Girls get to be princesses and learn to be ‘just like mum’ by playing with toy kitchens and home appliances.

…or they get to kick ass with the Powerpuff Girls and Buffy, or develop her sense of adventure with Dora the explorer, while Mum does the sensible thing and buys non-girly Lego as well as acting as a role model becuase she has a job.

This is really an argument about femininity rather than feminism – the idea that if you eliminate enough ‘pink’ from a girl’s life, she grows up to be, I dunno, Prime Minister. It’s a laudable aim, but it does end up as an argument about, for example, wearing skirts, than about, say, maximising girls’ potential. Presumably, if a girl grows up to be a black-clad goth, it’ll be fine as long as she works in IT (as encouraged by her school?) and not fashion design (which she might or might not be good at).

In some ways this is a chicken and egg type issue ?

One school of thought is that the market is RESPONDING (in the main) to inherent gender differences – while the other camp might argue that any differences (pink vs blue) is almost entirely a social construct ?

Of course there is always overlap between these two extremes.

Personally, I think Iggy Pop (of all people) got it right about children’s play objects.
Mr Osterberg noticed how patterns of play were largely determined by the age of the child.

Very young children tend to utilise ANY object in the environment for play: so a carboard box becomes a house, a piece of wood a sword, etc, etc.
Older children tend to covet specific objects, presumably as their ability to play freely or imaginatively becomes increasingly inhibited by an array of social structures.
Hannah’s ‘PinkStinks’ is a such an example of adult influence, and dare I say interference (albeit) for honorable motives.

Sadly, too many children nowadays are hamstrung with reading and writing assessments, an array of structured after school activities as well as circumscribed forms of play from the tender age of 5.

Having said all that I still suspect that boys ARE inherently different from girls and this will always tend to manifest itself in the type of play they prefer to engage in when free to choose.

I think when and if you DO have children of your own you’ll find that most will choose toys and clothing identifyably ‘gendered’ whether you want them to or not. Just because society has an influence on how sexual differences present thselves doesn’t mean those differences actually exist and children aren’t robots who can be programmed whatever way you feel.

And a rejection of ‘pink’ is less about a rejection of gender roles, its about a sense of superiority over other women who express their sexuality in a way you don’t like. Its an issue Molly Williamson examines in her book ‘The Lure of the Vampire’, a study of Buffy, Anne Rice & other vampire fans, where she finds fans adopt a different expression of femininity, they do not reinvent themselves on ungendered lines.

Sorry, should read ‘doesn’t mean those differences don’t actually exist’

One of the first things women did after the Soviet Union collapsed was acquire make up and launch a Beauty Competition. Perhaps thats what many women want ?
Do women find house husbands with added sensitivity attractive ? Not that I have noticed and the idea that Barbie is a plot against higher female consciousness will not survive the observation of little girls . I think you have to be more inclusive and more positive . A lot of women like sport and that could do with more encouragement , banning pink will not . A lot of men like clever women with a nice body , no reason why this should not be empowering .

One of the problems women have is that despite their protestations about equality they still refuse to support a man and marry “beneath themselves “ . The extent of childlessness amongst female graduates is terribly sad .

BTW -It is possible to be very feminine without being ”Girly” .Smart glamorous sexy knowing and appreciative of men is the best combo. The hideous harridan of leftist anti porn isnot the only alternative to a lisping drip.

This comment thread is profoundly depressing.

Shatterface, my little girl showed no interest whatsoever in “girly” things until she started school and started getting told (by the boys) “girls aren’t allowed to do that” when she wanted to join in with them playing football or whatever.

You can’t blame her for wanting to conform at her young age, but you can blame the society that makes things this way.

redpesto – i do agree that there are currently other choices out there for little girls but despite this, when it comes to role models the choice is often depressingly limited. I know I didn’t expand on it much but I would hope things would not end up revolving around the wearing of skirts etc and would be focused on maximising girls’ potential.

shatterface – with regard to ‘And a rejection of ‘pink’ is less about a rejection of gender roles, its about a sense of superiority over other women who express their sexuality in a way you don’t like’ I don’t feel that’s true at all, for myself anyhow, whatever some people might think. I agree that there is a certain disdain among some women for ‘girly girls’ and ‘girls’ girls’ but as I said, I don’t think making girls aware of a wider range of choices and means banning them from wearing pink or pretending to be a princess.

