Toy signs changed after Hamleys accused of sexism

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:



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?

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.

Mental Mickey

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

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

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...

clouds

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

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.

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?

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:

Morag

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

Paparazzo

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

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.

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!:)

Wibbs

Noffles takes a week off for trolling. Post deleted.

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?

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.

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.

Gillo

jinxremoving wrote: »

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.

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.

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 )

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.

Paparazzo

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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?

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!

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?

Morag

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/

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.

WindSock

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

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? ) 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:

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

Morag

http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/parenting/a-neutral-future-for-guys-and-dolls-2672940.html

A neutral future for guys and dolls
Does the world have to be divided into Action Man and Barbie doll children, or is there an alternative?

By Mary Kirwan

Monday June 13 2011

DURING a recent trip to a toy shop with my three-year-old son, I was confronted with the following sign: 'Girls here, boys there.' The boys' section looked like Jeremy Clarkson's driveway, crammed with cars, bikes and monster trucks. The girls' toys could have been hand-picked by Katie Price with the usual pink suspects like princess costumes, dolls and glitter.

Toy segregation is an ever-growing phenomenon and toy shops are facing a backlash from 'right-on' parents for excessive pinkness. The UK-based campaign group Pink Stinks has launched its anti-pink crusade against the Early Learning Centre.

Co-founder Abi Moore says: "We are constantly being asked by parents 'What can we do?' Parents of girls and boys alike are sick of the marketing messages and the gender assumptions children are forced to lap up."

Pink Stinks say their aim is to challenge the culture of pink which they say invades girls' lives.

"We focus on providing real role models who inspire and motivate girls to achieve great things based on ability and effort and not how you look," Pink Stinks says.

Another organisation challenging traditional gender stereotyping is CRAP! (Child Rearing Against Patriarchy!) who in their mission statement say: "We want to actively challenge the tirade of sexist, racist, capitalist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist and ableist toys, media and literature produced for children."

Canadian parents Kathy Witterick and David Stocke have taken gender-neutral parenting to the limit with their recent decision not to reveal the sex of their four-month-old baby Storm. In an attempt to raise a gender-neutral child, Storm's parents say they want to leave it up to Storm whether he or she wants to live as a boy or a girl.

The couple already have two sons Jazz (five) and Kio (two), who wear dresses and grow their hair long. Jazz is often mistaken for a girl and has suffered as a result of his appearance.

Based on their experiences with their son Jazz, Kathy and David decided to raise Storm as genderless after reading the 1978 children's book 'X: A Fabulous Child's Story'. This is the story of a child raised with no gender as part of a scientific experiment. X liked both basket weaving and football, and ended up the most well adjusted of all children.

Child psychologist Sheila Greene is head of the Children's Research Centre in Trinity College Dublin. She points out another case in Sweden in 2009, where a couple also decided to raise their child, Pop, as gender neutral.

"They are carrying out an experiment and are taking it to an extreme. I think it's bordering on child abuse."

As for toy segregation, Sheila feels it has only become worse over the years and that parents should be annoyed.

"Gender segregation of toys has increased in toy shops and on TV, so good on those parents trying to combat it.

"Marketers have it down to a fine art. If you shut your eyes and listen to TV ads you can tell straight away who the toys are marketed to," she says.

"They have invested a lot of money in these things and are into sex segregation in a big way."

Sheila believes adults don't appreciate how much our children are being bombarded with gender stereotyping.

"It is hard to combat it because toys are devised so the child believes this is especially for them and is waiting for them to develop a special relationship."

Experts say there is something innate in us to gender identify and this is why pre-schoolers are so keen to separate everything into boy/girl stereotypes.

It is argued the development of the child's gender identity is formed as a result of both their sex and environment. This is highlighted by studies that show that up until age one, boys and girls like dolls.

After that, boys gravitate towards trucks. At the age of three girls like dolls over trucks but by the age of five they have equal interest in trucks and dolls.

Greene believes the heavy bombardment of gender-specific toys can affect natural childhood development.

"Children become very sex-role stereotyped. It is quite rigid, even as young as pre-school. Parents need to think about it, as it is not giving parents or children a choice.

"Girls are not naturally drawn to pink. By the age of seven, eight or nine children stop the strong gender identification and begin to explore themselves as individuals," she says.

"Unfortunately, with the constant, rigid media message of what is expected of the sexes, they are not coming out the other side. It is a phase that shouldn't last long.

