Viv Groksop writes an interesting article in this morning’s Guardian, regarding pink toys for girls and how, with Christmas 2010 swiftly approaching, it appears that toymakers may finally be changing their assumptions about what little boys and girls really want from Santa.
The article comes on the back of a report this week from campaign group Pink Stinks, who reported that, one year on …
… from their anti-pink crusade against UK toy shop chain the Early Learning Centre (ELC), the pink tide would seem to be receding (to a degree). At the same time, reports have recently come from Disney that they are considering pulling the plug on production of princess toys. Interesting stuff – but what do we take from this? Is this is a sign that children’s ‘pester power’ is finally being replaced by what Groksop dubs ‘parent power’? That the ‘feminist parenting’ movement is finally enjoying some success? Or simply that the pink princess was never right all along?
Abi Moore, co-founder of Pink Stinks, has said publicly that her organisation, which is ‘a campaign and social enterprise that challenges the culture of pink which invades every aspect of girls’ lives’, has been practically inundated with messages from parents ‘all over the world.’ Pink Stinks’ campaigning last year covered 43 countries across the world and, Moore states, ‘Parents of girls and boys alike are sick of the marketing messages and, especially, the gender assumptions [that] children are forced to lap up.’
Pink Stinks last year criticised the ELC’s ‘pink obsession’, which in the Christmas 2009 catalogue included a pink globe of the world and an array of gender-specific dressing-up costumes and clothes. A year on, they believe that there is a ‘small but significant’ improvement in the range of toys for sale this Christmas, saying:
‘There are now more girls than boys in the costume section, with girls dressed as policewomen or doctors. There’s a bigger mix, which we think is great. The pink globe is not pictured in the catalogue, although it’s still available. The Early Learning Centre will never admit it has made any changes to its catalogue but we are going to claim a little victory.’
A spokesman for the ELC said in response that:
‘The Early Learning Centre believes in helping children to be happy and confident individuals. We consistently offer a huge selection of toys to suit all need and to help children be all they can be.’
Groksop uses this recent debate to question, in her article, whether the views of parents are finally being heard by marketing corporations. Many parents, whether it be openly or loosely, can be seen to identify themselves with a movement known as ‘feminist parenting.’ In the UK, a prevalent feminist parenting organisation, CRAP (child rearing against patriarchy), sets out their philosophy by stating that:
‘We demand a feminist upbringing for the next generation. We want to actively challenge the tirade of sexist racist capitalist classist homophobic transphobic and ageist toys, media and literature produced for children; to empower and inspire the role of parenting caring and educating and to combat patriarchy in all its forms within our children’s lives. We would like to create networks to support and discuss feminist childrearing issues and push childrearing issues in feminist activist circles.’
And there are many similar organisations in the UK and the US that campaign for similar goals. And, personally, I think these groups, and their goals, are great. Children are exposed to gender-specific toys, media and marketing from very early in their lives, and anything that aims to remove such pressure can only be a good thing, I think. If more parents move against gender-specific marketing geared at children, this should have an effect, just as Pink Stinks claim to have made a difference already.
Children are miniature consumers at a very young age, that’s a fact. But it is a child’s parents that can make a difference in terms of what their children are exposed to or allowed to have. Parents should support their child’s choices in terms of the toys their really like, but should try to ensure that their children’s choices are genuine, rather than tainted by the Disney machine.
I know a 4-year-old little boy who absolutely loves pink. He also loves race cars, Spiderman, toy kitchens, and camping. He looks forward to going hunting with his dad when he’s older.
I love that he doesn’t have to conform to ridiculous gender stereotypes and that his mother embraces her son’s love of all things pink.
I don’t think the killing of a defenseless animal minding it’s own business in it’s own habitat is conducive to good child rearing. This is just teaching a child that violence and bullying are okay or even preferable. Often times hunters cannot aim straight for the brains when killing an animal and they end up shooting him/her in the torso or stomach so the animal ends up dying slowly and painfully until it bleeds out to death. And many times mothers are killed and the babies end up dying because they cannot fend for themselves. What a horrific thing to teach a child.
A good hunter can’t always hit the head, you are talking about a moving target after all (usually at a distance, through trees and with wind. not everyone is an amazing crack shot), but a good hunter will also put the creature out of it’s misery as soon as they possibly can. Teaching a child to hunt is not a bad thing. Failing to teach them to be responsible when hunting is.
And yes, mothers are sometimes killed. We have a DNR sanctioned doe hunt in our area every once in a while. Why? Because there are no predators here that can take down a deer, so they get overpopulated, then they start starving and getting sick, so the DNR sanctions a doe hunt to thin the population. Sacrifice the few for the sake of the many. Yes, it’s cruel, but it’s less cruel than letting them starve to death because there isn’t enough food, or letting TB run rampant through the population because the herds are too large and too close together. Nature tends to be far more cruel than most hunters could ever be.
And before anyone can throw this argument at me, no I’m not a hunter. I don’t think I could ever kill anything myself unless I was starving and had no other choice. I broke out crying when I tried to put a worm on a hook during the family fishing trip because I didn’t want to hurt it (never mind the fact that I was sending it to the depths to drown/get eaten), but my hunting/fishing family respects that. It was more important to them that I know how to hunt and fish responsibly than it was that I actually hunt and fish.
