Seeing pink

by Anti-Racist Parent columnist Jason Sperber

Before my daughter was born, I knew what kind of father I wanted to be for her. My babygrrl was going to be raised to be a fierce, strong woman of color. I was going to make her iron-on onesies emblazoned with portraits of Yuri Kochiyama, Angela Davis, and Frida Kahlo. Her toybox would be filled with both dolls of color, preferably made by either anti-corporate crafters or small indie companies, and things traditionally coded as “boy” like trucks and cars and tools. Both toy guns and Barbie would be equally verboten in our home, and her closet would be a pink-free zone. I knew the constricting, restricting and damaging messages the world would soon bombard her with about race and gender, and dammit if I wasn’t going to all I could inside our home to inoculate her against them.

So yeah, it would’ve only served me right to have been gifted with a stereotypical “girly girl,” a little karmic payback for putting all my crap on my poor baby’s head before she was even born. That hasn’t happened, luckily–while my Pumpkin’s favorite color, for clothing and everything else, is, of course, pink, she does not, like her best friend since birth, demand to wear Disney Princess costumes as casual wear. As for my plans for a line of “Radical Mama” toddler-tees and stacking the deck toy-wise, well, the first toy I ever bought her was a “Little Frida” doll, and we dubbed the racially ambiguous doll we got her from a line of multiculti dolls by an alum of color from our alma mater “Angela” because of her hair-do. bell hooks’ children’s books are on her overstuffed bookshelves. And because I’m not anti-commercial per se but more anti-certain things (you know?), she’s got more than her fair share of mass-produced goods featuring a certain brown-skinned Latina girl who likes to have adventures and help her animal friends, as well as her current favorite, the Backyardigans (who, I’m convinced, are kids of color–I mean, Pablo? Tasha? Tyrone? Uniqua?)

Suffice it to say that as much as possible, her mother and I try to mediate potentially negative messages embedded in popular and commercial culture by controlling what she consumes (at least in our home) and by talking with her about things that might be problematic. But of course, none of this gets any easier as kids get older, with more and more outside influence impinging on them. During her year in day care, she’d come home talking about t.v. shows we didn’t watch at home, or pretending to shoot things with her fingers like one of the little boys there. “Where did you learn that, Pumpkin?” we’d ask, before explaining why we didn’t shoot things or people. Now that she’s started preschool, I know there will be more of these teachable moments, even though we found as progressive and diverse a school environment as we could in our town.

But what’s really got me thinking, about the subtle and insidious effect of both popular culture and the influence of other kids on how our Pumpkin learns to see the world and her place in it, is how she’s started to label things as gender-appropriate or -inappropriate. It started cropping up during the recent holiday consumption season, during our trips to the local Target and Costco. One time, she was looking at some kids’ room furnishings at Target, which, of course, are separated into a mostly blue boy aisle and a mostly pink girl aisle. There was some Thomas the Tank Engine stuff in the boy aisle, and she called out “Thomas!” happily when she saw it. “Want to look at that stuff, sweetie?” I asked. “No,” she said, “that’s for boys.”

I stopped the cart. Say what now? She’s always loved trains in general and Thomas specifically, so where did this come from? “No, love, anybody can play with Thomas, boys and girls, right?” But the moment was past and her attention was already on something else. But I was disturbed. I mean, I wasn’t naive, I knew these messages, what was appropriate for boys to play with, what was appropriate for girls to play with, were out there, bombarding her on TV and even in the choices and behaviors of her friends. But I always thought that the messages coming from home were enough to counteract these–that she could play with anything she wanted (well, not guns or Bratz, but you know what I mean), that she could do anything, that these things weren’t limited because she was a girl.

Not long after, in the holiday gift section at Costco, I was checking out a Fisher Price kids’ digital camera. There were two models, a big stack of blue toddler cameras and a big stack of pink ones. Apropos of nothing, The Pumpkin pointed at the two stacks: “That one’s for boys and that one’s for girls.” “No baby, anybody can have any color camera they want, right, Mommy? A boy can have a pink one and a girl can have a blue one if they want.” But she wasn’t having it–she knew who was supposed to have what, by color.

It was a digital camera, of all things. Of all the toys that did not need to be gender-coded, I thought, this would be it. It was the exact same toy, the only difference was the color. Did there really need to be a “boy” camera and a “girl” camera? I mean, c’mon! Needless to say, when it came time to buy presents, both the boy and the girls on our list got a different brand of camera–one that came in orange.

