Hamleys is a large toyshop in central London. I went in there with the intention of buying a present for my niece, only to be shocked at the entrance when I saw the store layout sign.
Inside, toys are segregated by gender and are even allocated separate floors.
As I climbed the escalator and entered the floors themselves, I was even more horrified.
The girls’ floor is pink. It is filled with fluffy objects, beauty and hair-related toys and play cookery sets. There is even a beauty salon called ‘Tantrum’.
The boys’ floor is all about action and adventure. There are cars, trains, spaceships, science sets and construction toys.
We have a severe lack of women in senior positions in our society and a severe problem of inequality. Only 22 percent of UK parliamentarians are female. A survey of Britain’s top 100 companies find that, of 329 executive directors, only 20 are women. In the media Guardian top 100 this year – the most powerful people in the industry – the first woman is at number 18.
Despite laws and measures to introduce gender equality of rights and opportunities in our society, there is still a gaping gap between the actual proportions of men and women in our leadership positions today.
There are many contributing factors, and one is conditioning of children from an early age. Deep-rooted in our society are stereotypes that dictate to women and men and influence them on the roles in society that they are expected to fill.
There is an underlying current of expectation, tradition and what is accepted as the norm, and it sets down different paths for different genders which often becomes a reality.
The toys that children are exposed to play a major part in this. From birth, boys and girls are bombarded with stereotypes; boys are allowed to be more aggressive and climb trees, while girls are encouraged to be passive and play with plastic teapots.
Even the name that Hamleys uses for its beauty salon, ‘Tantrum’, is consistent with the stereotypical ‘hysterical’ woman - unsuited to leadership and far better aligned with the domestic role and fussing over home and appearance.
A commonly held view is that boys and girls are innately suited to these traditional stereotypical roles. But the scientific evidence for this is not substantial, comprehensive or conclusive enough, and there is more evidence that experience itself changes brain function. I've written about this here and here.
Consider a shop that had different floors and different toys for black and white children. There would be an outcry.
We are seeing our very own gender apartheid on our high street.
Hamleys – as a major toy seller – has the potential to be of huge influence.
My request to Hamleys is that it signposts its toys by some other means – for example, what the toys are, rather than who Hamleys assumes they are for.
Marks & Spencer is now listing astronomy toys in both girls and boys sections, thanks to a blog on the f word and @scottkeir on Twitter.
Can Hamleys follow suit so that girls and boys are free to choose what toys are best matched to their individual interests and potential rather than a pre-conditioned and artificial notion of what the different genders should aspire to? So that they don't feel pressurised to follow paths that confine them to the unequal positions in life we see around us?
I won’t be shopping in there for my niece unless they listen. Please spread the word.
Excellent blog, frightening how segregated play is perceived as normal and generally goes unchallenged. It think it is worth noting that males are damaged by sharp divisions too - aggression is normalised and "feminine" urges such as modelling nurturing (e.g. playing with baby dolls which in my experience are very appealing to boy toddlers but rejected once they are old enough to have a more concrete awareness of gender) are stifled.
ReplyDeleteI was horrified to see the Girls and Boys floors in Hamleys. It even seems kind of annoying that the boys get a bigger font.
ReplyDeleteI think these things are as damaging to boys; I noticed that all the craft and art things seem to be on the girls' floor. Poor old boys, stuck with war and violent toys and, construction apart, no scope for creativity.
Seriously? Frightening? Horrified? Hamleys is a traditional store and traditionally, boys play war and girls play dolls. How about visiting both floors (like I do with my boys and girls) and let them choose? How to bloat a non problem to elephantine proportions...
ReplyDeletecbianchi - "traditionally, boys play war and girls play dolls... How to bloat a non problem to elephantine proportions"
ReplyDeleteTradition is much more to do with cultural reproduction than it is with biology, though the normalisation process makes it appear "natural", it is not. I don't really see any logic in the argument that because something is what has always been done this makes it useful. As far as blowing things up to elephantine proportions goes, do you really think that there is no link whatsoever between the way we socialise our children and the adult norms which shape them - a world in which it is still normal for young men to be swallowed up by the state to use as miliary pawns as some sort of "rational" solution to international relations, where it is normal for the state to kill unarmed women and children if they are unlucky enough to be in the wrong culture? Or no connection between barbie and the continuing rise of eating disorders and body loathing? Childhood socialisation may reproduce these social problems but it does not exist in a vacuum from them where it has no possible influence.