"It is quite depressing really. In our TCD study 'Growing Up in Ireland', among nine-year-olds we found gender stereotyping very extreme and very divided. People shouldn't foster the differences between sexes," she adds.

"It can be quite damaging for girls if they are expected to be wearing frills, high heels and to be pretty. What if they fail to live up to this image? It's ridiculous. Boys are also under pressure to be footballers."

There are also double standards because it's less acceptable for boys to play with girl-orientated toys.

"This has always been the case because of homosexuality. Boys have to be actively masculine and girls have to be passively feminine," says Professor Greene.

Mum-of-two Linda Dillon has strong opinions on toy segregation.

"I find the gender division of toys very frustrating. My daughter is not very girly and doesn't like everything pink. I hate the concept of the pink aisle and the boy aisle," she explains.

Linda says Norah (four) and Hugo (two) have equal interest in toys for both sexes.

"The girl aisles are full of nail varnish, tiaras and costumes. My son is as interested in them as my daughter. She likes to go around the whole shop and not just stick to the 'her' aisle. She would never go into the doll section while my son has a little pram that he likes to push around.

"There really is an expectation of what boys and girls like when it comes to toys. Personally I like to focus on generic stuff like colourful wooden toys or jigsaws. They both love animals so they both like My Little Pet Shop."

It is not always easy keeping things gender neutral with outside influences.

"Of course we get lots of frilly things as presents. The external gender thing is brought into the house by other people. There is also pressure from other children who will say things like that's a girly T-shirt or those are boy trousers," says Linda.

The Sandyford-based mum thinks gender stereotyping is definitely an adult problem.

"Adults have an expectation that boys are macho and girls are girly. My son likes to play dress-up as much as other children.

"As my daughter is getting older, it is getting more difficult to find gender-neutral toys. She does think pink is a girl colour. She recently got a Dora head and loves painting her face and putting her hair up."

Clothing is another problem area for parents. "My pet hate is the pinkness of girls' clothes with slogans like 'Little Princess' or 'I Love Shopping'," says Linda.

The mum of two finds balance is the best approach and doesn't remember toys being so gender-specific growing up.

"I would never be negative and say 'Don't play with that toy.' Having a selection of toys is the healthiest approach.

"When my daughter says she wants to be a ballerina, the feminist in me will always tell her she can be a scientist or doctor too!" she adds.

How parents react when a child plays with a particular toy has a big influence on the child. Studies have shown that while there is a biological bias towards a toy there's also strong social reinforcement of that choice of toy.

- Mary Kirwan

Dolbert

My sister worked a creche for a while, and said that parents insisting that their kids be given the 'correct' toys was sadly very common. One three year old boy in particular loved to play with the tea set and his father found out and freaked. The staff were instructed to take it away from him and had to give him 'boys' toys instead :mad:

Cat Melodeon

I hate the way that girls are herded into pinkness. My boy is 2 and I've just unpacked all his baby clothes for the newborn (girl). His baby clothes are all the colours of the rainbow. EVERYTHING I've received for the baby so far has been pink. What is that about? As an adult woman, I rarely wear pink - I think I have a pink vest and one cerisey-pink jumper that I never wear, and that's it. Yet walk into any high street store stocking kids' clothes and it can be hard to find anything for girls that isn't pink. My girl will be wearing all the 2nd hand stuff, I'm sure wearing blue babygros with robots on them is not going to damage her psychologically. Equally she'll be playing with all of the wee man's toys, and he already has a baby doll and a barbie (what is so weird about a male child playing with a female doll?) although like his mother before him, he prefers to play with his lego and his farm set. I had as many 'boys' toys as 'girls' toys when I was a kid. I hate how kids are so restricted in their choices now. Advertising and peer pressure have really skewed what is 'normal' for kids.

bronte

Glad they made the change. When I was little I was often given dolls to play with and I used to wonder why I had no interest. I loved my teddies and books and often played with my brother's matchbox cars.
I hate seeing kids shoved into "appropriate" toys when it's not what they really want. Leaving it more open is a good thing.

jaffacakesyum

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.

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

Actually scientists have been saying for years that there are differences in male and female brains. I'm too lazy to dig up papers that I've read on it so I understand I'm not making a convincing arguement here :pac: But take what you will of it. For example, boys tend to find language more difficult than girls in general from a young age. Girls tend to have less of a mathematical brain than boys

Of course these are only general points. Just like in general boys will prefer more stereotypically male toys to play with such as action figures, cars. And girls will tend to find dolls more fun

That's not to say that a large minority of boys will like dolls and a large minority of girls will like stereotypical male toys.