It doesn’t end there. Where I always thought that I knew where the issues would be coming from–deflecting and deprogramming hegemonic lessons that toy kitchens were for girls and only boys could play with Tonka trucks from commercials that smacked of biological determinism–now even gender-neutral toys aren’t so neutral. Does LeapFrog, for example, really need to make blue and pink versions of their kiddie learning computers? Is it that important to brand something as “for boys” or “for girls“? Will boys only use a computer if the learning game is branded with Disney’s Cars? Will girls only use it if the game is branded with Disney’s Princesses? And what if a girl likes Cars? Or a boy likes Princesses? What then? Or will they not even think to ask, having imbibed the blue=boy/pink=girl lesson for too long already?

I think about all the societal forces bombarding my daughter and her friends, and I don’t want to feel powerless to do anything. The other night, one of The Pumpkin’s best friends, a little boy she’s known since birth, was frantic because he couldn’t find another chair in which to sit at the kids’ table for dinner. He refused, absolutely refused, to sit in a Dora-emblazoned chair because it was Dora, and Dora is for girls. No matter how much I or his parents tried to convince him that that wasn’t the case, and that he could sit in the chair, he wouldn’t change his mind. He wouldn’t play dress-up with the girls, either, since the Disney Princess gear was obviously not for boys. Another boy in our group of friends, however, wouldn’t hesitate to put on one of those tiaras. He unabashedly loves Dora and the Princesses, and his parents support that love. But what messages does he get at preschool, I wonder, from both teachers and other kids, when he shares that love with others?

I’m tired of seeing pink. I’m tired of seeing blue. And I’m both pissed off and saddened deeply that at age three, my daughter and her friends, both girls and boys, have already learned to see those colors, and what they are supposed to mean, so well. And I know that this isn’t the last time I’m going to start a sentence with, “No, baby, both boys and girls can….”

Jason Sperber is a former stay-at-home-dad of a 3-year-old daughter (“The Pumpkin”) and the husband of a family physician (“la dra.”) living in California’s Central Valley. He is currently a writer/blogger/online community manager. A former high school social studies teacher, he has a background in ethnic studies and education for social justice. He writes the blog daddy in a strange landand coordinates Rice Daddies, the group blog by Asian American dads. He can be reached at daddyinastrangeland@mac.com.

Share and Enjoy:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us
  • digg
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Furl
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • co.mments

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Seeing Pink: Gender Stereotyping in Toys | Adopted The Movie on 26 Feb 2008 at 3:54 pm

    […] The original article is here: http://www.antiracistparent.com/2008/02/18/seeing-pink […]

  2. Toy links : Fanmode on 27 Feb 2008 at 7:58 am

    […] Seeing pink. [via] “… now even gender-neutral toys aren’t so neutral.” […]

Comments

  1. honglien123 wrote:

    Ah Jason, you’ve touched on something I’ve had issues with since my own childhood. Have you noticed, that not only are boy and girl items color and character coded (before Cars and Princesses, there was He-Man and She-Ra) but by subject as well? Most of the science and building toys seem geared towards boys, Kinex, Lego (many people will say this is unisex but nuh uh), science experiments that produce goo while girl toys tend to be dolls and kitchen gear. It’s a lot better now than it was even 6 years ago when my baby girl was born but it’s nowhere near equal in terms of the distribution of science and math related toys.

    I think you’re doing all you really can do by emphasizing that boys and girls can do and play with whatever they want.

  2. thordora wrote:

    Amen to that. We’re lucky that we’ve kept our daughters out of child care/preschool and they are mostly blissfully unaware of the gender stereotypes-but that ends in Sept with school for my oldest. I’m worried that all our hard work with her is for naught…. Right now she believes she can do anything. I don’t want her to lose that.

  3. Robin G. wrote:

    Great article.

    It’s depressing to see how pervasive the gender role mindset is for kids. I’ve been trying to shop for my best friend’s soon-to-be-born son, and I’ve been absolutely staggered by the clothes. You practically can’t get a blue onesie without a dumptruck, or a sailboat, or a puppy. Since when do boys not like kittens? Since when do girls not like sailing? Any why in God’s name are we forcing this stuff on *infants*?

  4. Yvette wrote:

    >And I know that this isn’t the last time I’m going to start a sentence with, “No, baby, both boys and girls can….”<

    You are right–this will not be the last time. It gets weary, but keep at it. And as she gets older, you can find ways to work with your daughter on this issue–for instance by examining packaging for depictions of boys and girls (and kids of color); by emailing toy companies to express disappointment, etc.

    Thanks for a great post!

