Pink question

Shenshen

'Tis the season .... the season where people like me, more or less grown up these days but without offspring of my own, have to venture forth into various toy shops to find gifts for the little ones our friends and family have produced.

And while I usually find that highly annoying in itself, this year the pinkness in the girls' sections really, really got on my nerves. Maybe it was my innner feminist, or maybe it was my inner grinch, but I just hated this gender-separation. And when I walked into the boys' section, was I greeted with blue in all its blueness? No. Colours in abundance for the little lads,

So now I'm wondering. What is the pink doing?
Is it, as some schools of thought would have it, limiting girls? Is it reducing their choices to anything to do with beauty, dresses, dolls and unicorns? I somehow doubt that.
Yes, most girls love pink. But does that mean they'd reject a toy for being of a different colour? Not likely.
Most girls would have no problem going into the boys' sections and finding something there that they like.

What the pink is really doing, in my opinion, is making sure the boys stay away from toys that society decided are "girls only". The colour is a boy-repelent.
It's not there to make sure girls stick to their gender roles, it's there to make sure the boys don't stray.
And that's annoying me even more.
We've spent decades trying to achieve gender equality, but we're forgetting about equality for boys. Girls are encouraged to take part in activities which previously would have been a boy's domain, but the boys are still stuck in the same old roles.

It's a disgrace, and it needs to stop.
Any suggestions on how we can get boys to step into the forbidden worlds of the pink toys?

RobYourBuilder

Any suggestions on how we can get boys to step into the forbidden worlds of the pink toys?

Ask the fashion industry. They had no problem getting a large splice of the 18-30 year old male population of Ireland to embrace the colour pink.

caustic 1

If that's the only problem the world faces I think it will be fine, but while on the subject why o why should it be other colours just because you think pink is wrong. Is it really that damaging, is it really? I don't think so.

iDave

Maybe boys just DONT want to play with fecking dolls regardless of their colour

Shenshen

caustic 1 wrote: »

If that's the only problem the world faces I think it will be fine, but while on the subject why o why should it be other colours just because you think pink is wrong. Is it really that damaging, is it really? I don't think so.

Huh?

What's wrong with pink? I've no problem with pink. I'm wondering how to get boys to embrace it as well, so they won't have to be limited to the "boys" toys.

kneemos

Just marketing,like everything else in our world.

Banjo String

Pink, it's not even a question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfbBqBOSXlU

caustic 1

Would you stop your son from buying a pink item in a shop, I don't think most would. It has nothing to do with feminism.
As far as I can see there are a lot of "boys toys" tractors etc are now in pink also, I think made to be more acceptable for girls but t hat would be a choice per family if say a boy in the house wanted a pink tractor instead of blue.

AnimalChin

I think things like playing football etc appeal to everyone. It's one of those universal things. A boy wanting a play kitchen is totally different.

Boys and girls like different things in general. Accept it. If a few go against 'the norm'. Fine, but until they grow up a bit and gain a sense of their own identity, leave them be and accept them for who they are at this point in time.

One eyed Jack

Shenshen wrote: »

It's a disgrace, and it needs to stop.
Any suggestions on how we can get boys to step into the forbidden worlds of the pink toys?

Don't force it upon them, would be my suggestion. I cannot abide by people that try to force social change and use their children to do so. If a child doesn't want a toy because it's pink, there's no need to make an issue of it. If a child likes a toy because it's pink, then that's fine too. It seems to be the adults have a problem with it.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

It's a relatively new concept - well when you're my age it's new.

Ladies' Home Journal article in June 1918 said, "The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl."

SEPT 23 1989

boys will play with dolls

pulling the heads off them,feeding them to the dog and burying them in flower beds

Custardpi

AnimalChin wrote: »

I think things like playing football etc appeal to everyone. It's one of those universal things. A boy wanting a play kitchen is totally different.

Why would that particular type of toy be different from a football in that sense? Do you think that being interested in cooking is a "girly" pursuit? Someone should tell Gordon Ramsey.

Genghiz Cohen

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

boys will play with dolls

pulling the heads off them,feeding them to the dog and burying them in flower beds

Or burning it at the stake for being a witch. Did that once.