Newmania – ‘a lot of men like clever women with a nice body’. Well, yes, they do. But on the other hand what happens to clever women who don’t fit the requirement for being ‘hot’? They’re ridiculed and made the butt of jokes because sadly all too often a clever woman cannot be acceptable to men unless she’s conventionally attractive as well, reinforcing that ‘being clever is OK, but it’s looks and being accepted by men that really matter’. And to reiterate, no-one wants to ban pink.

Jennie – you’re not the first person who’s said that actually; i’ve had the conversation with a couple of women who agreed that their child was virtually free of ideas of what are ‘boys’ things’ and ‘girls’ things’ until starting school, when ideas that ‘girls/boys shouldn’t do this or that’ started to seep in. We can definitely blame society.

Funny how so many of those without children, and those whose children are now safely grown up, all seem to know exactly what parents “should” do.

Little Miss Patently has an older brother, and therefore has access to a wide range of non-girly toys. She dabbles when she feels like it – i.e. very rarely. When she does, she usually borrows a few items, arranges them in a circle, and they have a chat with her and her Barbies (should I wade in, tell her to play with them properly and make a few things blow up, perhaps?). Then, she chooses to return to her (mainly) pink Barbies.

Personally, I’d quite enjoy putting Hannah in a room with LMP, tell LMP that this nice lady says she can’t have pink things or Barbies any more, then scarper. Hannah might well find that LMP can pack quite a non-girly punch when she wants to.

LMP is an individual. She is not “mine” to mould as I wish. She is feminine, and she has self-esteem. Is there a problem in that?

Then, she chooses to return to her (mainly) pink Barbies.

Let’s assume in a few years time she gets into a bad crowd who try and influence her to take crack cocaine and commit crimes.

Will you be then sanctimoniously saying its her choice, or will you be despairing at the influences of the people around her and try to get her to understand? (This is of course an asexual example).

My point is, assuming that children aren’t so easily influenced by other factors around them at such a young age is incredibly naive. Is it a wonder why corporations spend so much money advertising at childrens channels?

Parental care can also go so far, given the exposure a child has to pre-conceived ideas at school and from peers.

You’re comparing a preference for Barbie dolls with crack cocaine?

Seriously?

I think, with respect, that you need to get some perspective.

Agreed, Sunny, children can be influenced or even manipulated at an early age, but….

My experience (as a parent with girls and a boy) is that play does seem to be gendered in some way, irrespective of the influence of the likes of Mattel, et al.

Look at the toys children gravitate towards in a number of contexts where a fairly selection of play materials are on offer, such as:
*the play group.
*the classroom.
*friend’s homes.
*toy shops.

There ARE gendered differences (in my experience), not only in toy selection, but the style of play as well.

It has been claimed that unattainable toys like “Barbie” are the first link in the anorexia chain, not to mention other psychiatric illnesses, such as anxiety and mood disorders while Toynbee claims that the idealism of the 60′s has been damaged by the perpetuation of toy-related negative stereotypes – all interesting stuff.

Maybe the flip side of the coin is that boys are hampered by certain kinds of toys targeted at them, such as construction type games, or vehicles of one sort or another (such as the nauseatingly helpful Thomas the Tank Engine).

We can weave many stories from such influences but most sensible parents will try to provide some sort of balance but will probably not try too hard to force their children into the straightjacket of their own political preferences.

Oops – should say unattainable role models like Barbie.

In the last couple of years, UK television has broadcast a new drama Life on Mars alongside an old one, The Sweeney. The two dramas share an environment (policing and criminals), are being targeted at similar audiences but are constructed on different audience expectations. In The Sweeney, homophobia, sexism and racism are portrayed as you would expect at the time; in Life on Mars, similar scenarios are presented as comic moments, so that the audience can laugh at how illiberal everybody was thirty odd years ago.

Perhaps the BBC is a bit ingenuous about their audiences — not all of the audience will have followed the jokes in Life on Mars, just as they missed the irony of Alf Garnett. The BBC will always be somewhat different to the social norm. But old television, film and newspaper columns are great ways at identifying broad standards.

So my point, if I still have one, is that we can look at something from a past generation and negatively judge it, but we apply different rules to what is happening now. In broad terms, every generation in the UK is more liberal than the preceding one, and we adjust our values.

Twenty five years ago, television advertising to children was uncontrolled. Young girls were exposed to adverts for My Little Pony (pink), Sylvanian Families (pink) and prior to that, Cabbage Patch Dolls (pink). Exposure to pink commercialism does not appear to have damaged the white (pink?), asian or afro-caribbean women with whom I work.