  5. wendi muse wrote:

    awesome post, jason. i am not a parent, but i often think about pre-determined (at least by the public and um all consumer goods lol) gender (and racial) norms children are supposed to adhere to. as a child who grew up in a single parent household (my father died when i was a baby) of color, my mother often made it a point to educate me on gender and race issues, even if by way of toys (i had barbies of all races, colors, and nationalities, though usually of my own doing) and her own behavior (having a mom who paints the house, fixes plumbing, and uses tools is a good gender norm breaker right there), so i can level with the concerns you express in this piece.

    but sometimes, no matter how hard we fight, those norms become a part of us. we can learn to love it, reject them, or find a happy medium, but either way, we are reacting to our conditioning in some way.a rigid (outside) world is what she will have to grow up in, no matter how much you as a parent attempt to shelter her from it by way of diverse or non-color coded toys. but i think that your daughter, with what seems like some awesome parenting from you and your wife, will be able to make that decision as she gets older, at least with regard to what she wants to do with the gender and racial politics being thrown at her ever step of the way.

  6. Julie wrote:

    Never fear - this too shall pass. I went through the same angst when my now 9 year old was 3 and started proclaiming that certain things were only for boys or girls and insisted on wearing dresses ALL the time. Jeans, overalls, any long pants were for boys! Oh how could this have happened to me?!!? Where did I go wrong?

    Turns out my only offense was in not understanding that preschoolers thrive on categorizing. They feel safer when as much as possible is expected. So just like they need to know that nap time follows lunch time, or that you’re going to read Green Eggs and Ham after Tar Beach and not before it at bedtime - they also need to believe - for a while - that this is for boys and that is for girls.

    But it does pass. Now she’s 9yo and refuses to adhere to the stereotypes. She likes what she likes and doesn’t care who it’s intended for. Will often choose the blue version of something because she loves light blue - but will also take the pink because her favorite color combination is black and pink. She is as fond of watching Roger Federer as Hannah Montana. Has more fun playing ball than playing dolls.

    Sure there are tons of messages subtle and not-so-subtle that our kids are bombarded with but the main messages they learn at home are the ones that stick - even if they are developmentally inclined to forget them for a little while. Chances are, in a few years, your daughter will remember her love of Thomas more than she will her rejection of him as a toy for boys.

  7. sesameflower wrote:

    Oh, this is a frustrating one. My baby brother, for a period of three years or more, watched Sailor Moon religiously, dancing along to the theme song and doing the poses along with the characters every time they ‘transformed’. I’m not a big fan of the show, but I used to carry that around as evidence that my brother wasn’t growing up like the boys I remembered from *my* preschool (haha)…and middle school, and high school, and, thankfully, slightly fewer at college but still there. Then, just a year or so ago, he started separating everything, even things that weren’t obviously coded, into ‘for boys’ and ‘for girls’. (Sailor Moon still took a while to die out…he began insisting that at least half of the Sailors *were* boys…obviously some of those messages still haven’t sunk in). I sometimes wonder if the delay (he is 9 now) wasn’t because of speech delay he had that also kept him from picking up gendered pronouns for a long time. I haven’t studied childhood development, and I’m not a parent (just the big sister of four awesome brothers and sisters, 9-16), but I think that this time is particularly upsetting to those of us who were hoping our babies/brothers/sisters/etc. would grow up without society’s stigmas about gender…not just because they’re absorbing the messages, but because they’re so vocal about it.

    There’s something in it the very loudness of that message that gives me hope, however, because it’s a very obvious use of decoding skills. Even though it seems like your daughter and my brother are whole-heartedly swallowing the messages they receive from TV…other children…stores…etc….they’re also kind of saying ‘I know what you’re up to!’ and calling commercials/stores/whathaveyou on the messages they’re sending ( I think most places still don’t have an explicit ‘for boys’ or ‘for girls’ sign/label, though it’s not much use pretending). That’s a skill that will be helpful to them later in *criticizing* society, when the time comes. At least, that’s what I hope (and as far as my other siblings are concerned, so far so good…)

  8. sesameflower wrote:

    whoa, i just realized how long (and full of typos) that message was….apologies!

  9. Gillian wrote:

    Don’t you all think this is actually getting worse? The LeapPad used to come in one colour, as did the first Fisher Price (non-digital) camera. Dora was loved by all till they introduced Diego. I thought society was supposed to be progressing?

  10. Yvonne Day wrote:

    We have boy/girl twins and this issue has come more in the last year. I think some of it is developmental. Wanting to categorize things–unfortunately the toy aisles offer the same gender restrictions we were given. My son has also been faced with “we don’t want to play with you. We only play with girls.” Heartbreaking.

    Generally there is a lot of overlap–daughter loves cars and son loves dancing, but pink has emerged (my daughter would have LOVED the pink camera but friends gave them both the blue one) and they are definitely grasping more onto boy and girl things and activities.