Slot Machine

iDave wrote: »

Maybe boys just DONT want to play with fecking dolls regardless of their colour

Maybe boys are told "don't play with dolls, you're a boy!" which makes some boys who would otherwise do so, not do it.

kneemos

Wouldn't know what to do with a doll.

iDave

Slot Machine wrote: »

Maybe boys are told "don't play with dolls, you're a boy!" which makes some boys who would otherwise do so, not do it.

Or maybe boys prefer certain things by biology and social pressure/gender roles aren't the all conquering forces they are made out to be. No small boy wants to pretend holding a bottle to a fake baby or wonder what dress looks best on Barbie.

AnimalChin

Custardpi wrote: »

Why would that particular type of toy be different from a football in that sense? Do you think that being interested in cooking is a "girly" pursuit? Someone should tell Gordon Ramsey.

So misguided.

No. It's not a girly pursuit, but at that age (around 4, 5) boys and girls generally only hang out with the same sex (excluding cousins etc) on a daily basis and usually have the same interests - at the start - before they gain a sense of their own identity.

It's highly unlikely a boy will want a play kitchen set - I've personally never known one to want one - they usually go for sports gear, bikes, video games - that kind of thing. Things boys at that ages veer to.

And don't tell me they only veer that way because they're told - that's utter rubbish!

I was never told to like a certain thing. I was a boy who hung around with boys and started to play football because I watched it with my dad on the TV and wanted to emulate the players.

Same when I watched Commando and wanted to pretend I was Arnold Schwarzenegger with a toy gun.

I also saw Tootsie, but dressing up in girls clothes just never appealed to me. Sorry.

Karl Stein

Camouflage ironing boards for the lads and pink assault rifles for the girls.

bodice ripper

everyone has so much invested in gender roles, that it pisses them off when anyone questions it.

the shops have what sells. period. if you want to know why they sell, look at the parents.

Greenmachine

Sick of these discussion. If a boy want a doll let him have it. If a girl want to play with a tractor let her. I am sick of reading "news" stories, with pouting five year old children eloquently protesting, a products marketing. The language spoken by the said children is not in tune in the slightest with how a child talks, but is yet another case of mommy "agenda pushing".
A simple
"They just made a mistake"
"The sign is just a suggestion"
"We better get one, before the other girls realise, it is okay for them to play with it too"

Would suffice.

I know plenty of girls who are perfectly happy to pick and mix gender roles, plenty who love all things girly, those who will scoff at lads tv like "top gear",
those who love sport, and even those who love sports but will laugh at the idea of watching women in sports. I am always a little surprised when, I hear the last one. But you know what, it is good that one can pick and mix what gender roles they choose to engender. If someone else wanted to watch a women F1 driver etc, they can still root for their favourite driver or whatever and make jokes about women drivers.

Custardpi

AnimalChin wrote: »

So misguided.

No. It's not a girly pursuit, but at that age (around 4, 5) boys and girls generally only hang out with the same sex (excluding cousins etc) on a daily basis and usually have the same interests - at the start - before they gain a sense of their own identity.

It's highly unlikely a boy will want a play kitchen set - I've personally never known one to want one - they usually go for sports gear, bikes, video games - that kind of thing. Things boys at that ages veer to.

And don't tell me they only veer that way because they're told - that's utter rubbish!

I was never told to like a certain thing. I was a boy who hung around with boys and started to play football because I watched it with my dad on the TV and wanted to emulate the players.

Same when I watched Commando and wanted to pretend I was Arnold Schwarzenegger with a toy gun.

I also saw Tootsie, but dressing up in girls clothes just never appealed to me. Sorry.

I wouldn't disagree with that too much. I certainly don't believe that "nurture" as opposed to "nature" is the only factor determining childhood behaviour. I'm simply questioning why cooking is placed in the same category as dressing up in girls clothes. Look at advertising for kitchen playsets, pretty much never will you see a boy playing with them, you don't think that has any influence whatsoever? If a boy was interested in cooking, would you view him as effeminate?

Dr Turk Turkelton

Custardpi wrote: »

Why would that particular type of toy be different from a football in that sense? Do you think that being interested in cooking is a "girly" pursuit? Someone should tell Gordon Ramsey.

Did Gordon Ramsey not play football before going into the kitchen?

Slot Machine

iDave wrote: »

Or maybe boys prefer certain things by biology and social pressure/gender roles aren't the all conquering forces they are made out to be. No small boy wants to pretend holding a bottle to a fake baby or wonder what dress looks best on Barbie.