Sorry, Hannah, but think more about sexualisation of young women than feminisation of girls.

“Sorry, Hannah, but think more about sexualisation of young women than feminisation of girls.”

Sorry, Charlieman, but maybe men don’t get to tell women (an oppressed group) what they need to be concerned about.

And, as if feminisation and sexualisation isn’t extrinsically linked, for gawds sake do some sociological analysis – it’s embarrassing.

Good piece Hannah and yeah I also agree with Sunny.

You’re comparing a preference for Barbie dolls with crack cocaine?

What? Do you not understand the point of analogies? My point was:

My point is, assuming that children aren’t so easily influenced by other factors around them at such a young age is incredibly naive. Is it a wonder why corporations spend so much money advertising at childrens channels?

If you don’t even get what I’m driving at, then perhaps its best not to bother replying because it just comes across as rather foolish.

‘Shatterface, my little girl showed no interest whatsoever in “girly” things until she started school and started getting told (by the boys) “girls aren’t allowed to do that” when she wanted to join in with them playing football or whatever.’

All the more reason to allow for as much diversity in schools as possible, and to allow parents to make their own educational arrangements for their children. I am very happy for you to make decisions about what your children should be exposed to, in fact I imagine you know what is best for them more than anyone else (bar your partner, of course) in the world. But, in return, I don’t think you should criticise others for constituting the identities and values of their children differently, whether gendered or not. After all, there is (perhaps mercifully) no neutral/liberal identity to subject children to.

I expose my child to as many age suitable things as possible, and let her make her own decisions. Her decision-making process changed markedly since she started school.

I’m not criticising anyone else who follows the same process, but most parents don’t, do they?

I’d say a fair few parents try, within the rather stringent limits set by society that are usually reinforced (rather than challenged) by state intervention. But in general, I would say we are going in the right direction. Mainstream culture and lifestyles might still be terribly gendered, but what is mainstream any more? I would say whatever it is, it is diminishing in importance as people set their identity out in new ways.

Charlieman, as has been pointed out it’s pretty easy to see a link between the feminisation of young girls and the sexualisation of young women. I mentioned the obsession with weight and ‘attractiveness’ starting earlier – this is one example.

Thanks for letting me know what I ‘should’ be concerned about though.

What? Do you not understand the point of analogies? My point was…

Yes, I can thank you.

What you fail to understand is the difference between giving a child the freedom to develop into the person they want to be, and directing and controlling them so that they develop into what you think they should be. I try to allow my daughter the freedom to become her own person while protecting her from things that will clearly harm her. Part of that process is to give her the self-confidence and the self-awareness that are necessary to develop her own opinions and hold on to them in the face of disagreement – precisely so that if she meets “a bad crowd” she has the nerve to to say ‘no’ to them. If I teach her that others (me, for example) are responsible for directing her interests and her activities then she becomes more vulnerable to such external influence, not less.

So, she is allowed Barbies and pink toys because that is what she wants to play with. At the same time, she sees her father cooking, cleaning, helping around the house and respecting her mother. If she sees dubious assumptions on TV or in real life, we discuss it and question it. In this way, we try to allow her to make choices (within safe boundaries) but inform her understanding so that she chooses wisely.

She is in fact developing into quite the little feminist – albeit a very feminine one, so maybe you would still not approve.

For your information, she has already met elements of “a bad crowd” although at a level appropriate to her primary school rather than at the level you postulate. I am extremely proud of the fact that, in the face of physical bullying, she gave as good as she got to the (male) aggressor. As a result, he now keeps well clear of her. I’d say that was a (small) vindication of her upbringing and plan to continue in the same vein.

For you to suggest that because I think she should be allowed to make her own choice of toy without interference implies that I must therefore ipso facto permit her to choose between taking crack cocaine or not taking crack cocaine without interference is therefore frankly ridiculous. Your “analogy” is not misunderstood; it is based on a misunderstanding.

If you don’t even get what I’m driving at, then perhaps its best not to bother replying because it just comes across as rather foolish.

Excellent advice. I suggest you heed it.

I mentioned the obsession with weight and ‘attractiveness’ starting earlier – this is one example

How do tyou explain then that the suppsed ideal female weight is very much lighter in women`s magazines than in men`s where a bit more to get hold of is de rigeur . Men seem to like `em curvy

Women’s magazines are often heavily based around fashion and celebrity. The fashion industry and celebrities themselves favour the much-thinner-than-average body type hence this being seen as something to aspire to. Of course at the same time women’s mags are full of ‘what men really think about your body’ surveys which is where the ‘men like curves’ articles come in.

