You know you’ve been blogging about this stuff too long when you see this:
And you find yourself thinking “Bah, look, pink for girls, blue for b… no, wait.”
You know you’ve been blogging about this stuff too long when you see this:
And you find yourself thinking “Bah, look, pink for girls, blue for b… no, wait.”
These kids’ lunch bags (spotted in Poundland a few weeks ago) nearly made me lose my lunch:
Yes, the blue one says “cheeky monkey” and the pink one says “greedy piggy”. Assuming that girls will tend to go for the pink one and boys will tend to go for the blue one (because they know that’s the socially “correct” choice), girls have no option but to be told every time they eat lunch that they are “greedy”. And we wonder why girls as young as 3 are already developing issues around eating.
In order to brainwash girls with these negative messages about food and body-image as soon as they’re old enough to understand them, though, we’ve got to make sure that they’re conditioned to go for the pink stuff long before that, so that the message doesn’t accidentally indoctrinate too many boys. Fortunately there’s plenty of baby-feeding paraphernalia to help here:
This range from Hey Baby! (available in lots of Poundlands, 99p stores, etc) which includes plates, bottles, bowls, dummies, sippy cups and more, includes what seem to be used fairly widely as sort of secondary gendered colours (purple for girls, green for boys) bundled with the primary pink-and-blue as appropriate so that you don’t get confused and accidentally buy a purple bowl for a boy. In the same display, we’re reminded which company has been responsible for a lot of the ‘pinkification’ of the kids’ stuff market:
Remember, you’re not a real girl unless you’ve got a bow in your hair and eyelashes so long that they’d probably get covered in food if you ate the way most babies do. Everything about the iconography of Mickey and Minnie there annoys me: the clothes, the typeface, and the fact that Mickey seems to be thinking (this impression is reinforced by the clouds behind him looking like thought bubbles), whereas Minnie is clearly looking coquettish (and she gets hearts instead of thoughts). Mickey Mouse never used to be that blue, of course: he originally appeared in red shorts and yellow shoes. It’s a literally cartoonish example, but it’s worth remembering that in the pink-and-blue dichotomy it’s not just the girls whose options are limited.
Seen on sale in Tesco:
For some reason I am reminded of this excellent cartoon from Leeds Postcards.
Thanks to the Pink Stinks Twitter feed I was alerted to a great blog post about Raleigh bikes. I too have fond memories of Raleigh bikes and I was horrified to see how gender-stereotyped they’ve become.
For what it’s worth, my current (grown-up!) bike is a Raleigh Volatile: it’s what you might think of as a “girl’s bike” (that is, it has a step-through frame), but it’s not pink. It’s turquoise, with yellow and black writing. OK, it’s actually currently mud-coloured, with added mud, but that’s because I cycle in all weathers and I’m lazy about cleaning it. I prefer a step-through frame not so much because I wear skirts (my chainguard has long since fallen off so I tend to avoid skirts or flappy trousers when cycling anyway) but just because it makes it generally easier to get on and off the bike (particularly as I have a basket on the back, so the running-and-jumping-and-swinging-a-leg-over mount is more or less impossible).
But I digress. After reading the Raleigh post, I decided to have a look at some other sites for children’s bikes, to see how widespread the problem was. I started with Halfords; while I wouldn’t start with them for buying a bike, they’re big and fairly popular.
First thing I noticed is that on the website there’s no way to look at kids’ bikes without selecting “boys” or “girls”. The next thing I noticed was the names; admittedly they’re not Halfords’ fault (though they do decide which brands to stock and how to classify them), but good grief, they’re like some kind of crazy parody of masculinity and femininity. I’ve included every brand in the list rather than just selecting the ones that support my point (trust me, I don’t need to do that!):
Boys: Trax, Apollo Stinger, Apollo Firechief, Apollo Force, Apollo Urchin, Apollo Moonman, Thomas and Friends, Apollo Gradient, Apollo Stunt King, Raleigh Micro X, Ben 10 Alien Force, Marvel Heroes, Raleigh GI, Raleigh Striker, Hood V4, Disney Cars, Ben 10 Ultimate Alien, Apollo Switch, Apollo Ace, Spiderman, Apollo Spider, Apollo Spektor, Raleigh Mini X, Hood Alley, Carrera Blast, Apollo Stomp, Apollo Sandstorm, Diamondback, Apollo Crank, Apollo Ridge, Triumph Daytona, Triumph Dakota, Carrera Detonate, Max DJ20 Boys Dirt Jump Bike, Raleigh Zero, Diamondback Octane, MAX Hornet, Raleigh Chopper, Raleigh Velocity.
Girls: Trax, Apollo Honeybee, Apollo Sweetpea, High School Musical, Apollo Sparkle, Apollo Sweetie, Angelina Ballerina, Apollo Daisychain, Ben & Holly, Raleigh Molly, Apollo Popstar, Disney Princess, Hello Kitty, Moxie Girlz, Apollo Ivory, Raleigh Me to You, Raleigh Micro Miss, Apollo Star, Apollo Kinx, Apollo Charm Cruiser, Disney Minnie Mouse, Apollo Moonstone, Diamondback Senorita, Raleigh Mini Miss, Carrera Luna, Apollo Vivid, Apollo Oceana, Apollo Pure, Apollo Tropic, Apollo Krypt, Apollo Craze, Triumph Roma, Triumph Milano, Raleigh Diva, Raleigh AT10.
