Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Toy signs changed after Hamleys accused of sexism

  • 13-12-2011 12:41PM
    #1
    Hosted Moderators Posts: 11,362 ✭✭✭✭Scarinae


    I noticed this interesting piece in the Telegraph today:
    Hamleys, the London toy shop, has removed the signs which divide boys’ toys from girls’ after protests by feminists that it was sexist stereotyping.

    Instead of a “pink floor” for girls and a “blue floor” for boys, Hamleys has introduced plain white labelling with red lettering throughout.

    Toys have been reorganised by type rather than which gender is expected to want to play with them.

    Laura Nelson, a blogger who accused the firm of “gender apartheid” in October, was celebrating what she claimed as a victory yesterday.

    She wrote: “In response to the campaign against categorisation of toys by gender and sexist stereotypes, Hamleys has changed its signage.”

    However Hamleys denied the changes were prompted by her campaign and claimed that, instead, they were part of planned alterations to “improve customer flow”.

    Nelson, who works for a healthcare charity, started her opposition because she said the “layout of the toyshop restricts children’s and parents’ choices and contributes to our society’s inequality”.

    She wrote to the firm’s chief executive, Gudjon Reynisson, and Landsbanki, the Icelandic bank that holds a large stake in it.

    She asked that toys be reorganised by type not gender; said the “girls’ floor” was focused on “domestic, caring and beauty activities” while the boys’ was “geared to action and war, with little scope for creativity”; said toy stereotypes influenced the behaviour of both children and parents; and citing precedents for change, including the case of a group of children in Sweden who persuaded Toys‘R’Us to alter its displays.

    She said the issue gained ground when “parents, feminists, journalists, scientists” supported it and her blog was picked up on Mumsnet and Twitter.

    Last week, she contacted the press office of Hamleys.

    On December 11, she tweeted:

    amazing!!!! I need to see this with my own eyes - still can't quite believe it. the campaign worked!!!!!!! :))))))))

    Yesterday, in a further post to claim victory, she said: “Congratulations everyone!

    We still have work to do on the nature of the toys themselves, and the gender stereotyping of their marketing - but we have come to a milestone. Great work!”

    A spokesperson for Hamleys said: “The changes to our signage were not due to any campaign.

    “It was made clear to us from consultants’ and customer surveys that our store directional signage was confusing. As a result we commenced changing all our signage in October of this year in order to improve customer flow.”

    Laura Nelson’s original blog post on the topic is here

    And here is a comparison of the old vs new signs:

    hamleys_2082896b.jpg

    I don’t know if anyone here has been into Hamleys, a huge toy shop on Regent St in London, but I spent a fair bit of time there last year due to a college project and I thought having separate floors for boys and girls was a bit much – the girls’ floor was basically filled with Barbies, princesses, hair stylers, nail art, play kitchens, glitter etc. Now I liked ‘girly’ toys like Sylvanians when I was little, but I also liked train sets and Lego (which I had access to as I have an older brother) and I don’t see why they should be put into a separate section labelled ‘Boys’. Incidentally, I know it’s not just Hamleys that was separating toys this way – it is exactly the same in other toy shops such as Smyths.

    Do you think that Hamleys is right to take this step (even if they’re saying it was a coincidence that had nothing to do with campaigning)? Or do you think that they’re trying too hard to be PC and making it more difficult for people to find the toys they’re looking for, as most of the commenters on the Telegraph website seem to think?


«13

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,075 ✭✭✭✭Kintarō Hattori


    Girls are different from boys and generally speaking do like different things. Not always but generally. I see absolutely no harm with the way they had it previously.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,667 ✭✭✭✭Mental Mickey


    I heard that on the radio this morning, and almost wet meself laughing.


  • Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Hadleigh Chubby Fibula


    Is it just the signs they changed or the layout of the toys as well? I mean reorganised by type could be either leaving them as the types they were or not?

    Personally I think it's a bit better to have them changed. The girls can still buy the girly toys if they want but it's less divided - plenty of girls want other toys too


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    No reason why toys can't be arranged according to type rather than gender...seems rather unnecessary to infer that certain toys are "boy toys" and others "girl toys" when children make no such distinctions...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 206 ✭✭clouds


    Girls are different from boys and generally speaking do like different things. Not always but generally. I see absolutely no harm with the way they had it previously.