    One seemingly successful strategy is one I have used for a lot of things. “Some people think only girls can like pink and only boys can like cars. Isn’t that sad?” Or “Those girls are really missing out. They don’t know that boys and girls can play together. I feel bad for them because some of my favorite people are boys.” My kids love the idea that they know something others don’t. I also like the book, Horace and Morace but Mostly Dolores. It’s about choice, not what girls and boys are supposed to do.

  11. Shaping Youth wrote:

    Jason, so glad Carmen officially connected us as your insights are PERFECT for our ‘pink think’ posts in the ’stereotypes’ category on Shaping Youth, where we cover media & marketing’s impact on kids.

    Since Carmen is one of our nonprofit board advisors, I’ll now invite ALL of her readers to come on over and share their stories too…or contribute in our ‘misogyny and race’ category or visit the ‘positive picks’ and ‘damaging drek’ sections…We’d love to hear comments from you all—and find out your biggest concerns and conundrums.

    Two of our other board advisors for our wee nonprofit are the PhDs from Packaging Girlhood.com, who are coming out with ‘Packaging Boyhood’ in 2009 as well, and looking for insights from parents with boys (or boys themselves) as part of their research tackling the whole pink/blue bit. (Freebie alert: I’m giving away their book on Shaping Youth to readers who participate in their research in order to help their vital efforts that will benefit us all in this whole pink/blue distorted and blurry looking glass…)

    Here are a couple of our posts you might also like on this topic (more in the stereotypes category) Packaging Girlhood: APA Study Shows Harm of Early Sexualization
    http://www.shapingyouth.org/blog/?p=309

    Packaging Boyhood: Corporate Pirate Raid Boys’ Souls
    http://www.shapingyouth.org/blog/?p=655

  12. Anonymous wrote:

    My daughter is two and my family occasionally asks, “why are you raising her like a boy?” My reply is that I’m not raising her like a boy, I’m raising her like a child. I don’t care if she grows up to be a ballerina or a helicopter mechanic. But I want her to know that all the options are open to her. Unfortunatly, society and sometimes my family will push pink, girly, frilly, lady like, “gender appropriate” stuff on her all her life. So, my husband and I go a little extreme the other way, just to counter act it. But when it comes down to it, I let her make her own choices. She doesn’t watch tv and she’s only two, so right now she has no concept of girl vs boy stuff. But she often chooses “boy” stuff… she has a spider man bike that she picked out and loves her toy cars and trucks. On the other hand, I never discourage mothering behavior such as “nursing” her dolls, because I want her to be a good mother, and she does have pink clothes. I laugh when people tell me that she will naturally gravitate toward “female roles.” There is nothing natural about it. Society pushes it and parents cater to it.
    But I am dreading those moments as she gets older, when I will have to explain to her, as this father did, how some people think that boys and girls should be separated. I just hope I will have the right words to say when the time comes.

  13. Brooklyn wrote:

    At first I though your post was a well balanced contribution to some of the overly sensitive posts (for example, the recent post about the racial implications of baby wearing). Unforutunately, as I read on it became apparent that your daughter’s (first mistake, giving her the identity of “the pumpkin”) gender biases are clearly a result of her parent’s total reinforcement of society’s ignorant labeling. My partner and I have made no effort to discredit gender (i.e. pink/blue) labeling. Our daughter believes her pink, long haired doll is a baby boy and that “Thomas the Train” is a “her.” She prefers gender neutral toys such a balls, swimming pools, animal figurines, and activities such as biking, cooking, and gardening to gender specific items such as dolls, trucks, trains, and whatever else might be the item of the moments….Dora, Diego, the Backyardians. I have no idea. Really, it’s not that difficult to avoid the gender assignment factor. I perhaps make a slight effort to avoid an overabundance of pink clothing but other than that our almost three year old shows no interest in princesses, pink, or other overly girly merchandise. My advice is to show a blind eye to gender assingment and when purchasing/choosing toys/clothing/books/gifts for your child and others, take cues from the kids in terms of their interests and redirect when necessary. When free from reinforcement and guidance kids usually have a variety of interests based on factors outside of society’s labels.
    Overall I appreciate your appreciation of reality and the stuggles of modern parenthood. I find your contributions considerably more balanced and relevant than many of the other contributors to this website.
    Thank you.
    Brooklyn.