Thanks for insightful comments. A few points:
ReplyDelete1. Personally I do see the inequality in our society of elephantine proportions (see stats above).
2. If the impact of this blog and campaign was on elephantine proportions I would be delighted - please help us spread the word and make it so!
3. The trouble with the word 'choice' is that it's always shaped by context. We are aiming for as free a choice as possible - that means not segregating the toys (as this falsely indicates social norms and influences behaviour) before the children even get a chance to 'choose'.
I absolutely agree, I think it's stupid. Delilah, why not help shape the focus of this campaign, can you perhaps facilitate an online petition which can get some social and media traction? I'd sign it, and I'm sure many others would. Strength in numbers.
ReplyDeleteRight - Marks and Spencer have a floor for menswear and a floor for womenswear. Is that wrong as well?
ReplyDeleteThis whole campaign seems extremely pedantic.
I completely agree, I find these kind of forced 'choices' so frustrating. I've watched the choices my Son has made with fascination, he's almost 2.5 and loves a rag doll he was given. His favourite toys are the non gender orientated musical ones along with toys that he can share with us (including books).
ReplyDeleteHe's finding his way and of course isn't free from influence but for now his only criteria is 'is it fun!'. I'm sure as outside influences take hold things will change, and that's probably for the best as he can't live in my idealistic bubble but
... [cont.] it's important he finds his way naturally.
ReplyDeleteAll he wants at the moment is to learn, investigate, be loved, and get our attention / approval. He really couldn't care less if I read from a pink or blue book.
Of course there's no reason why girls can't visit the boys floor and vice versa, but then what on earth is the point of labelling them by gender in the first place. I truly can't think of any sensible reason for it. Why not just label areas as 'dolls', 'art/craft materials', 'construction toys' etc to help people find their way around, and leave it at that?
ReplyDeleteSame with the M&S astronomy stuff. Good for them for putting it in both boys and girls sections in the end, but why does something like that have to be in gender-segregated sections at all? Are telescopes for girls different from the ones for boys?
I don't believe it's because of 'tradition' either, because if anything the gender segregation of toys has got worse in recent years, it's not some relic of the past that just hasn't quite died out yet!
Another one - Is the 'pre-school' section being ageist?
ReplyDeleteWhy not get rid of the convenience and just have all the toys randomly scattered over 6 floors.
Tim, I can see why you are saying that however I'm sorry to say you are totally missing the point. Boys and girls will follow a different path naturally, life will lead them down different roads and so they will develop differently. But there is a difference between the subtleties of natural development and actively keeping girls away from chemistry sets, science kits, telescopes and anything else of that type and making sure what they are offered is bright pink and covered in fairies. There are much more sensible ways of organising toys, I would much rather look at 'bikes for 2 year olds' then the 'no pink here bike department'.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Tim, separating mens' and womenswear is a practical thing - you don't want to wade through a bunch of clothes that aren't your size etc., particularly.
ReplyDeleteIn most dept stores the mens' and womens' sections aren't that different aesthetically - they're just separate.
Painting them blue and pink would hopefully piss a lot of people off - and it pisses me off that people feel the need to do it to children as well.
If anything, there is surely LESS inter-sex difference in children than in adults! They're all pre-pubescent, let's just let them be themselves and do what they like instead of telling girls and boys what colours and types of things they should be preferring.
Someone recently commented that my 18 month old daughter has lots of "boys toys", which I found quite interesting. I like to think she has a nice mix of toys which she enjoys playing with, and which hopefully help her to develop a range of skills along the way. I find the whole idea of gender-specific toys deeply irritating and above all damaging.
