How Hamleys toy store promotes gender apartheid and stereotypes


3:46 pm - October 30th 2011

by Guest    


      Share on Tumblr

contribution by Laura Nelson

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hamleys should 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?

I won’t be shopping in there for my niece unless they listen. Please spread the word.

—-
Delilah is a writer, blogger and a campaigner for equality, and has a background in neuroscience. She blogs here and tweets from here.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
This is a guest post.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Equality ,Feminism

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


I can only speak for myself, but I’m off to occupy Hamleys for their vile and vindictive attack on equality and their maintenance of regressive gender stereotypes.

You can find me on the fifth floor by the Scalextric aisle. We can do something. Death to well-intentioned toy shops!

I am very disappointed in Tom for conforming to the “gender aparteid” and being compelled to occupy the Scalextric area.

He should be playing with Sylvanian Families.

All the hard men are on the ground floor bullying the soft toys…

I can only hope some commenters here will occupy their brains instead of making sarcastic comments.

Laura – might be worth organising a little protest in front of the store?

@OP, Laura Nelson: “Consider a shop that had different floors and different toys for black and white children. There would be an outcry.”

Consider a public library that stocked books for gay, Spanish and under 5 readers (three categories) on different shelves. Is that discriminatory? If that is not discriminatory, is it reasonable to have separate collections for books by authors/subjects according to race or language? How do you categorise?

In the commercial world, we have Christian book shops. Citizens can (optionally) buy books that support their faith there. Other faiths do the same thing.

I live in Leicester, the most racially mixed up city in the UK. If I was to establish a toy shop, what should I include in my UK farm set for children (something that resembles mixed farming)? A couple of plastic pigs, five cows, five sheep would be the norm.

However, the actions of Hamleys are crass and they will suffer for it. Action Man is a dressing up doll for boys. Some girls like to make cranes. The evidence that Hamleys’ marketing department is out of touch does not create a public policy incident.

Laura – might be worth organising a little protest in front of the store?

Oh FFS.

…might be worth organising a little protest in front of the store?

If I was going to list “things that would make people seem ridiculous to the general public”, organising a protest outside a toyshop, especially around the Christmas season, would be prime among them.

@ Sunny

I can only hope some commenters here will occupy their brains instead of making sarcastic comments.

I think you’re getting obsessed with all this occupy stuff…….

To deny that children are pre-programmed to enjoy different forms of play according to their gender is to flout reality and, sometimes, satire is the only sane response to such po faced nonsense.

Laura – might be worth organising a little protest in front of the store?

See, even you’re at it.

I hope.

9. Katherine Reid

Seriously? SERIOUSLY?

10. Leon Wolfson

*facepalm*

So don’t shop there. Sunny, srsly?

I agree with Sunny. Even a small protest can be effective in situations like this. It didn’t take much for M&S to change its policy! Perhaps it’s worth contacting Mumsnet?

Is there some sort of gender force field in place between floors that repels the child back down the stairs?

13. flyingrodent

Consider a public library that stocked books for gay, Spanish and under 5 readers (three categories) on different shelves.

Oh God, yes. All the public libraries I’ve ever been in, they just pile up the books on the floor and you have to rely on luck.

Doesn’t the Argos catalogue categorise by gender for children’s’ toys as well (it certainly did when I was younger, don’t know about now)? If so surely this is a far more pernicious influence than one London shop? On November 5th we could burn Argos catalogues?

“Doesn’t the Argos catalogue categorise by gender for children’s’ toys as well (it certainly did when I was younger, don’t know about now)? If so surely this is a far more pernicious influence than one London shop? On November 5th we could burn Argos catalogues?”

And nothing of value was lost.

Who can even afford to shop in Hamleys anyway? Seriously, I understand the point being made and support it to an extent, but, I’ve been boycotting Hamleys ever since my oldest was born 23 years ago, mainly on the grounds that it’s a shop for the overprivilged and wealthy. Same for Harrods, which I’d hazard a guess has a similar policy re gendered toys.