    No they aren't - not neurologically. No scientist has ever been able to find any difference. It's us that puts the difference on them, so by the time the biological differences become apparent all all that goes with that they are already deeply socialised into 'proper roles' for girls and boys. Which imo causes much hrm for everyone who finds those roles too constricted, and also for relations between the sexes. we're not that different but you wouldn't bloody know it the way everything is set up man v woman.

    Segregating toys by gender is part of that, so I'm happy with Hamleys decision.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,893 ✭✭✭✭Skerries


    are you saying a 10 year old boy is going to pick up a Barbie doll and play with it when there is a gun or sword right beside it?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Skerries wrote: »
    are you saying a 10 year old boy is going to pick up a Barbie doll and play with it when there is a gun or sword right beside it?

    YES...there are times when boys will play with dolls and girls swords...shocking, I know. :eek:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Morag


    Girls are different from boys and generally speaking do like different things. Not always but generally. I see absolutely no harm with the way they had it previously.

    So you don't see the harm in having to take a child into a zone which is decorated for the other gender to get them the baking set or science/mechano set they want have asked for but some corporate ninny decided they wouldn't want?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Morag


    Skerries wrote: »
    are you saying a 10 year old boy is going to pick up a Barbie doll and play with it when there is a gun or sword right beside it?

    What if the girl wants a gun or a sword?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,566 ✭✭✭Gillo


    It's a bit extreme in my opinion, by the same logic why not have men's boxers and women's thongs in an underwear section or Mach 3 and tampons in the same shelf in Boots.
    Don't get me wrong I don't agree with gender discrimination in any way but I can't help feeling that some people like to take equality to the extreme, and actively look for inequalities where there aren't any.


  • Advertisement
  • Hosted Moderators Posts: 11,362 ✭✭✭✭Scarinae


    clouds wrote: »
    No they aren't - not neurologically. No scientist has ever been able to find any difference. It's us that puts the difference on them, so by the time the biological differences become apparent all all that goes with that they are already deeply socialised into 'proper roles' for girls and boys. Which imo causes much hrm for everyone who finds those roles too constricted, and also for relations between the sexes. we're not that different but you wouldn't bloody know it the way everything is set up man v woman.

    To expand on your point, the Guardian addresses this in their coverage of the Hamleys story:
    Pink v blue
    Kat Arney, a science journalist who works for Cancer Research UK, investigated the gender of colour in this Radio 4 documentary earlier this year, Fighting the Power of Pink. Her post for the Guardian here provides a brilliant summary of the scientific evidence.

    Arney points us towards this 2007 research which showed that in general when asked women tend to identify redder colours as their favourite – a finding reported widely as proof that women prefer pink. In that study professor Anya Hurlbert from Newcastle University siggested that women might prefer pink as a legacy of their fruit gathering days when the preference helped them identify the berries from the foliage – an idea thoroughly disputed by the Guardian columnist Ben Goldacre here.

    Interestingly Goldacre quotes in the same piece newspaper articles from the earlier part of the 20th century in which mothers were encouraged to dress their boys in pink and girls in blue, proof he says that clothing tastes change over time. He writes:

    Back in the days when ladies had a home journal (in 1918) the Ladies' Home Journal wrote: "There has been a great diversity of opinion on the subject, but the generally accepted rule is pink for the boy and blue for the girl. The reason is that pink being a more decided and stronger colour is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl."

    The Sunday Sentinel in 1914 told American mothers: "If you like the colour note on the little one's garments, use pink for the boy and blue for the girl, if you are a follower of convention."

    The problem both Goldacre and Arney point out is that studies such as the Newcastle one don't settle the nature v nurture arguments because they ask adults. Are girls born liking pink or are they in some way told to?

    The study that asked the youngest children, 120 aged under two, that Arney could identify was conducted by Professor Melissa Hines at Cambridge University and it concluded that if you ask children under the age of two, there is no colour preference, with both sexes prefering pinker tones and both also prefer rounder shapes. It concludes:

    The sex similarities in infants' preferences for colors and shapes suggest that any subsequent sex differences in these preferences may arise from socialization or cognitive gender development rather than inborn factors.

    Dolls v cars
    Hines research, the most up to date, did however identify a gendered divide in the preference for toys. Although not a strict rule, boys were more likely to look at cars and girls at dolls. Previous studies have found that this not only relates to the gender of children but their exposure to androgen ("male" hormones) in the womb. This American research even showed that there is a similar gendered preference for toys in monkeys leading some to conclude that children are born with gendered tastes in toys.