That’s really cool, McKenzie. Sadly, my niece has been so ingrained into Disney princess pink puke culture that she walks around looking like a bottle of Pepto Bismol. God forbid that she can’t be covered head to toe in pink and have her Disney Marriage Dreams coloring book with her (seriously, that’s the title and it’s all about the princesses getting married and my niece is 4).
>
My SIL says things like “Good girls wash their hands. Good girls say please and thank you” but to my nephew she says “Good boys play outdoors. Good boys don’t shout quite so loud.” It’s kinda sick to watch the gender manipulation. I don’t even think she knows she’s doing it.
You need to gently educate your sister in law AND brother. Both my brother and his wife are exactly the same way. But in their case, they are proud of their own sexism and they feel like they are actually good Christians because their church teaches them all of this sexism and they are repeating it. It’s really sad how they tell my nieces that women shouldn’t be presidents or in any position of authority because those roles are meant for men. So I have to try to educate my nieces and nephews on my own time away from the parents.
I like that CRAP is opposed to all of those things . . . except for capitalism. Why would they be opposed to economic justice? Also, I don’t really have a problem with certain types of ageism.
In other news, I was not allowed to have action figures until my eighth birthday. My mother was concerned about “stifling my creativity,” which was never a risk. This limited my time playing with action figures to just a few years.
While my mother has since apologized, I will probably always resent that on some small level. I hope that these groups remember that gift-giving is for the sake of giving a gift — something, usually, that the recipient desires. If you turn gift-giving into furthering your own agenda, however noble it might be, it completely changes the meaning of the gifts.
Capitalism is incredibly harmful to women, I would very much object to the term “economic justice” being used for capitalism especially as it applies to women. Women consist of 2/3 of laborers in the world, yet own less than 1/100 of property in the world. Does that sound like economic justice to you?
That is not justice — but that really has nothing to do with capitalism and has more to do with a heinously misogynistic cultural history. Gender is irrelevant to capitalism itself — capitalism cares about merit and rewarding that merit justly. Underpaying someone simply because of her sex is a very un-capitalist thing.
Now, if you mean that, for example, many Western businesses are incredibly unfair to women, then you are absolutely right. But please do not confuse that with capitalism. The idea behind capitalism is that people get exactly what they deserve. Anything else is just egregious bigotry and other forms of unfairness that, unfortunately, are allowed to happen under any economic system.
If you don’t like capitalism, move to a country without it. Let me know what you think once you no longer enjoy its benefits.
.
You can’t blame capitalism for what was there before it was.
.
You can blame capitalism for people ending up wherever they worked to get.
I agree with Shannon. At the present time capitalism happens to be extremely sexist and biased. It doesn’t represent economic justice at all.
Simon Jadis said: “If you turn gift-giving into furthering your own agenda, however noble it might be, it completely changes the meaning of the gifts.”
I absolutely DISAGREE with this. So you think it’s OK to give a little girl a gift that encourages sexism just because she wants to play with it?
There are gifts that are fun and also empower girls. Whenever a child has a birthday in my family or circle of friends I am always conscious of getting something that will actually benefit the child while also providing a good time.
When I was a little girl, I LOVED pink. I had a pink room, some pink clothing and a pink teddy bear I carried around. I said when I grew up I was going to have a pink house and a pink car. I also had toy dump trucks and cars and played outside most of the time. I also had dolls. And crayons. Whichever direction my imagination was taking me, my parents always backed up. The two things they put their foot down on were no Barbies and no toy guns.
I really despise how “Disneyfied” all the children’s things seem to be now. I think children should explore and find out what their interests are. But how can they do that when they have all of these “characters” shoved down their throats from birth? I see these “readers” for kids that look like a Nook or Kindle that read stories out loud to the children. First of all, isn’t that what parents are for? And secondly, it looks like all the available books are about these Disney characters or Dora or other cartoon characters. And it all ties in with this mountain of merchandise. It’s sickening.
Dora was a great example for girls until they pimped her out to make more money. Now she wears makeup and jewelry and has miniskirts. How sad.
Hey Puf, what was the reasoning behind no barbie dolls? Just curious.
Hmmm, well it could be effect of various “feminist parenting” groups that are responsible for influx of gender neutral toys. Or the fact that toy makers are trying to market their wares to the largest possible pool of consumers. It all goes to what you think has the most influence on the corporations that make the majority of toys, the wellbeing of little Cindy and Timmy, or the filthy lucre.
Pingback: The War on Christmas: Not a Real Thing – Zelda Lily, Feminism in a Bra
I personally, as a woman, am not a fan of the color pink. I think royal blue best brings out my eyes. However, as a feminist, I’m not completely on board with gender-neutral childhood. While I wouldn’t restrict my daughter to solely “girly” clothes, toys, tv, etc, I delight in the ruffly butts and ridiculous pink dresses of babyhood. I will say that as she gets older, I will definitely leave color and style up to her, within reason.
Pingback: queerology - Pink or Blue? Cars or Dolls? Boys or Girls?