Based on the majority of men’s magazines ‘a bit more to get hold of’ seems to mean large breasts which isn’t any more helpful or inclusive in my opinion. It’s still bringing the whole argument down to what’s ‘acceptably attractive’ and giving the impression that this is what really matters about women. Poor self esteem and obsession with appearance doesn’t just come from women’s magazines – although since they’re pushing the ‘this is what men want’ agenda more than ever now they don’t help.

Concerning Jennie Rigg’s comments, I’m not sure the opinions of five year old boys concerning gender should be taken as indicative of the society’s problems. Children say all sorts of things to each other all the time, and girl/boy rivalry is an important part of settling into understanding each other early on.

If your daughter is affected by being told by peers that she shouldn’t do things because they aren’t girly, the solution is not to take away her Barbie but to help her gain the self-confidence and the ability to assert her own will required to give the offending lad a kick in the shins and get stuck in with the games. Figuratively speaking, of course. Alternatively, are you sure her new-found interest in ‘girly’ play can’t be as much to do with finding new female friends to play girly games with? What if she’s simply discovering her femininity through engaging with her female peers? I think children are much more complex than

Stop worrying about the sociological implications of your child’s behaviour and start worrying about whether they’re happy or not. That’s what really matters.

P.S. Complaining about the sexism of society, but then dismissing a comment (from Charlieman) offhand because it’s from a man? Not exceptionally clever, I would say…

“How do tyou explain then that the suppsed ideal female weight is very much lighter in women`s magazines than in men`s where a bit more to get hold of is de rigeur . Men seem to like `em curvy”

That’s because what looks good full dressed can often be a bit of a let down in a swimsuit. Girls can easily deceive with flattering clothes, but once they are bouncing on the diving board you get a different perspective.

I think the perception of pressure to look attractive is directly related to the declining standards of fitness in women (therefore making that perfect image less attainable). The addiction to tv, glossy mags and chatting on the phone is probably related to the decline in female competitive sports and institutions such as the girl guides. The sort of things targeted by lefties. There you go, its all your fault.

I can’t read the article from the link – has anyone actually read it?

The Polly Toynbee article?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/apr/15/equality.gender

Women’s magazines are often heavily based around fashion and celebrity.
Why is that , though , presumably because women like that sort of thing ? My wife does and I would not ( dare) suggest she was in any way mentally enfeebled . I think its light entertainment but not of a sort that men like .The celebrity body then is one designed for women and so your excuse is circular .
You are also wrong about the ‘what men wan’t thing . There has been some analysis and the average with of e woman in a male orientated magazine is as much as 20% fatter . Now I will accept that the fashion model element may slew this for reasons not relevant here but the divergent shapes are self evident to anyone spending a minute browsing any News agent . You cannot , in other words blame men for women wanting to be skinny. Is it possible that some part of women’s problem are , god forbid , there own fault ? They are not children are they as you seem to be implying , they can make choices
Now I think you are suggesting than men should not discriminate between women they find attractive and those they do not . That seems rather a hopeless cause to me . Equally women judge men by how much money they have, refuse to support men and ignore men who adopt traditionally female roles . Perhaps then the way the genders relate to eachother is not a male plot but a product of what both men and women prefer.There has always been a Puritanism associated with the left, from the civil war through the Methodist church and non conformism generally and so on. Are you sure its discrimination you do not like. Or is it just sex
Incidentally an obsession with breasts is not always read as a subordinating preference . The more misogonist popular culure has somewhat shifted the emphasis of late .

“If your daughter is affected by being told by peers that she shouldn’t do things because they aren’t girly, the solution is not to take away her Barbie but to help her gain the self-confidence and the ability to assert her own will required to give the offending lad a kick in the shins and get stuck in with the games…. Stop worrying about the sociological implications of your child’s behaviour and start worrying about whether they’re happy or not. That’s what really matters.”

Stu, I like the way you assume that I have taken away my daughter’s girly toys (I haven’t) or even that I have made any comment TO HER on her sudden liking for them, rather than just noticing it and mentioning it on the internet. (I haven’t)

I’m also amused by your rather stupid assertion that one can EITHER worry about the wider social implications of one’s child’s behaviour, OR their happiness, but not both.