    However, Hine's research also identified that at the age of 12 months, boys and girls' preference for dolls was similar (57.2% of girls looked at the dolls compared with 56.4% of boys). By 24 months boys had shifted towards the car image (52.7% of girls and 47.9% of boys looked at the doll first). This, Hines suggests, adds evidence to the argument that part of toy taste is acquired rather innate. She writes:

    The current study adds to growing evidence that infants younger than 2 years of age display sex-typed toy preferences, with boys showing more interest than girls do in cars, and girls showing more interest than boys do in dolls. Within sex analyses found that the female preference for dolls over cars begins as early as 12 months of age, whereas boys of this age also prefer dolls to cars. The male preference for cars over dolls, or avoidance of dolls, emerges later, suggesting that socialization or cognitive development, rather than inborn factors, causes the male avoidance of feminine toys.

    I think those figures from the Hines study are also interesting because they are not conclusive – at the age of two the gender divide is still not far off 50/50 - hardly figures to support an entire retail industry's marketing tactics.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Morag


    Those toiletries are divided for a good reason, what good reason is there to say girls shouldn't play with RC cars and mechano and boys shouldn't play with baby dolls and baking sets?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,397 ✭✭✭Paparazzo


    What next? Mixed toilets?
    If Laura Nelson is celebrating what she considers a "victory" she must lead a very sad life.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Morag


    That berry picking pink preffernce stuff was debunked.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/aug/25/genderissues
    News
    Science

    Series: Bad science
    Previous | Next | Index
    Bad science
    Out of the blue and in the pink

    reddit this

    Ben Goldacre
    The Guardian, Saturday 25 August 2007
    Article history

    I love evolutionary psychologists, because the ideas, like "girls prefer pink because they need to be better at hunting berries" are so much fun. Sure there are problems, like, we don't know a lot about life in the pleistocene period through which humans evolved; their claims sound a bit like "just so" stories, relying on their own internal, circular logic; the evidence for genetic influence on behaviour, emotion, and cognition, is coarse; they only pick the behaviours which they think they can explain while leaving the rest; and they get in trouble as soon as they go beyond examining broad categories of human behaviours across societies and cultures, becoming crassly ethnocentric. But that doesn't stop me enjoying their ideas.

    This week every single newspaper in the world lapped up the story that scientists have cracked the pink problem. "At last, science discovers why blue is for boys but girls really do prefer pink," said the Times. And so on.

    The study took 208 people in their 20s and asked them to choose their favourite colours between two options, repeatedly, and then graphed their overall preferences. It found overlapping curves, with a significant tendency for men to prefer blue, and female subjects showing a preference for redder, pinker tones. This, the authors speculated (to international excitement and approval) may be because men go out hunting, but women need to be good at interpreting flushed emotional faces, and identifying berries whilst out gathering.

    Now there are some serious problems here. Firstly, the test wasn't measuring discriminative ability, just preference. I am yet to be given evidence that my girlfriend has the upper hand in discriminating shades of red as we gambol foraging for the fruits of the forest (which we do).

    But is colour preference cultural or genetic? The "girls preferring pink" thing is not set in stone, and there are good reasons to suspect it is culturally determined. I have always been led to believe by my father - the toughest man in the world - that pink is the correct colour for men's shirts. In fact until very recently blue was actively considered soft and girly, while boys wore pink, a tempered form of fierce, dramatic red.

    There is no reason why you should take my word for this. Back in the days when ladies had a home journal (in 1918) the Ladies' Home Journal wrote: "There has been a great diversity of opinion on the subject, but the generally accepted rule is pink for the boy and blue for the girl. The reason is that pink being a more decided and stronger colour is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl."

    The Sunday Sentinel in 1914 told American mothers: "If you like the colour note on the little one's garments, use pink for the boy and blue for the girl, if you are a follower of convention." Some sources suggest it wasn't until the 1940s that the modern gender associations of girly pink became universally accepted. Pink is, therefore, perhaps not biologically girly. Boys who were raised in pink frilly dresses went down mines and fought in the second world war. Clothing conventions change over time.

    But, within this study, was the preference stable across cultures? Well no, not even in this experiment, where they had some Chinese test subjects too. For these participants not only were the differences in the overlapping curves not so extreme; but the favourite colours were a kind of red for boys and a bit pinker for girls (not blue); and they had more of a red preference overall. Red, you see, is a lucky colour in contemporary Chinese culture.