I know I myself loved dolls but also was hugely into my Transformers toys and Action man :pac:

I think it's a bit sad that Hamleys feel they need to change their store to suit the PC generation of today. It's not that big a deal but I don't think it's necessary

Links234

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.

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

well actually, there are neurological differences. the problem is that those differences are overplayed and some people seem to misinterpret that to mean that there's significant differences in terms of behavior and interest present from birth, and that's completely unsupported by the evidence of neurological differences. so we'll have people who'll come out with rubbish like "sure all girls like barbies and all boys like action man, they're hard-wired that way loike!" which is just absurd.

people should have a lot more critical thinking about these issues too, because differences in neurology do not excuse how horribly enforced gender roles are from an extremely young age, and how much separation exists.

this video has been posted here a few times already, but it's very good:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZn_lJoN6PI

but then consider the kind of toys children used to play with. vintage toys were nowhere near as gendered at all. if we look at what toys and games kids used to play with, the rigidly gendered toys really only came into things after WWII. so we can see that a lot of the differences society ascribes to boys and girls are cultural and social, rather than inborn.

krudler

"When my daughter says she wants to be a ballerina, the feminist in me will always tell her she can be a scientist or doctor too!" she adds.

always makes me laugh when so called feminists insult other womens chosen professions, as if anyone can just become a ballerina, it takes years or training.

When I was a kid I loved He-Man, and one of my female friends at school used to have loads of She-Ra toys (I wont say dolls, they were action figures :pac: ) and it never seemed odd to me that a girl was playing with "boys toys" because they were marketed as basically the girls version of He-Man, even the cartoon series crossed over at points and I never felt I was watching a "girls cartoon" if I watched an episode. but look at the difference in packaging for the toys:

He-Man, bright and bold colours, red and blue, dynamic background:



She-Ra, pink, purple, oh look a horsey:



He-Man rides around on a giant sabre toothed cat, She-Ra, well all girls love horses so , hey, give her a horse! its gender marketing at its best really, its basically the same cartoon with two completely different audiences, nabbing both the boys and girls markets for the toy sellers.

actually see the pic of the She-Ra figure? the guy on the right, Hordak, he was the villain of her cartoon not He-Mans to begin with, but they probably figured no boys would want a Hordak figure in She-Ra packaging so did it in the style of the He-Man ones, clever clever.

gerryo777

jinxremoving wrote: »

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!:)

Sure we'll end up with more butch lezzers and nancy boys then.....

Maple

gerryo777 wrote: »

Sure we'll end up with more butch lezzers and nancy boys then.....

Banned one week.

Maple

Dudess

I disagree with it, but at the same time, I don't think categorising toys along gender lines is "gender apartheid" (a tad extreme) or even sexism (sexism IMO is far more malicious and this to me undermines sexism that's worth getting bothered by). The above soundbites constitute exactly the kind of OTT thinking that plays into the hands of "teh feministz be crazy bitches" brigade. A boys floor and a girls floor - quaint for sure, but not done with harmful intent and based on an existing notion that's already propagated by society anyway. If a boy wants a Barbie, nothing to stop someone from buying it for him, girls floor or not.
All that said, I think this change is an improvement from a practical perspective.

iguana

krudler wrote: »

He-Man rides around on a giant sabre toothed cat, She-Ra, well all girls love horses so , hey, give her a horse! its gender marketing at its best really, its basically the same cartoon with two completely different audiences, nabbing both the boys and girls markets for the toy sellers.

actually see the pic of the She-Ra figure? the guy on the right, Hordak, he was the villain of her cartoon not He-Mans to begin with, but they probably figured no boys would want a Hordak figure in She-Ra packaging so did it in the style of the He-Man ones, clever clever.

Um, He-Man the cartoon only ever really existed as an advert for the action figures. The action figures were created first and the story, such as it was, written around the existing figures. Hordak was meant to be in the Masters of the Universe line up but for some reason wasn't picked up for the cartoon. His doll was for sale with the other He-Man dolls long before She-ra cartoon was ever created.

She-Ra the cartoon on the other hand was created as a story first and many of the cartoons were written by serious sci-fi writers who have gone on to have pretty impressive careers, like Joe Straczinski. The characters were designed before the dolls and is why the She-ra dolls look nothing at all like the cartoon characters.

krudler

iguana wrote: »

Um, He-Man the cartoon only ever really existed as an advert for the action figures. The action figures were created first and the story, such as it was, written around the existing figures. Hordak was meant to be in the Masters of the Universe line up but for some reason wasn't picked up for the cartoon. His doll was for sale with the other He-Man dolls long before She-ra cartoon was ever created.