Still, do keep patronising people and using fallacious arguments, since that’s CLEARLY the best way to engage people…

Stu, I like the way you assume that I have taken away my daughter’s girly toys (I haven’t) …

Stu is commenting on an article that, in effect, says that such toys are not beneficial for a young girl. That being so, his comment seems reasonable.

I’m also amused by your rather stupid assertion that one can EITHER worry about the wider social implications of one’s child’s behaviour, OR their happiness, but not both.

He doesn’t say that. He recommends reducing one type of worry and increasing another. In no way does that imply that there is a causal or other connection between the two.

Both of your responses to Stu’s comment descend into a nitpicking textual analysis that avoids responding to his point by attempting to develop inconsistencies that aren’t there. This doesn’t advance a debate, nor does it make you look especially clever.

Still, do keep patronising people and using fallacious arguments, since that’s CLEARLY the best way to engage people…

Gosh – even more good advice! (see my discussion with Sunny Hundal, above)

I’ve got a suggestion, Hannah, though I am not sure it’s a good one.

Above, you criticise women’s magazines for depicting thin women and you criticise men’s magazines for publishing pictures of women with large breasts.

So, to try to be a good citizen, I am going to attempt to find fat women with small breasts attractive. Not quite sure how I will achieve this yet but I thought maybe you could help. Perhaps you could give me electric shocks while I watch Pamela Anderson videos. Or maybe we could go straight to the face cage and the rat?

Anyway. If it works for me we could set up a programme to fix the rest of the male population and you would then have the kind of magazines you would like to read.

Sound good?

patently: The article says that provision of such toys to the exclusion of all else is bad for girls, not that those toys in and of themselves are bad for girls. I nitpick because precision is important.

Also, if you can stomach a bit more free advice: when you start engaging in the debating equivalent of “maybe I am, but so are you!” responses to EVERYTHING, it;s not the person you are responding to who looks childish. Especially when you refuse to follow grammatical convention and capitalise your name because it’s SO rebellious, like every teenager for the past fifty years.

Newmania, it’s true that you can’t always blame men for women having poor self esteem, but the point is, being conventionally attractive (whether that’s in men’s eyes or the fashion industry’s eyes) is consistently promoted as the main thing a woman should be worried about.

Well done on the ‘maybe you just don’t like sex’ comment by the way; surely it’s only a matter of time before I’m accused of ‘being jealous’ of the women portrayed in magazines?

I’m sure patently will enjoy being called a teenager

I didn’t say you have taken away your daughter’s girly toys – your comment (and the original article) clearly implied that you felt her playing with girly toys is a bad thing, and I was saying that it isn’t. If we’re talking about logical fallacies, I haven’t yet met a parent who gives their daughter ‘girly’ toys “to the exclusion of all else”. I’d probably call that a Straw Man, but then I wouldn’t know, being male and all.

I would actually think that most parents are more likely today than in any other age to have no problem at all with their girls playing games that would previously be considered overly masculine. Until the the second half of last century the very idea of little girls playing ‘masculine’ games, or even wearing trousers would have been ridiculous. Now it’s the norm. Harper Lee won, and yet you’re still unhappy.

I don’t see why there’s any need to worry about the social implications of a 5 year old’s behaviour at all, since it’s unlikely that other children their age have a full understanding of either the sociological impact of their words nor the effect that their behaviour has on the wider world. Hence my comment that it’s not worth worrying about in comparison to whether or not your daughter is happy.

Err, Jennie, I do capitalise my real name. I’m not sure how to put this, but my name is (err) patently not “patently”. I’m not sure that grammatical rules apply to Internet monikers?

I wouldn’t normally nitpick like this, but if precision is so important…

And as for being a teenager … I wish!

>>> “maybe I am, but so are you!” responses

I don’t think that either of the nuggets of wisdom were validly applied to my comments. It simply struck me as surprising that in my first visit to this site, two people make completely misguided criticisms of commenter’s views, then made barbed criticisms under the veil of sanctimonious “advice” – criticisms that applied equally to their own comments.

Is this routine here? Are you trying to debate issues, or just have an ego trip? Because no-one seems to have seriously challenged the point that Stu and I made, which is that it is quite possible to allow a child the freedom to make their own choices in life, within appropriate limits, while educating them as to how they should proceed to reach their opinion. Do you think this is fundamentally wrong and that such freedom should not be allowed? Or do you accept the broad structure while asserting that the devil is in the extent of the limits and the nature of the education?

patently: What you fail to understand is the difference between giving a child the freedom to develop into the person they want to be, and directing and controlling them so that they develop into what you think they should be.

