One of my best friends
had a baby girl today. It's her fifth child. Her first four children
are all boys, so when we found out that she was due to have a girl
everyone was pleasantly surprised and, if we're honest, the
conversations quickly turned to theories of how this little lady is
going to survive in a house full of lads.
Personally, I reckon
she'll be fine and will no doubt grow into one of the toughest
tomboys I'll know. I'm already assuming that's what she's going to
be, especially as the mother (my friend) has put the kibosh on
anything pink and she's going to grow up in a house full of cars,
trucks, Lego, sports gear, DS and computer consoles that her older
brothers adore playing with. Geez, I'm jealous.
This is fine by me,
because I have a real issue with pink toys, especially pink toys that
try to be “boys toys” aimed at girls, like this recent offeringfrom NERF, which I spotted an advert for while on holiday in France.
I hit on something
similar with my first tomboy blog post when I found the god-awful
Tomboy Tool Kit. My issue is thus: why does something which women are more than capable of using, because after
all a hammer is a hammer, a NERF gun is a Nerf gun, then need to go and be painted pink in order to make it somehow more
legitimate for women to use? If a woman, or young girl is in a
hardware/toy shop and they are faced with two products that are
exactly identical in every way except colour - lets say one is grey
and the other is pink - would they choose the pink one because it
somehow means that it is more tailored to a woman/girl using it? That
somehow the manufacturers have gone the extra mile to produce
something specifically for women because they have made it more
stereotypically feminine by painting it that colour?
It's a sure fire way to
tap into the psyche of women, I'll give the marketers that, and I
think this is when the debate around colour really becomes an issue
as it somehow implies that 'specialist' pink things should be used by
females as a non-gender alternative is somehow inferior or not suited
to the female form.
Of course, this is bull
shit.
However, this led me to
think more about the recent debate around the need for gender neutral
toys and question whether I was actually being a total hypocrite for secretly wanting my friend's little girl to turn into a tomboy
and therefore avoid pink completely?
The idea of genderneutral toys has been a hot topic recently, thanks to the comments
made by the Education Minister, Elizabeth Truss calling for 'gender
neutral toys' in nurseries and parent-led projects like Let Toys BeToys and PinkStinks campaign. I fully agree that separating toy
sections into “boys” and “girls” should be abolished. No more
should a girl be discouraged from playing with a toy tool kit, than a
boy should be prevented from pushing a doll around in a push chair.
By doing this you'd hope the debate about girly colours and boyish
colours would also become null and void, because is it really the colour we have issue with, or the act of the play that the child is performing?
A really interesting
article is this on The Telegraph by June O'Sullivan, chief exec of
London Early Years Foundation, who argues that indeed toys need to be
toys and kids, both boys and girls, should be able to pick up with
and play with whatever they feel comfortable with. Reading this and
the subsequent comments, certainly made me re-evaluate my opinion on
pink toys, because if I think back honestly to when I was younger,
whether something was blue or pink mattered less to me. What was
important was how I could fit it into my pretend story and if it
didn't work, I wouldn't play with it. So, really, apart from doing
away with the idea that 'this is just for boys' and 'this toy is just
for girls', does colour actually matter?
Yes, to someone who particularly likes particularly dislikes a given color, color DOES matter. Pink is no different from any other color. So what if a boy likes it or a girl doesn't? It's called a "color preference." It's a normal thing to have.
ReplyDelete