She-Ra the cartoon on the other hand was created as a story first and many of the cartoons were written by serious sci-fi writers who have gone on to have pretty impressive careers, like Joe Straczinski. The characters were designed before the dolls and is why the She-ra dolls look nothing at all like the cartoon characters.

dammit, upon closer inspection Hordak was in he-man first, I always remember it as being the other way around.

CageWager

Just to play devils advocate, for all those who say they wouldnt mind their son playing with a barbie doll, if he decided he wanted to dress in girls clothes would you let him go to school in a skirt and blouse? Surely denying him this right is gender apartheid?

LittleBook

saa wrote: »

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

How about just "toys"?

"Marketers have it down to a fine art. If you shut your eyes and listen to TV ads you can tell straight away who the toys are marketed to," she says.

"They have invested a lot of money in these things and are into sex segregation in a big way."

Gillo wrote: »

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.

QED.

I agree with Dudess. Although I do see that there can be some consequences to this practice in terms of conditioning, the intention here is not a sexist agenda but rather a marketing manipulation to separate consumers from as much cash as possible.

Another thing (I personally believe) is that at the end of the day, the attitude of parents is more likely to shape the attitudes of the children. The mindset of the parents and the environment they create for their children (including the toys they help choose) are more likely to influence the mindset of their kids than a slick marketing tactic.

Ickle Magoo

CageWager wrote: »

Just to play devils advocate, for all those who say they wouldnt mind their son playing with a barbie doll, if he decided he wanted to dress in girls clothes would you let him go to school in a skirt and blouse? Surely denying him this right is gender apartheid?

Barring a good old strawman, that has zip all to do with what toys kids want to play with if left to their own devices which can help or hinder their motor skills and neurological development...the whole "who wouldn't mind their son playing with a barbie doll" smacks of a sadly old fashioned "no son of mine" type attitude. I don't mind my son playing with dolls, I don't even mind when he dresses up as the fairy godmother or princess, same as I don't recoil in horror when my daughter dresses up as a pirate or a builder - he's yet to ask if he can go to school in girls clothing - what with one not naturally leading to the other and all. I guess we'd just have to cross that bridge if it ever arrives...same as anything else.

Kanoe

I was talking to my family about this last night and it turned out that most of us have gone into professions very closely related to the kind of toys we received as kids.
The boys who were all geared toward engineering/creative type products now work in those fields and the girls..well, from Girlsworld to hairdresser, from cash register to counter assistant and you get the idea. All married with kids and all happy to be changing nappies, making sammichs and cleaning house too but generally their jobs are secondary to their husbands. I know I come from an old school family but it still makes my head spin when I think about it.

This has nothing to do with sexual/gender orientation, nothing to do with it at all but it has absolutely everything to do with the choices and limitations we place on our children and the roles we expect of them in society as adults.

I was thinking then about the gifts I used give my daughter when she was growing up and with the exception of a phase when she was 7 til about nine everything was fairly gender neutral. Rocking horse/buggy cars, leggo, arts and crafts type kits toys and vtech stuff when she was younger, she discovered diva dolls along with all her friends from primary school but then by pre teen had gone back to games/games consoles, camera's /video recorders, computer stuff. She's preparing to go into the field of games development /film and video and without doubt it is entirely influenced by the greater choice of playthings offered to her when she was younger.

(I also know I probably unintentionally influenced those decisions, she was around computers from a very young age but can't help but think it wasn't an entirely bad one, she did get lots of girly stuff from other family members so it's not as if her choice was restricted to only what I gave her either)

Kanoe

I also spent quite a few years working with kids in schools and creches and hand on heart most children don't discern what is for girls and what is for boys when left to play by themselves until an adult interferes and tells them otherwise.

pickarooney

I would have no idea where to look for Lego based on the old sign and it's clearly marked on the new on so it's a positive change for me (if I ever wanted to buy Lego in Hamley's)

the_syco

This will ensure more kids will get slagged for getting a toy (that's made for the opposite gender) from a well meaning grandparent

Links234

the_syco wrote: »

This will ensure more kids will get slagged for getting a toy (that's made for the opposite gender) from a well meaning grandparent

or a not so well meaning grandparent...

any time I hear the "what if your kids turn out... " argument, this is what I think of:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrFs6b4yg5o