And how do you know that? We live in a society that tells boys not to like those things. Maybe some people don't understand just how impressionable children really are and yes, how powerful social pressure really is.

Tordelback

AnimalChin wrote: »

So misguided.It's not a girly pursuit, but at that age (around 4, 5) boys and girls generally only hang out with the same sex (excluding cousins etc) on a daily basis and usually have the same interests - at the start - before they gain a sense of their own identity.

Eh? Unless they are going to single-sex primary schools (a bizarre practice in this day and age), how is this the case? Both my kids (a boy and a girl) played and palled-about with friends of either sex at that age at school and at home, and still do. One of the most unpleasant things I've seen in recent years is the widespread imposition of single-sex birthday parties from Junior Infants on, largely as a 'fair' way of limiting numbers in giant classes, but very unfortunate in the way it cuts across friendships.

And the gender apartheid of the pink aisle in toyshops is a disgrace, most particularly the segregation of girls' 'Lego Friends' range from the rest of what is presumably by elimination 'boys' Lego'.

newport2

Tordelback wrote: »

And the gender apartheid of the pink aisle in toyshops is a disgrace, most particularly the segregation of girls' 'Lego Friends' range from the rest of what is presumably by elimination 'boys' Lego'.

I guess the more they divide girls and boys toys, the more toys that have to bought. Less sharing and passing down will happen between brothers and sisters, resulting in more sales for the companies imposing the division.

I had a look at kitchen playsets on google

they seem to have both anyway

https://www.growingtreetoys.com/img/cache/product/020812__.jpg
http://img1.wfrcdn.com/lf/79/hash/1022/7116980/1/LifeStyle%2BDeluxe%2BKitchen%2BPlayset.jpg

here's a young lad doin the washin!
http://www.awestores.com/media/catalog/product/c/o/cook_together_kitchen_playset_kids.jpg


this one is pretty cool
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/71ii3eTV65L._SL1381_.jpg

newport2

bluewolf wrote: »

I had a look at kitchen playsets on google

they seem to have both anyway

https://www.growingtreetoys.com/img/cache/product/020812__.jpg
http://img1.wfrcdn.com/lf/79/hash/1022/7116980/1/LifeStyle%2BDeluxe%2BKitchen%2BPlayset.jpg

here's a young lad doin the washin!
http://www.awestores.com/media/catalog/product/c/o/cook_together_kitchen_playset_kids.jpg


this one is pretty cool
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/71ii3eTV65L._SL1381_.jpg

My brother wanted a tea-set for xmas many decades ago. Used to bring his teddy's for picnics. He still hasn't lived it down to this day about 40 years later.......

So why not Pinkwolf?

I'm oldschool

Custardpi

bluewolf wrote: »

I had a look at kitchen playsets on google

they seem to have both anyway

https://www.growingtreetoys.com/img/cache/product/020812__.jpg
http://img1.wfrcdn.com/lf/79/hash/1022/7116980/1/LifeStyle%2BDeluxe%2BKitchen%2BPlayset.jpg

here's a young lad doin the washin!
http://www.awestores.com/media/catalog/product/c/o/cook_together_kitchen_playset_kids.jpg


this one is pretty cool
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/71ii3eTV65L._SL1381_.jpg

Had a look at google myself. Seems to be predominately girls in the ads, with the sets often in garish pink colours. Does seem to be getting better though so I guess that's something positive. It certainly used to be almost 100% girls in the ads for this type of toy.

sbsquarepants

Shenshen wrote: »

It's a disgrace, and it needs to stop.
Any suggestions on how we can get boys to step into the forbidden worlds of the pink toys?

It's not a disgrace and it doesn't need to stop at all.

You are confusing equality with homogeneity.
Equal does not have to mean the same. What next - girls can't wear dresses, or boys have to?
When shíts not broke, don't worry about fixing it!

Custardpi

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's not a disgrace and it doesn't need to stop at all.

You are confusing equality with homogeneity.
Equal does not have to mean the same. What next - girls can't wear dresses, or boys have to?
When shíts not broke, don't worry about fixing it!

Since when did encouraging more variety & less rigid structures in children's play equal turning them into transvestites?

Shenshen

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's not a disgrace and it doesn't need to stop at all.