Oh dear, I’ve not heard such naive claptrap on here for a while. Though chavscum does try his best on a regular basis.

A child has the freedom to develop but a child is also constantly absorbing from the world around them for clues on how to develop and what direction they should take. If you don’t even understand that then I despair for your kids.

Part of that process is to give her the self-confidence and the self-awareness that are necessary to develop her own opinions and hold on to them in the face of disagreement

Sure, but how is that mutually exclusive to a situation where you try and get your kid open to influence from a wider range of perspectives, rather than being forced into narrow stereotypes (messages from other sources) of how a girl and a boy should behave?

You seem to be arguing against yourself. Or, you just want an argument for its own sake.

Thanks Sunny – you’ve answered my question at 2:57 pm.

Have a nice trip; I (sincerely) hope you enjoy it.

“Let’s assume in a few years time she gets into a bad crowd who try and influence her to take crack cocaine and commit crimes.”

Indeed we need kids who can make their own decisions good ones for them, not just follow anyone blindly.

“My point is, assuming that children aren’t so easily influenced by other factors around them at such a young age is incredibly naive. Is it a wonder why corporations spend so much money advertising at childrens channels?”

We train them to be influenced by us, many see that as an important part of parenting and in a way it is, but the risk is that they will be equally influenced by others if they don’t have enough opportunity to make their own choices and learn how to make good ones for themselves.

Choosing to wear pink might not be a bad choice.

I have a girly who loves pink, I do believe it is influenced by the society but is also an expression of who she is, she is individually pink believe me, she pairs it with red, wears a tiara in the street, but sometimes dresses like a “normal girl” for fun , she asks questions about why Dad’s work more than mums “well usually they do” she says and wonders is there something we can do to change that seriously she does, she’s 4… Nothing wrong with wearing pink if you use it to challenge convention. Part of wearing ping was to rebel against those organic beige things mum bought!!

There is nothing wrong with being influenced by the society if you choose your influences and make them work for you, it’s about helping kids to be descerning we can’t expect them to get it right all at once unless we impose our views in an authoritarian way and why do that because we migth be wrong, it leaves no space for correcting errors. Risks attached to that approach are here http://www.curi.us/blog/post/1386-tcs-basics-3

Pareting Well in a Media Age by Gloria deGaetano is a good book on the subject, except that in her argument you should protect you kids from cultural and media influences by imposing your influences and allowing “some” autonomy. So you train them to do as you say, when you are not there any more they will need someone else to tell them what to wear and how to be. You need to bring them up to make good rational decisions themselves, so keeping pink or sugar or whatever out of the house till they go to school won’t work imo

Our kids are a little more evolved than we are so we need to protect and guide them in a way that supports their development not to impose our thoughts or ideas about what’s good or bad, we must certainly share them and if we are right we will convince them. So we might think pink is bad for the reasons Hannah gives, we might be right for some girls we migth be wrong for others.

Actually my 4 year old is tiring of pink I had to stop in the middle of this to play this punk dog dres up game http://www.dressupgames.com/punkdog/

PaulG @14: “Sorry, Charlieman, but maybe men don’t get to tell women (an oppressed group) what they need to be concerned about.”

This thread is as much about parenting as feminism. And men are parents too, so their opinions count. Incidentally, my final paragraph was addressed to Hannah (woman, singular noun) not women (plural form of noun).

And if there is contemporary evidence connecting feminisation and sexualisation, I’m happy to review it and my own opinions. By evidence, I mean studies conducted in the last twenty five years that associate unusual sexual behaviour in young women with a “girly” background.

BTW, PaulG, if I apply your analysis, you are not qualified to define women as “an oppressed group”.

Thomas the Tank Engine toys which were refered to earlier are actually great toys which are taken up a lot by children with autism as they make emotions clear and simple.

My boys have always had access to a wide variety of toys which has meant I have had to play with dolls (something I never did as a child) and all sorts.

I do find that the increasingly rigid distinctions between boys and girls to be absolutely vile! Just have a look in the toy sections of the Argos book – apparently girls do art and craft and boys play with lego, but obviously not pink lego.

This is the point of the distinction – toys and clothes cannot be passed down through a family if you have children of different genders so all the more money to retailers. It is also a brilliant tatic to disable our daughters with high heels and other clothes that bind them to a passive role. Why the hell should they think they can do what boys do anyway, what dissapointment they would have in store then they grow up!!