So far, so depressing. But it gets worse; spot the subtle differences in what looks like boilerplate text:
BOYS BIKES AT HALFORDS
The range of boys bikes available at Halfords.com is second to none. With such a great range of designs and sizes in our collection, there’s bound to be a bike to delight any young lad, whatever type of cycling they’re into.
If you’re buying a first bike for your child, we have some great small bikes featuring popular characters from your children’s favourite movies, cartoons and TV shows.
But if your kid enjoys exploring or doing tricks, then take a look at our top-of-the-range boys mountain bikes and BMX bikes from brands like Vibe, Apollo, Raleigh and Trax.
Boys bicycles, like all kids bikes, can be reserved and collected in-store. Here they can be built by a bike technician free of charge (excludes Trax bikes) – so you can have peace of mind that your boys bike is safe and comfy to ride.
GIRLS BIKES AT HALFORDS
We have a fabulous range of girls bikes available at Halfords.com, with a huge variety of designs and sizes to choose from. Our kids bikes feature loads of funky colours and popular characters, so you’re sure to find one that your little girl will love.
From balance bikes for beginners, up to girls mountain bikes for the more adventurous, our range includes everything a young girl could need to get into cycling.
We’ve even got a great collection of kids bike accessories that match our girls bikes – ideal for budding fashionistas. We’ll fit these free of charge if you buy them at the same time as your bike.
If you’re unsure which type of bike to choose, you can use our kids bikes buyer’s guide, or pop in and chat to our store staff. Girls bicycles can be reserved and collected in-store or delivered to your home if you want to hide it away as a present.
Boys are expected to be “exploring or doing tricks”. For girls, on the other hand, they emphasise “balance bikes for beginners”, and only the “more adventurous” girls get to try a mountain bike (tricks or stunts are totally off the agenda).
Boys are expected to be already “into” cycling (“whatever type of cycling they’re into”), whereas girls will need more persuasion (“our range includes everything a young girl could need to get into cycling” [my emphasis]).
Boys get “top-of-the-range” bikes which can be “built by a bike technician”. Girls get “accessories” which are “ideal for budding fashionistas”.
And finally, only the text about girls’ bikes includes this last paragraph: “If you’re unsure which type of bike to choose, you can use our kids bikes buyer’s guide, or pop in and chat to our store staff. Girls bicycles can be reserved and collected in-store or delivered to your home if you want to hide it away as a present.” Are girls expected to be more unsure? Is it assumed that it’ll be the girls’ mothers (who are doubtless assumed to be less technical) who will be buying girls’ bikes, whereas boys’ bikes will be bought by their dads? Is it just coincidence that the text for girls’ bikes emphasises shopping (“buyer’s guide”), chatting (“chat to our store staff”), secrets and gifts (“if you want to hide it away as a present”) rather than the sort of physical activity that you might expect to associate with kids’ bikes?
Of course, it’s not just Halfords. A quick look around suggests that the problem is fairly widespread. Here’s another example, this time from Cycle Centre — check out the brand names again, and note the tassels and doll-carriers on most of the pink bikes:
I looked round a few more sites but I was soon weary of seeing the same thing over and over again. Fortunately, before I began to despair, I stumbled across Islabikes. As I said in the previous post, it’s important to acknowledge that some people are getting it right; Islabikes is definitely one of those! Their bikes are designed for children, and their mission statement doesn’t mention “boys” or “girls” (or even “mums” or “dads”) once. Instead it just talks about kids, “cycling families”, and bikes, including sensible statements like this:
All bikes have child specific frame geometry and a full set of proportional components, including brakes that can be operated safely with small hands. Gear ratios are carefully selected to suit the age of the child. Each bike can be customised at the point of purchase with tyres that exactly suit the intended use – you can also have a set of full mudguards and a carrier. This way each bike can be used for mountain biking and cyclo cross, as a track racing machine at your local track league, for going to school, touring holidays or days out exploring with the family.
This focuses on the fun activities for which you — whatever your gender — might want to use your bike, rather than the image you might want to project while you’re doing it. The pictures show happy, active, mop-haired children who could easily be girls or boys. The bikes (just “bikes”, not “boys’ bikes” and “girls’ bikes”!) are mostly available in red, blue and purple. Some of the helmets are available in pink (which is fine — pink is just a colour), but they have the same brand name (“Rascal”, “Flume”) whatever colour they come in. The site sensibly acknowledges that the look of the helmet does matter to kids (“kids will not wear something they consider uncool. The childish designs on many kid’s helmets go out of favour at around 5 years old and children then prefer something more adult looking”) but they don’t try to tell you what sort of helmet your child will or should prefer; instead they focus on the safety aspects of the helmets, the design and fit.