You are confusing equality with homogeneity.
Equal does not have to mean the same. What next - girls can't wear dresses, or boys have to?
When shíts not broke, don't worry about fixing it!

You don't think its a disgrace that a child could face ridicule over their choice of toys, simply because of gender they are?

You seem to assume that I want to force one half of children to be exactly like the other - and you couldn't be further from the truth.
But I remember my younger brother when he was about 2 or 3, wanting to play with my dolls. My mother let him, and my father got raving mad at her for it.
I think all kids should be able to pick any toy they want to play with, and not face gender stereotypes they don't even understand yet should they pick the "wrong" one.

sbsquarepants

It's the only next logical step if we're stamp out the scourge of gender difference. If we all must be the same, we all must look the same.

Shenshen

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's the only next logical step if we're stamp out the scourge of gender difference. If we all must be the same, we all must look the same.

Well, that's what it's like right now if you're male, isn't it?

How about we all get to choose, and we all get to choose what we look like?

sbsquarepants

Shenshen wrote: »

You don't think its a disgrace that a child could face ridicule over their choice of toys, simply because of gender they are?

.

If it wasn't that it would be something else.
I think your intentions are good, but the road to hell is paved with that shít.

I took a tiny tears doll to bed with me for about 2 years when I was younger - I still get mocked over it 30 odd years later.
It hasn't harmed me in any way.

newport2

Shenshen wrote: »

You don't think its a disgrace that a child could face ridicule over their choice of toys, simply because of gender they are?

You seem to assume that I want to force one half of children to be exactly like the other - and you couldn't be further from the truth.
But I remember my younger brother when he was about 2 or 3, wanting to play with my dolls. My mother let him, and my father got raving mad at her for it.
I think all kids should be able to pick any toy they want to play with, and not face gender stereotypes they don't even understand yet should they pick the "wrong" one.

Custardpi wrote: »

Since when did encouraging more variety & less rigid structures in children's play equal turning them into transvestites?

If dividing what children choose to play with is a bad thing, why is dividing what they wear ok?

I agree with your stance on this (I think), but I hadn't really thought about clothes on the same issue before.

sbsquarepants

Shenshen wrote: »

Well, that's what it's like right now if you're male, isn't it?

How about we all get to choose, and we all get to choose what we look like?

We do, if I choose to wear a dress nobody is going to stop me - they might mock me for it but so what? Sticks and stones and all that.

A life free of slagging / ridicule / mockery call it whatever you want is an absolute impossibility.

I read a quote from Eddie Izzard the other day goes something like "I have a right pain in my arse with people asking me why I wear womens clothes, they are not "womens" clothes, they're mine, I bought them, for me!"

Shenshen

newport2 wrote: »

If dividing what children choose to play with is a bad thing, why is dividing what they wear ok?

I agree with your stance on this (I think), but I hadn't really thought about clothes on the same issue before.

Well, I've had lengthy discussions with my husband about the clothes before.

Before you start - he's no interest in wearing dresses or heels, but he does feel that women simply have so much more choice in what they can wear.
Colours, cuts, fabrics, you name it.

Any man who gets a bit more flamboyant with his wardrobe however will immiediately make himself suspicious to the general public.

Slot Machine

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's the only next logical step if we're stamp out the scourge of gender difference. If we all must be the same, we all must look the same.

But that's just it, no one is saying that children "must" do this or that, only that they be allowed to choose without societal pressure.

In a wider scale, it's the same: it's not about homogeneity but giving people the freedom to express who they are without denigration or telling them they must conform to a singular ideal.

Edit:

sbsquarepants wrote: »

We do, if I choose to wear a dress nobody is going to stop me - they might mock me for it but so what? Sticks and stones and all that.

Which is a load of bull. If you tell someone something enough times and over a long enough period they'll start to believe it. Some are better able to resist than others but you can't dismiss it entirely.

Shenshen

sbsquarepants wrote: »

We do, if I choose to wear a dress nobody is going to stop me - they might mock me for it but so what? Sticks and stones and all that.

A life free of slagging / ridicule / mockery call it whatever you want is an absolute impossibility.

I read a quote from Eddie Izzard the other day goes something like "I have a right pain in my arse with people asking me why I wear womens clothes, they are not "womens" clothes, they're mine, I bought them, for me!"

A nice thing for a grown man to say, but for a little kid?