    And snuggled away in the paper was the information that femininity scores on the Bem Sex Role Inventory correlated significantly with colour preference. Now the BSRI is a joy from the 1970s, a self-rated test designed to measure how much you adhere to socially desirable, stereotypically masculine and feminine personality characteristics.

    You mark on the score sheet from one to seven how much you feel you suit words like theatrical, assertive, sympathetic, adaptable, or tactful; and then your score is totted up. So women who describe themselves as "yielding", "cheerful", "gullible", "feminine", and who "do not use harsh language" also prefer pink. Thanks for the warning, I'll try and use that to avoid them in future.

    It is worth being critical and thoughtful about these stories, not because it's fun to be mean, but because that's what the authors would want, and also because stories about genes and culture are an important part of the stories we tell ourselves about who and what we are, our sense of personal responsibility, and the inevitability in our gender roles.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 236 ✭✭jinxremoving


    Gillo wrote: »
    It's a bit extreme in my opinion, by the same logic why not have men's boxers and women's thongs in an underwear section or Mach 3 and tampons in the same shelf in Boots.
    Don't get me wrong I don't agree with gender discrimination in any way but I can't help feeling that some people like to take equality to the extreme, and actively look for inequalities where there aren't any.

    How is it extreme? Its changing a sign!
    There is inequality there though, Designating toys as for one gender or the other can have negative impact on children of both sexes so I think its great. more girls playing with mechano and boys with mini kitchens i say!:)


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Noffles takes a week off for trolling. Post deleted.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Paparazzo wrote: »
    What next? Mixed toilets?
    If Laura Nelson is celebrating what she considers a "victory" she must lead a very sad life.

    You think adults peeing and pooping in the same room is exactly the same as categorising children's toys according to their function rather than making an assumption about the gender of child who would like to play with it...seriously? :confused:

    I think it is more a case of rationally weighing up what use or consequence an action has; neutrally categorising by toy function or making assumptions about how much or how little children should align themselves with archaic gender stereotypes.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,551 ✭✭✭panda100


    I grew up in London and LOVED Hamleys as a kid.It was our Christmas treat every year to go down there and visit santa, and have a Maccy D's.

    I went in their last month when a touch of nostalgia too over me when visiting London. I was SHOCKED at how much it had changed. their was a beauty salon on the girsl level called 'tantrum'. They did hair extensions and nails for kids. For me that is just one step to far, and completely innapropriate for young children. Im suprised the article didn't mention more about the beauty salon as It takes up half of the girls floor.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,566 ✭✭✭Gillo


    How is it extreme? Its changing a sign!
    There is inequality there though, Designating toys as for one gender or the other can have negative impact on children of both sexes so I think its great. more girls playing with mechano and boys with mini kitchens i say!:)
    It's separating products based on their traditional market, it's not saying any child can't play with a specific you. TBH, if I was trying to find a toy to buy either of my nieces I'd find it easier if all the dolls were on display together and a lot more hassle if action man was stuffed between My Little Pony and whatever doll.
    In fairness look at the original sign, why didn't she complain the something else was coloured green, I personally think the original sign was more attractive and also more eye catching.
    At the end of the day it doesn't matter what toy a child plays with, he'll when I was four I asked Santa for a doll & buggy, and got it too, but looking at the different toys genders play with their is a certain seperation.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Morag


    Well if your nieces decided they wanted to be pirates rather then princesses and all the pirate toys were in the boys section what sort of message do you think that sends them?

    Would you go to the different floor of the shop to get those toys for them or just grab another convenient doll?

    Oh and my little ponies are for both genders.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 727 ✭✭✭prettygurrly


    really pleased that this has happened. i had a brother growing up as well and loved scaletrix, lego and star wars. he on the other hand never got into barbies but he is a well rounded man, well able to handle a hoover and feed himself. watching my boyfriends niece and nephew share their toys shows that both genders are interested in both types of toys as they play with the toy kitchen etc. together.

    the existing market is as a result of gender roles through the years when being big and strong was required to feed a family and protect the house. nowadays its a whole different world with news on the radio saying that only a quarter of men in relationships in ireland have a better job or are better educated than their wife or girlfriend. indicating that girls are only required to look after babies and cook food also does men a disservice as they are very nurturing to their children if they are let.

    so yes, totally happy to see hamleys has moved on.

