were a blue/pink bottle?

(genuine questions!)

My DD loves pink and dinosaurs, and that's been a common design in toddler clothing the past few years... But the dinosaurs are made cute. She likes 'real' dinosaurs.

Unfortunately yes, children are teased for choosing the 'wrong' item. It should be the children can choose dinosaur or unicorn freely. But society isn't quite there yet. But it doesn't mean we should stop having dinosaurs and unicorns... Both are cool in their own ways.

I agree this stuff is gendered and insidious.

One example is the variants of "Baby on board" car stickers. When my cousin was born there were the options of "Little princess on board" (pink with a crown) or "Cheeky monkey on board" (blue).

Although the cheeky monkey is technically not gendered, I highly doubt anyone was buying the little princess for their baby boy.

This stuff starts so early, with gendered images/colours/styles on babygros and baby equipment and just progresses from there. It's so frustrating.

@AIMD

I know what you mean, even if one doesn’t explicitly say “for girls” things will often be marketed at girls (eg pink, girl modelling it etc).

To be honest with food/drinks I’d rather it was all just plain.

Interestingly I recently cleared out my parents attic and got rid of my toys from the 80s. The vast majority of things like kitchen toys/shops toys were red/blue/yellow and seemed very unisex. I think toys have got more gendered since the 80s

I was thinking this when going through toys at my parents house.

I guess it's because toys are cheaper now and we are much more throw away.

Back when I was born in the early 80s you might buy toys you expected to pass on to other siblings friends. It was also before being able to tell the sex before birth so there was a lot more gender neutral clothing and toys

OK. I see the issue with the 2 options, maybe would have been better if they gave a choice of more than 2 cute characters.

Blue and Pink, yes, IMO they are gendered. Society currently have very strong social constructs around those two colours in particular. But unicorns and dinosaurs? I'd say no. Not even Lego or trains or Rubiks' cube TBH. My DD (now 15) have always had the option of playing with all sorts of toys when she was younger.

Thanks BolloxtoGender

Funny that you mentioned Lego, as now you also have 'Lego friends' which is IMO marketed for girls, although nowhere in the box says 'for girls' of course!

I completely agree with you (check out let clothes be clothes and let toys be toys for lots of others who agree too!) but your post made me laugh because I’ve just tucked up my two kids in bed, my daughter in dinosaur pyjamas cuddling her toy dinosaur and my son in a unicorn onsie cuddling a pink bunny 😄

Ignoring the minifig difference, so many of the Friends sets could be in the City range, and vice versa. Ice cream van. Swimming pool. Baking competition. The jungle ranges.

In the Lego shop, you have the pink Disney Princess range, the purple Friends, blue City. Ninjago is dark boxes. Technic is black.

Harry Potter is the only range that is marketed at both...

Thank goodness my two DDs were born 30 years ago, when there was much less gender stereotyping. Lego was just unisex Lego then - my DDs built a Batlord’s Castle and a Temple of Doom. The Early Learning Centre was a non sexist toyshop, and my DDs got loads of great stuff from there. They both loved trains, so we had a full set of all the Thomas the tank engine die cast models.
They lived in jeans and leggings as toddlers - so much more practical than dresses.
And nobody bought water in any design of bottle - it came out of the tap!

I remember being in Gap where they still have separate boys and girls sections for baby clothes.
All the baby onesies for girls had glitter or pink, unicorns or flowers or hearts. They were so one dimensional.

I didn't actually see it at first as I was drawn straight away to another section which was full of spots and stripes of all colours, rockets, dinosaurs, plants and animal motifs. Only realised when DH pointed out it was the boys section. My DD was dressed almost entirely in "boys" clothes as a baby because they were more 'neutral' and I didn't want glitter/sequins against newborn skin.
Why do boys get sea creatures and lions and girls only get unicorns?