Custardpi

newport2 wrote: »

If dividing what children choose to play with is a bad thing, why is dividing what they wear ok?

I agree with your stance on this (I think), but I hadn't really thought about clothes on the same issue before.

With relation specifically to children's clothes it's an interesting question. The division into male & female dress hasn't always been done as early as it is today, though pretty much all cultures will have differing clothes for male & females in adulthood, for obvious biological reasons (breasts, hips etc). The Victorians for instance would often dress male & female young children in similar frocks, only later dividing them into gendered clothing.

RobYourBuilder

Shenshen wrote: »

Any man who gets a bit more flamboyant with his wardrobe however will immiediately make himself suspicious to the general public.

What are you basing this on?

Tarzana2

Tordelback wrote: »

One of the most unpleasant things I've seen in recent years is the widespread imposition of single-sex birthday parties from Junior Infants on, largely as a 'fair' way of limiting numbers in giant classes, but very unfortunate in the way it cuts across friendships.

That's not recent. I went to a small primary school in the 80s and 90s, where numbers would not have been an issue, and all birthday parties were unisex.

bodice ripper

girls should wear black
boys should wear black
everyone should have long hair
problem solved.

Slot Machine

newport2 wrote: »

If dividing what children choose to play with is a bad thing, why is dividing what they wear ok?

I agree with your stance on this (I think), but I hadn't really thought about clothes on the same issue before.

Ultimately, dress is just is arbitrary and can change radically over time and across cultures. Up until quite recently pink (being a shade of red - blood, anger, war, passion, all that) was seen as a masculine colour and blue (associated particularly with the Virgin Mary of Catholicism, symbolising purity) was seen as a feminine colour.

In fact, wedding dresses were traditionally blue - hence the rhyme has "something borrowed, something blue".

Go back far enough and pants were seen as effeminate. Want to know why so many historical portraits of men have their legs in focus and why the clothes emphasise them? Because for a long time having shapely legs was considered an ideal for men to aspire to.

Thus appeals to tradition are really quite facile - it's less "that's the way it's always been" and more "that's the way it's always been for me".

sbsquarepants

Custardpi wrote: »

Since when did encouraging more variety & less rigid structures in children's play equal turning them into transvestites?

I'm not at all convinced by the way (and i'll probably get torn assunder for this) that we should be encouraging kids play at all. I think it's better for them to just get on with it themselves - as in to let them decide what to play with and how to play with it.
If the kitchen is pink so be it, it really doesn't matter the kids probably won't care or even notice, only the adults will and it's not really about them now is it!
As an aside my daughter, who is nearly 2, has a kitchen at home that we play with all the time and it's blue. It has not even for one fleeting moment, until right now, occurred to me that this could be a boys kitchen! It's just a kitchen.

Custardpi

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

What are you basing this on?

The next time you go out for pints or clubbing, dress like this & see how you get on.

sbsquarepants

bodice ripper wrote: »

girls should wear black
boys should wear black
everyone should have long hair
problem solved.

I'll wear the black, but the hair might be a problem!

Slot Machine wrote: »

Which is a load of bull. If you tell someone something enough times and over a long enough period they'll start to believe it. Some are better able to resist than others but you can't dismiss it entirely.

So what's your solution. Make everything in the world uniform to somehow foster individuality?
Do I really need to point out the problem there?

Custardpi

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm not at all convinced by the way (and i'll probably get torn assunder for this) that we should be encouraging kids play at all. I think it's better for them to just get on with it themselves - as in to let them decide what to play with and how to play with it.
If the kitchen is pink so be it, it really doesn't matter the kids probably won't care or even notice, only the adults will and it's not really about them now is it!
As an aside my daughter, who is nearly 2, has a kitchen at home that we play with all the time and it's blue. It has not even for one fleeting moment, until right now, occurred to me that this could be a boys kitchen! It's just a kitchen.

So she bought the kitchen herself, with her own money did she? Fair play to her!

sbsquarepants

Custardpi wrote: »

So she bought the kitchen herself, with her own money did she? Fair play to her!

I'm sorry, you're going to have to highlight the point for me.

Edit - I think I've got what you mean. Maybe I explained my self badly, when said I think we shouldn't encourage kids play, shouldn't direct it, or shouldn't steer it, would have been a better choice of words.