ReplyDeleteSome interesting descriptive words used by advertisers of toys on page 41 of this report:http://www.plan-uk.org/assets/Documents/pdf/Because_I_am_a_Girl_2011_-_Full_Report_(English).pdf .
As you will know there is strong evidence that some of the gender bias is innate (consider Si Baron Cohen's work) but this of course does NOT justify it being reinforced to such a ridiculous extent. Though sadly from a short-term marketing perspective Hamleys are probably "right" they do need to think longer term about their reputation.
ReplyDelete@starcourse S B Cohen indeed claims there is an innate difference. Important to bear in mind his results are widely disputed and most are not repeatable. He is one of the loudest voices - the media are understandably interested in stories that are about innate differences as opposed to 'men and women are the same' (boring). Read Cordelia Fine's book 'Delusions of Gender' and Deborah Cameron's 'The Myths of Mars of Venus'. Also countless other articles and a vast body of literature. Evidence points to experience changing brain function rather than genetic. Until consensus on this issue, very dangerous to draw conclusions and indeed use stereotypes to propagate situation which is very unequal.
ReplyDeleteI have written about this issue here and here.
There is a difference between separating men's and women's clothes and the distinction between 'girl' and 'boy' toys.
ReplyDeleteMen's clothes are designed to fit men - they're geared to the shapes and sizes of their bodies. A woman's shirt will have darts to accomodate her bust, a man's shirt will be broader on the shoulders. The clothes for men and women are different because there is an actual *need* for them to be different. The difference reflects a real distinction between men and women's bodies.
This is not so with toys. There is no similar need for a construction toy to be delineated as a 'boy' toy, or art materials to be delineated as a 'girl' toy. There is nothing in the physical, mental or emotional make-up of children that justifies this distinction. It's the perpetuation of gender norming that tells girls that they can't be girls and interested in building things, and tells boys that they can't be boys and interested in art. I don't want my kids' choices circumscribed in this way - they shouldn't have to swim against the tide to play with the toys they want to play with.
To go back to the clothes comparison, this is not analogous to there being 'menswear' and 'womenswear' sections - it's analagous to all sportswear and businesswear being in the men's section because somebody has decided that women don't do those things.
I think you have picked one very small arguement here.
ReplyDeleteWhat about when i walk into mothercare and boys clothes are crammed into one corner and the whole shop is filled with girls clothes? Is this sexist too?
Or how about the Boots advert which shows women stomping the street buying items from boots with the over music singing 'here comes the girls' to a shop which stocks both male and female items?
Why is it some femenists only see certain problems and not others. I think being a woman doesnt hold me back, im not so caught up in being a woman that i see everything as a personal attack.
Beyond stupidity. And here I thought we in the US had mastered toy gendering. Sad to know the idiocy is not constrained to our shores. Spread the word - this lazy thinking has got to stop!
ReplyDeleteMr Aker, 'Pre-school' children and children of Junior and secondary age have biological physically and neurologically different needs, abilities and aptitudes to each other. In the same way Male and Female body shapes are biologically determined to be on the whole standardized to different norms. Both of these factors are much greater than the small difference that social and environmental effects can have on them.
ReplyDeleteAs opposed to this the Gender stereotyping that go on in the name of play and human behavior is lacking any proof of being biological and as the writer addressed much more linked to experience.
Either you just don't understand what you've read or your aware that argument for gender difference is so weak but your desire to reinforce gender stereotypes to further patriarchal dominance compels you so much that you need to metaphorically throw stones with your rather lazy and intellectually piss poor comments
Before you read my comment, please do not think I am in favour of gender segregation in toy shops! I would hate to think that girls were not allowed the opportunity to peruse or to play with exciting things like chemistry sets, and likewise that boys could not have the excitement of learning how to cook. Since I cannot perform chemical experiments or produce a reasonable meal I honestly will say neither is due to lack of opportunity educationally or socially-with-play-opportunities, simply I am just very heavily inept when it comes to weighing out any sort of ingredients....