  14. Cindy wrote:

    I totally relate to your points here — I think I gave up hope for a gender-neutral future when my 4 year-old son wanted a toy broom, and we were directed to “Girls’ World” at Toys R Us to find it. I have two points to add:

    1. As a parent of 1 boy and 1 girl, I’m convinced that the different versions of even gender neutral toys like cameras and computers are designed so that they can sell twice as many of everything — if you have both boys and girls in your household, then you need to buy one of each gendered version. And the branding with princesses or superheroes or whatever helps sell more things, because a kid who loves spiderman or Cinderella will want anything with spiderman or Cinderella on it.

    2. You can instill in kids a sense that gender designations are arbitrary and it’s okay for them to like whatever they like, and they may still bow to social pressures. Starting when he was about 6, my son has talked periodically about how he likes certain things that some people think are girly, like stuffed animals and dolls, and he knows it’s fine for him to like them, and he admits that he does, but he doesn’t want to play with them in front of his friends because he knows they would make fun of him. I have tried to convince him that he shouldn’t worry whether people make fun of him, and that they’re wrong. He agrees that they’re wrong but he still doesn’t want them to make fun of him. (BTW, we live in a progressive community in a diverse city.)

  15. Atena wrote:

    These are issues that I have struggled with since about half of my daughter’s wardrobe has somehow turned out to be pink, against my initial Radmama ideals. Alas. I realized I don’t care too much, though it does give me pause. I ask ‘How did this happen?’, and then I remember that if I am careful about our expectations of her and encourage her to be more than her clothes, it’s probably going to be fine.

    From the point of view of a child development specialist (I have a master’s in child dev.), I would like to point out that most often, in the early years (2-5ish) a child’s insistence on gender distinctions and traditional gender roles is a developmental phase. It’s normal and appropriate.

    Little people don’t have as much capacity for tolerating ambiguity. It’s very difficult for a 3 or 4 year old to accept that something an be two things at once, or that a person could shift between two (or more) distinctly different states. If they’ve coded something as “for girls” then the idea of it also being “for boys” can take them to Bizzaro World and make them very uncomfortable.

    There’s nothing wrong with this, so long as they eventually develop the capacity to tolerate ambiguity as they get older. Each kid is different, but try not to be too disappointed if your kids are doing this. Most kids do, and they can outgrow it with your assistance. Yay for intentional parenting!

    And @ Brooklyn - It seems to me that your comment was not made in the spirit of constructive criticism, but rather as a passive-aggressive jab at some of the contributors on this site. I appreciate the efforts that the contributors here make toward taking on some difficult and often very personal topics, sometimes taking risks by airing potentially unpopular or uncomfortable ideas. Whether we like what they have to say or not, I think we should respect that and try to be constructive when we disagree. As someone who values this online community, I would certainly appreciate it.

    Peace

  16. Jeremy Pierce wrote:

    It’s interesting seeing kids reach the age group when kids are doing this who because of cognitive delays or difficulties don’t end up developing the social awareness to learn these things. My six-year-old son regularly puts his sister’s Disney princess clothing on, and she (who is three) is only beginning to think there’s something odd about that. (She knows princesses are female, but it’s only at that level. She doesn’t seem to think a boy can’t dress up as a princess. He just can’t actually be one.)

    I want to be able to say that this helps us understand to what extent race and gender characteristics are socially-caused, but I always have this nagging doubt because it might just be that some biological cause of some of these attitudes doesn’t kick in with autism. But it is interesting seeing a kid who doesn’t develop these things or can only do so when explicitly taught a rule about pink being for girls (which hasn’t yet happened to my knowledge).

  17. cloudscome wrote:

    I agree with the others that have said young children go through normal developmental phases where they are gender typing their world and then grow out of that as their thinking matures. What bothers me a lot is that the marketplace is capitalizing on that and artificially extending it to sell more. Pink and Blue cameras or other technology is ridiculous. Actually, I don’t want any tools or toys to be gender typed but when it is only color code deep it really gets me. I keep thinking what are they up to with that? It is much worse than it used to be, in my experience. Happy Meals, for example, didn’t used to be divided into “boy” or “girl” and now you can’t buy one without the server asking repeatedly which kind you mean you want. I try to avoid spending money on things that are pink and blue or bear any brand, unless it’s a hand-me-down. It makes me sad that it’s getting more prevalent because that must mean it’s earning money, which only makes it snowball.

  18. barbarafw wrote:

    The Backyardigans are definitely kids of color (Austin’s the white kid). Janice Burgess, the creator, is a Black woman.

    I love that show. 8-)

  19. thea wrote:

    I have a 4 year old son who loves bright colors.
    He likes pinks and purples, howeverm clothes for boys tend to come in browns, blues, green and orange. He likes his Thomas the Tank Engine, but he also enjoys listening to princess stories like Snow White and Cinderella.
    Currently, he is in a preschool that doesn’t really exhibit any gender bias in regards to toys and play activities, but I am concerned when he starts elementary school.