Amid the sea of gender-stereotyped nonsense it’s refreshing to see something so cheerfully sensible, unstereotyped, unpatronizing, and focused on quality. When my daughter starts asking for her own bike, I may well be (to quote Halfords) “unsure of which bike to choose”, but I know where I’m more likely to go for advice.
If you asked me to name a shoe shop, Clarks would be the first that came to mind. As a kid most of my school shoes came from Clarks; as an adult, I keep going back there for smart but sensible, colourful but comfortable shoes. So now I’m thinking about shoes for my baby daughter, of course I thought of Clarks… which made this display all the more disappointing:
“Because girls love comfort and style, we design both into our shoes.” Comfort and style don’t sound too bad (though if I’m trying to buy shoes for my toddler, comfort is far more important than style)… but check out the colours of the girls’ shoes (you don’t need me to tell you that they’re the ones on the left of the cabinet): you’ve got a choice of pink, purple or white. That is: the ubiquitous pink; something that’s really fairly similar to pink; and something completely impractical for actually walking around outside.
You can guess what’s coming next, can’t you?
“Because boys test their shoes to destruction, so do we.” The colours back this up: they’re blue, brown, and black. Practical colours, colours that don’t immediately show every scuff or muddy mark.
As a woman I’m immediately furious at the implication that girls aren’t expected to do anything except look pretty in their shoes (but hey, we’re allowed to be comfortable too! That’s progress!) — but the implication that boys don’t (or shouldn’t) don’t care about comfort or style is stupidly limiting too. Toughen them up, it says: big boys don’t cry if their shoes hurt them; and presumably a boy who cared about style would just be beyond the pale (pastel colours).
The maddening thing is that if you look at the “first shoes” more closely, many of them are clearly exactly the same except for the colour. Take a look at “Lucy Girl” and “Little Jono” below on this screenshot from the Clarks website:
Otherwise, the main difference seems to be that boys get two velcro straps (more stability) while girls get one (more style, I guess?). I will also note that even in the names of the shoes, girls get “Chic” while boys get “Saurus”, and girls get “Raspberry” while boys get “Blue” — see previous post for more about colour naming.
But are the boys’ shoes really stronger, more “test[ed] to destruction” than the girls’? If I seriously believed the marketing, I’d be worried about this; I was tempted to email them, all innocence, and ask. Fortunately, my husband couldn’t resist the temptation:
I’m the father of a 9 month old girl and I’m beginning to think about
her first shoes. I went into my local Clarks shop to see what was
available and I saw the following messages on the wall of the kids’
“Because girls love comfort and style, we design both into our shoes.”
“Because boys test their shoes to destruction, so do we.”
Now I’m worried: I’d like my daughter to play outdoors without her
comfortable and stylish shoes falling apart!
Please can you reassure me that Clarks’ girls’ shoes will stand up to
ordinary childhood play? Or should I ask my daughter to sit down and
stay inside with her fashion dolls?
Amazingly, Clarks actually replied (the garbled first sentence is their mistake, not mine):
“Thank you for taking the time to contact us, I was sorry to learn you
disappointed with the
In view of your concerns I have contacted our Children’s department,
they have advised me that all of our children’s shoes, irrespective of
whether they are boy’s or girl’s, are rigorously tested and they will
be equally durable for both boys and girls.
The messages you saw in store are just about artistic licence and
picking an attribute of a product to market.
We’re always looking for ways to improve the service we give to our
customers. Your feedback has given us the chance to do this, so thank
you once again for contacting us and I’m sorry we have not met your
expectations on this occasion.”
Of course, they’ve kind of missed the point; but equally, from their point of view, it’s “just” about marketing. This is what many people say when they hear me banging on about these issues: what’s the big deal? It’s just an advert. The products are the same: it’s just how they display them. You can make your own mind up. And indeed, one company doing this isn’t a big deal; but when it’s part of the constant corrosive drip, drip, drip of messages telling girls that their role in life is to be pretty and passive while boys get to be active (or indeed, from the other point of view, telling boys that they have to be bold and brave and boisterous but they mustn’t care about their looks or comfort) … then it’s part of the problem.
The other thing people tend to say is “Well, what would you say about boys’ shoes and girls’ shoes that would pass your ridiculous criteria for not being sexist?” Here’s a radical idea: don’t divide them into boys’ shoes and girls’ shoes at all. Boys’ and girls’ feet aren’t that different (and even if they were, you could sell the same design of shoes in “boy” and “girl” shapes, just as you sell them in different sizes).
Imagine that display filled with shoes of all colours: from sober and sensible neutrals, to delicate pastels, to vibrant primary colours. The slogans on either side say:
“Because your kids test their shoes to destruction, so do we.”
“Because your kids care about comfort and style, so do we.”
Would changing the Clarks display make a difference? No. But if the people responsible for thinking about the marketing were encouraged (or even forced by law) to work along those lines, and if the parents weren’t content just to sit back and consume as if marketing was an elemental force of nature that couldn’t be guided, tamed or curtailed…. then perhaps, slowly, things would change. Otherwise, if you want a picture of the future, imagine a blue destruction-tested bootie stamping on a little girl’s face — forever.