ReplyDeleteHowever I would like to point out that I was as surprised as anyone when, in my second year at university, my own sociological research overturned my long held hypothesis that children did not have an inbuilt gender prejudice when choosing their playthings. As a mother of three young children I was convinced that we as a society 'socialised' our children into demanding gender stereotypical toys by our either influencing or applauding their choices ["Yes Maisie darling, I am sure you would *love* to have Miss Betty's Hair Salon for Christmas whilst your strong big brother Oliver has a woodwork set capable of building a replica of Stonehenge in Oak" type of thing]
In my research and after a lot of observation and note taking at various nursery schools and early play scheme areas I realised that at first babies and toddlers played with whatever was placed in front of them, regardless of gender. But by about three the little ones seemed to generally congregate into single sex gender groups and migrate to certain single sex activities: girls to the more domestic toys like 'pretend' home making skills, doll dressing etc and boys to the building bricks and toy cars. Actually this quite horrified me. Girls also seemed to be more attracted to bright,'pretty, colours when at the dressing up box - wanting to look 'beautiful' with boys rushing about imitating anyone grown-up who could rush about, basically, like a fireman or policeman.
I had previously subscribed to the theory that if a young child played with toys like building bricks it would help develop their mathematical skills in later life so had made sure that my elder two children had plenty of the old fashioned red, blue, yellow and green 'Lego' type 'opportunities'. But my eldest daughter heartily disliked such toys and was really rather rotten at Maths whilst my son would play with such toys with deep absorption and was actually later very, very good at Maths. At the time of my research my youngest daughter was just coming up to the 'Lego age', so I rushed out and bought her a set of pink Lego [including a Lego hairdressing salon I believe!] hoping that the pink colour and 'domestic' subjects in the pink boxes would attract her [BTW Lego had had a lot of criticism when they introduced such a gender stereotypical collection as a pink collection 'for girls'. Me included]
Well anyway, youngest daughter loved this pink Lego, played with it non-stop and was a whizz at Maths in later school life, turning out near the top of the school mathetmatics-wise and is now using those skills in sales and marketing. May just be a coincidence and she would have been good at maths anyway, but I like to think my sociological research helped! And btw youngest daughter is now nagging me have I kept her sets of Lego for her 6 month old daughter. [Yes!]
So a little bit of gender stereotyping can be helpful when raising children and buying toys although nothing replaces common sense....
BTW this comment has been used as a basis for a blog at www.rephidimstreet.blogspot.com
Interesting comment Elizannie and I agree with a lot that you say. I suspect my nieces wish to now play housekeeper are more to do with them wanting to emulate the same gender parent rather than any pressure from media or retail. Before this their choice of play was very gender neutral.
ReplyDeleteWhile Hamleys layout is a bit crass, I really don't see it as an issue in need of a campaign. But to describe it as apartheid is a deliberate mis-use of a word to scale the problem up to something that was much much worse.
Just wondering how many toys from the boys floor you were wanting to purchase for your little girl, or how many parents shopping for a boy select anything from the girls floor?
ReplyDeleteIs there really a problem?
Here's an idea, if Hamleys shocks or offends you and you think it's harming the development of children just because it has a 'girls' & 'BOYS' section, then don't go there. Similar to when a TV programme comes on I don't like I chose to turn over. I wouldn't go to Hamleys I would prefer it to be organised by subject and it's expensive.
ReplyDeleteHamleys now have scrapped 'for boys' and 'for girls' signs... Now replaced with a train and a barbie sign.... Because the subtext for those is completely different
ReplyDeleteI have just read your original post on this subject as well as the comments below it. I think it's so sad that an obviously intelligent group of people would waste so much time on a non-issue. What about the violence in video games and the action figure toys that fill toy shops today, surely it would be a better use of this effort to mobilise people to confine these things to adult sections or something similar?
ReplyDeleteOf all the many problems in the world today, blue and pink paint on separate floors is not the most important by any stretch of the imagination. When we have an opportunity to make a difference, I do think we should not waste it. Feminism for feminism's sake is ridiculous and an insult to those brave women who tried to make a valuable difference by giving women a voice. Using that voice to speak against trivial and non-essential matters is a terrible crime.