  20. TM wrote:

    Brooklyn wrote:
    “Really, it’s not that difficult to avoid the gender assignment factor.”

    LOL. Spoken like a parent to an “almost three year old.” Just wait.

    The entire point of the post is that this comes from society and children pick up on it nearly regardless of parental inputs if they are interacting with society at large and with their peers in particular. It’s no coincidence that this tends to happen when children are about three years old, the same time children also start to notice “racial” differences in appearance.

    Yes, parents often reinforce gender stereotypes, even if uncosciously, but that is precisely the point of the post. What can parents do within their given social context to counter ascribed gender norms?

  21. Nicole wrote:

    I think Cindy is on par with her assertion that different versions of gender neutral items is just a way for companies to sell more. I use cloth diapers and needed more wraps for my first child (of more some day I would hope). I had liked these white wraps I had purchased in the past. I get to the store, and my only options are pink and blue ones! I was happy I could finally buy these wraps locally, but then I am forced to chose pink or blue. At first I thought, are they padded differently for where a baby might wet or something? But, no. So, I am convinced they must be trying to convince parents to buy more for each subsequent child. It seemed a bit odd from a someone who might chose cloth diapering to reduce waste. Alas, any future son can wear pink, and I got one of each.

  22. Lyonside wrote:

    Thea: Don’t be concerned about your son (after all, it’s not HIS problem ;), but be aware and active in his schools and try to keep his environments as supportive as possible.

    I would try to be very aware of those first signs of teasing, and see if you can help him through it. Don’t let him give up things he likes just out of fear, but don’t force him to keep things or activities he may legitimately outgrow.

    I know a little boy who loves playing with his older sister, and if that means wearing a tutu and going to dance class with her, so be it. His dad is a pro linebacker (no, really, he is - or some position like that, I really don’t know football), and he’s fine with it.

    Great, now I have “William’s Doll” in my head :)

  23. Cathie (Marie) wrote:

    Far beyond the issue that children do not need for the glut of all those toys — the color coding of play into super-gender identity is troubling.

    My father named me after the most scientist in his life, and told me that women could study to attain any job they want. Then I went to kindergarten. On my first day, the boys banned me from the building blocks — and the other parents were outraged when my father asked that the girls be given half of the blocks, they claimed that the boys had a right to refuse to share.

    I am now a scientist. Guess what. The boy scientists STILL do not allow women scientists their own share. That’s our tax money too, fellas. So, parents: it isn’t enough to tell girls that they can be anything they want to be. Parents need to tell their boys. And parents of girls have to, as many of you are saying, take a pro-active approach telling them to expect an unfair fight. In addition, girls need to learn that being assertive is good, and being aggressive is not so good, but sometimes necessary if all else fails. Soccer teaches this well, and at least, so far, the pink/blue idiocy has not intruded. (Or maybe it HAS, I haven’t been to a children’s game for a while.)

    But last, I think the pink/blue issue is based on a real, but distorted, concern — that children establish a singular gender identy. I think, in the effort toward gender rights, we have clouded the notion of sexual identity — and, as a psychologist, I think we need to be more clear with our children on that issue.

    We need to assure all young boys that they are “all boy” and make sure all girls know they are “all girl” — unfortunately we leave children with a lot of anxiety that they haven’t come up to the mark. That is why I am concerned about the super-gender toys: No girl is the fluffy princess she sees in the toy, and she is common in comparison. No boy is super hero enough compared to his toy, and he sees himself to be deficient. So this type of toy is very destructive to the young mind.

  24. Cathie (Marie) wrote:

    sorry — I had a typo in my post:
    Far beyond the issue that children do not need [for] the glut of all those

  25. susan klinke wrote:

    It’s a tradition that seems to mindlessly continue. I was not aware that science toys were still marketed mainly to boys. That’s inane and disturbing! Besides easy-bake ovens, aren’t there things like toy vacuums marketed to girls and lawn mowers marketed to boys? How dumb is that?! Yet it can color kids’ perception of what’s “naturally” feminine or masculine.

    As we get older we also learn that there are masculine scents and feminine scents when we go to a perfume counter. This has never made any sense to me. How is an earthy scent masculine, and a floral scent feminine?

  26. Yoli wrote:

    What a great post. So true and we ourselves are so conditioned, that we fall for it again and again.

    Well, my son went to bed tonight in his sister’s pajamas. I feel so much better.

