There's concern in parenting circles (so I read) that gender divisions are being ever more rigidly enforced, particularly by the domination of pink clothing and toys for girls - before the 1950s, it was pink for boys and blue for girls - there's even a campaign called PinkStinks which critiques the indoctrination of girls into a cult of fluffiness and dependence.
Pharyngula has picked up this fascinating example: Toys'r'Us sell telescopes in black/chrome, and pink. Sounds good you might think: if pink is indelibly associated with femininity now, then science instruments which appeal to girls will persuade them that science isn't just for geeks.
But, uh-oh: the pink telescope is less powerful than the macho utilitarian one! What a strange decision to make. 'Girls won't need detail - it's just a toy. Boys will need detailed images because they're junior scientists!
I don't own any pink clothing other than a shirt with pink stripes. That's partly because most of the men I know who do are braying Hooray Henrys, and partly because it doesn't suit my colouring (pasty), but I don't have any gender-related hang-up about the colour. How do you all feel?
2 comments:
My parents were very new age about gender stereotyping in the 60s with their 4 children but fought a losing battle. Both my sisters started demanding pinkness, tea sets and dolls as soon as they could talk while my brother and I engineered roading works in our enormous sand pit with our prized Tonka toys. I eventually embraced pinkness too - peer modelling is an unstoppable force.
You know what makes me angry? People swallowing rubbish like that Toys'r'us story. The pink scope is for young children and is also available in black. The other scopes shown are for older children (presumably these older children will want something that looks less like a 'toy' and will all, boys and girls, want a silver and black scope) Or at least that is what the thousands of pounds worth of research that the toy companies have made has led them to believe. The pink toy is on the page because catalogues will have as large a range of colours as possible.
Pink is ubiquitous but is far from being universal. Children today have an absolute wealth of choice, and all this nonsense about pink being a ruination of womankind is about as sensible as laying the blame for violent street gangs on computer games.
It is funny isn't it - if a Mary Whitehouse or a Tory MP or a clergyman say Tom & Jerry are ruining our children's lives we rightly laugh at them and their delusion but if a liberal says pink tiaras are breaking children's brains we just assume they are right.
As for a scientist falling for the telescope rubbish. Why didn't he do some research instead of just assuming Toys'r'us were part of some conspiracy to stop women having careers in science? Is he not just displaying the same willingness to believe as a Christian or reader of horoscopes?
Post a Comment