    (also in response to why they dont have mixed underwear departments....you cant deny that men and women have different physiological shapes, however, there are plenty of opportunities for females to buy boxers designed for them and if men really want frilly knickers well...i'm sure there's a shop somewhere that will sell them :D )


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 166,012 ✭✭✭✭LegacyUser


    I think this is a very good move. I used to work in a toy shop and while I'm not saying you give a child anything it cries for by any means it used to break my heart to see parents try and convince their children that they shouldn't by things because it was a girls/boys toy. My manager was the worst for it, he used to (in a jolly, playful way) give out to children for being in the "wrong" sections.

    Gender is in us all anyway so why do we feel the need to force it on our children in such a ridiculously restrictive fashion. Painting a little girls room blue because it happens to be her favourite isn't going to make her question her gender.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,397 ✭✭✭Paparazzo


    You think adults peeing and pooping in the same room is exactly the same as categorising children's toys according to their function rather than making an assumption about the gender of child who would like to play with it...seriously? :confused:

    I think it is more a case of rationally weighing up what use or consequence an action has; neutrally categorising by toy function or making assumptions about how much or how little children should align themselves with archaic gender stereotypes.

    What's the big deal about making an assumption of what gender wants to play with a particular toy? All it's for is to make it easier to find stuff in a shop. That's it.
    All I'm saying this is a pathetic "victory". What will happen because of this? More girls playing with "boys" stuff? Wow, big deal!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,322 ✭✭✭ShagNastii


    Sharrow wrote: »
    Well if your nieces decided they wanted to be pirates rather then princesses and all the pirate toys were in the boys section what sort of message do you think that sends them?

    Would you go to the different floor of the shop to get those toys for them or just grab another convenient doll?

    Oh and my little ponies are for both genders.



    I think these gender stereotyping issues really look too far into what effect toys and the like have on kids.

    The whole lack of female engineers because Mary was given a doll instead of a lego kit debate makes me facepalm. Females(and males make that) are more than enpowered and wise enough to choose a career which they find right for them.

    I once got a kitchen for christmas. I can't go back in time and see my actions or that of my parents, but I've fairly sure the fact toy kitchen could be deemed as a girls toy and was probably in the girls section went over my head and had no life changing negetive/positive effect on me and my view of mine and others gender roles.

    My nephew is pro wrestling mad. I'm sure the chap couldn't give two shiny s*ites where abouts these action figures are but is it big deal that he would probably much prefer it in the boys (guns, pirates, cars) section than the dolls and action figures section?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Morag


    20100516.gif


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Morag


    ShagNastii wrote: »
    My nephew is pro wrestling mad. I'm sure the chap couldn't give two shiny s*ites where abouts these action figures are but is it big deal that he would probably much prefer it in the boys (guns, pirates, cars) section than the dolls and action figures section?

    Ever stop to wonder why he'd prefer that?
    Kids bully other kids for not being 'real' boys or girls due to playing with toys which are considered for the other gender and now that's a pile of Shíte


    http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2010/11/first-grade-girl-bullied-for-liking-star-wars/


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,119 ✭✭✭p


    Paparazzo wrote: »
    What next? Mixed toilets?
    Seriously, that's your argument? A few places in Ireland, and plenty of other countries have mixed toilets, it's no big deal at all. Once you get used to it, then it kinda feels strange to be so segregated for no reason.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,239 ✭✭✭✭WindSock


    Black and white, may as well just be blue and pink.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    When I was a kid - I hated dolls - couldn't work out the purpose of them as they didn't do anything. I liked guns, bows and arrows, toy soldiers (wonder why I became a historian? :p) and my bike.

    My son's favourite toys were lego, his sword and shield and his kitchen set.

    My granddaughter (aged 5) used to love a book called Lila Pirate - so pirate themed toys were all the rage. She has dolls, but 'playing' with them consists of putting them to bed while she goes to play with building blocks, drawing or riding her scooter.

    Her two year old brother has to be dis-armed regularly as he batters people with a foam sword while also 'doing the washing and making num nums' in a toy kitchen set.

    Yet, to the horror of both my son and myself while in a large toy shop my granddaughter announced there was such a thing as 'girls toys and boys toys' as if this were written in stone. We asked her why she thought this and her reply was that that is the way it is in the shops - so it must be so. :mad:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,194 ✭✭✭saa


    I have no majour issues but the boy girl thing is problematic kids play with and should be allowed to play with any kind of toy.

    There really needs to be a new words to replace boy/girl toys


Advertisement