  27. Sandy wrote:

    Much a-do about nothing. Categorizing is a toddler’s way of figuring out the way the world works. They learn that some clothes are for cold weather, some for warm, some things are for grown-ups, some for children. There are some things or activities boys like and some girls prefer, same for colors. The people who market toys didn’t make up the ‘color code’ by themselves. They observed trends and took advantage of them. Whether the trends were caused by children or their parents is a “which came first, the chicken or the egg” argument.

    By the time children are 8 or so, they start making their own choices. As long as we encourage children to pursue their own interests, they’ll learn to like sports, cars, teaching, cooking, etc. regardless of their gender, or what colors they wore, or toys they played with, when they were 3. I had a pink room and dolls, not cars and trucks to play with, and no brothers, but I like to work on cars and play sports and I’m an adult woman. I also like perfume, and pretty clothes.

    I think its a mistake to try to free our children of ‘potential limiting’ thinking by erasing their gender identity. Girls can act and look like girls while doing anything, and same for boys. We’re different, men from women, for a reason, because it works.

    Denying gender specific behavior isn’t the way to go either, no matter what age a child is. I wouldn’t discourage a girl from playing with dolls, or a boy from playing with trucks just to demonstrate that they shouldn’t conform to expectations. I would never encourage my 10 yo pink-loving princess to play hockey like her brother and twin sister just so she can prove to the world that she’s not a stereotypical girl, when in fact she is one. And I’m not about to encourage my 11 yo rough and tumble son to wear pink or jewelry. My tomboy daughter is the one who will have to work harder to make her own path. But playing hockey doesn’t stop her from playing with dolls, wearing purple, and listening to Hannah Montana.

    So, among other things, I’ll teach my girls to apply their makeup and at least understand cars. I’ll teach my son to throw a baseball and at least how to cook for himself. I’ll teach them all to manage money, play fair, and take responsibility for their choices. The rest is up to them, and they can wear any color they like.

  28. Lyonside wrote:

    Susan Klinke:
    >I was not aware that science toys were still marketed mainly to boys.

    They are, and people wonder why girls are not encouraged overall to go into hard science.

    There was a kerfluffle over Christmas, I think at Shakesville, when the Discovery Story (affiliated with the Discovery Channel) promoted their BLUE microscope kit, complete with slides and slide-making materials, with good resolution and dyes, that obviously had a life sciences focus.

    And then there was the PINK one, where you looked at 6 (!) slides comparing salt and DIAMOND DUST. That’s it. No making your own slides, no biological or chemical focus, just how to tell salt from real “rocks.” And of course the ad had to specify that the slides were made with real diamond dust.

    Sandy:
    >Whether the trends were caused by children or their parents is a “which came first, the chicken or the egg” argument.

    But there’s a difference between fostering a child’s innate, possibly stereotypical, leanings, and beating out any interest in anything that deviates from those stereotypes.

    As the other comments detail, a kid who previously had an interest in something gets the message, from the media, or from peers/family, that that’s for the opposite gender ALONE, and then the kid inhibits their own interest. Is that healthy? Is that fair?

    And if the colors are so neutral, then where are the neutral colors? Where are the lighter blues, darker purples, oranges, reds, yellows, etc? Why would a boy’s camera, microscope, or telescope come with more options, if not to send the (not so) subliminal signal that boys should care about that, and girls shouldn’t?

    >I think its a mistake to try to free our children of ‘potential limiting’ thinking by erasing their gender identity

    We’re not talking gender identity, we’re talking gender sterotypes and behavior that limit expression of their personhood, or rather, try to define their personhood by their chromosomes.

  29. Angel wrote:

    That was an excellent post. I know if and when I have children that I will try to similarly raise my children in a more gender-neutral way. I do not ever want my children to feel like they cannot do something because marketing tells them that doing so calls into question their sex (Young kids are not able to distinguish between sex and gender.). I figured that as long as the message at home is strong enough, my children will not succumb to these unfortunate gender stereotypes. This post has opened my eyes to how much more difficult it is than I originally thought.

  30. Ashley wrote:

    I really enjoyed your post and agree for the most part. However, I don’t feel this “biological determinism” is terminal. As a father with a 2 year old daughter and a 1 year old adopted son from Vietnam on the way, I have thought about the issues you raise. Children seem to lock on to the pink – blue barrier. Maybe because they are trying to draw some lines in their world in order to operate in it with a limited life vocabulary. Perhaps they need some of these lines. I am in my thirties and regularly wear pink shirts. Maybe I have just now gotten over my programming. There is only so much you can do. There is a fine balance between societal deprogramming and the suppressing individuality. Good luck, I will check back to keep up you.

  31. Ryan wrote:

    I’m with Sandy (above) on this one. I really don’t worry much about this issue. I have a 6 year old daughter, 2 sons (ages 1 & 2).

    My daughter has always LOVED Disney Princesses, pink is her favorite color, she LOVES to play with makeup and dressup, and she is the “picture” of a girlie girl.

    She also is doing fabulous in school (math and science areas included), she’s super athletic, and she’s just as rough and tumble as any boy her age.

    I don’t think it’s hurting her IN THE LEAST to like stereotypical “girl” things. In fact, as a child I was a tom-boy… I HATED dresses (still do), loved sports, climbed trees, played in mud, etc. Now, as an adult, I’m a nurse (stereotypical “female” job), I wear makeup, highlite my hair, etc. I just don’t see a HUGE coorelation between the toys/colors I liked as a child and the way I turned out as an adult. In fact, I don’t really notice that with ANYONE. I have yet to meet a women who says “damn… if only my mother bought me trucks instead of dolls. I wouldn’t have turned out like this”.

    We are programed by NATURE to be the way we are. Females are NATURALLY and INSTINCTIVELY more nurturing and caring then males. It’s been that way since cave-man days (prior to Toys-R-Us). Males have always done the hunting and killing to survive, females have always done the caring taking and nurturing to survive. So, in my opinion, it’s biology that drives children to play with “gender-assigned” toys…. not the marketing industry. Of course, they don’t HELP the matter either, but in the long run I don’t think it really makes a difference.

    The great thing about life NOW is that women have SO MANY MORE opportunities. Back in the day, a woman was expected to stay home and be a housewife. Now… a WOMAN is about to win the democratic ticket to run for president! I bet Hillary played with pink dolls as a child :)~

    Ryan

  32. Lyonside wrote:

    >She also is doing fabulous in school (math and science areas included), she’s super athletic, and she’s just as rough and tumble as any boy her age.

    Ryan, your daughter is 6. Studies have shown that pursuing interests in math and science drops off precipitously by puberty and into the high school and college years. A hefty part of that is peer pressure and social conformity, and biases in the actual way science is taught to students. Really, it’s great to foster that interest now. But just wait - I hope it continues and your daughter bucks the trend. But as a woman in science, I can say that the macho culture and outright sexist teachers are still out there in force.

    >We are programed by NATURE to be the way we are. Females are NATURALLY and INSTINCTIVELY more nurturing and caring then males.

    False. Read much anthropology studies regarding aboriginal societies? There’s a lot more diversity within human cultures as to both gender roles within family units AND role with the larger community. Children imitate what they see same-gender parents do, and they also respond to positive and negative reinforcement. What many societies think of as “natural” is really “social.”

    > Males have always done the hunting and killing to survive, females have always done the caring taking and nurturing to survive.

    Again, not true. There have been societies where the norm is for women to do most of the farming/landowning. Or where men and women both doing the hunting and gathering. Yes, women if they do most of the child-rearing are limited in hunting, but there are/have been lowtech societies where women are not stopped from hunting, or men from child-rearing after weaning age.

    Tangential note: please remember, if women had waited around the fire nursing babies for the men to come back from a successful hunt, Homo as a genus and probably every preceding and cousin species before that would NOT have survived. If the best predators on earth are successful 1 out of 10 hunts, then humans (not the best, even with higher tech) are even less successful. In reality, the women wereoverall nursing babies, WHILE gathering firemaking materials, berries, nuts, roots, leafy vegetables, AND making smaller kills (insects, grubs, shellfish, fish, snails, rodents, rabbits, etc.). So that if the men banded together to hunt and were unsuccessful, there was still something to eat that night and something to put away for the winter. And on days that there was no large game, the men would likely be right there making rafts, teaching children, fixing or making new weapons, cutting down saplings, etc.

    “Cave men days” were not what most people think they were, nor were they all that far in our past.

    >So, in my opinion, it’s biology that drives children to play with “gender-assigned” toys…. not the marketing industry.

    I repeat, from my earlier comment:

    And if the colors are so neutral, then where are the neutral colors? Where are the lighter blues, darker purples, oranges, reds, yellows, etc? Why would a boy’s camera, microscope, or telescope come with more options, if not to send the (not so) subliminal signal that boys should care about that, and girls shouldn’t?

    We’re not talking gender identity, we’re talking gender sterotypes and behavior that limit expression of their personhood, or rather, try to define their personhood by their chromosomes.

  33. h sofia wrote:

    >So, in my opinion, it’s biology that drives children to play with “gender-assigned” toys…. not the marketing industry.

    Please explain how/why girls are biologically drawn to pink, and boys to blue.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.