This is pathetic. Boys and girls like different things, get over it. Some don’t, and that’s fine too, but most do.

Some men wear women’s clothes. Shall we get rid of the womens section in clothes shops?

Why not channel your liberal rage into something more productive.

S

Oh for goodness sake!
Another silly article (like the HIGNFY one). Did Sunny occupy his brains before authorising such drivel? If Laura Nelson is shocked and horrified about boys and girls toys being ordered in different areas of a toy shop, then what English grammar is left for her to voice concerns about real poverty, exploitation, harm to others etc.

I speak from the priviliged position of having both a daughter and son. My daughter came first and my wife and I being, at that time, po faced liberals we resolved not to buy anything violent like guns and arrows and weapons. We did however buy my daughter a formula 1 motor car to construct in which she showed little interest. When my son came along a few years later and started growing up he naturally gravitated along with his friends to wanting boy type toys like guns etc and we did buy them for him. No harm has been done.

I have shown my teenage daughter this article and she thinks it is ridiculous (and by the way she is quite a radical young thing). She points out that there is nothing to stop a girl going into the boys section and buying a boys toy nor for a boy to go into the girls section to purchase a toy from there. This is not segregation – just a form of organisation of toys which is clearly not anywhere close to inhabiting the vile world of apartheid.

Oh, and by the way Laura Nelson – does it bother you that department stores segregate mens and womens clothes?

t stocked books for gay, Spanish and under 5 readers (three categories) on different shelves.

Yeah – because different language books are the same as books or toys for different genders.

Its not unreasonable to simply ask that shops stock products by kind rather than designating genders and stereotypes to them.

I’m always amused how many people then come here hysterically screeching that to make such a demand is PC GAWN MAD.

As for protest – who said anything about Christmas time?

The challenging research evidence is that boys and girls really do have different aptitudes and preferences:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080303120346.htm

For starters, during the last couple of decades in Britain, girls have got increasingly better grades on average than boys in school leaving exams.

More undergraduate students at the universities are now young women than young men – sadly, it wasn’t like that when I was a student. More young women than men are now graduating from the medical schools so it’s not simply an arts v science thing – we are looking towards a situation where the majority of GPs will be women.

Making an issue of gender stereotypes is rather passé. The more interesting question looking forward is about what the stereotypes will become.

@17. Cath Elliott: “Who can even afford to shop in Hamleys anyway?”

I don’t know but I was permitted to gawp in the window.

“…but, I’ve been boycotting Hamleys ever since my oldest was born 23 years ago, mainly on the grounds that it’s a shop for the overprivilged and wealthy.”

The argument that Hamleys only sells toys to posh kids is flawed. They’ll take your money irrespective of class.

Is this a satirical article? I sincerely hope it is. You might as well campaign against clothes stores ‘segregating’ between men and women, and being outraged that women get dresses AND trousers while men only get trousers – the horror!

“. . and being outraged that women get dresses AND trousers while men only get trousers – the horror!”

But not so in Scotland where men wear kilts.

24. the a&e charge nurse

“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”.

‘Horrified’ ……… seriously were you ‘horrified’ – is life so cosseted for some that the layout of a toy shop upsets them so much?

Whilst I would share the author’s disappointment at the seemingly tacky manner in which the gender-targeted (as Hamleys apparently see them) toys are separated, I would question the use of the term “apartheid” in the title and article.

There is not a “gender apartheid” in the UK – apartheid describing a *segregation* between two groups with, generally, one being dominant over the other. There may be a society in which one group is disadvantaged through the cultural norms; but that, I don’t think, can be described as an apartheid without altering the meaning of that word in an unhelpful way. In the context of Hamleys, were the different sexes not allowed to go to the different floors then there might be an argument for the use of the word in this context – there is no suggestion of this in the article, however, and nor would I see that being likely.

Saudi Arabia, for example, may be a country in which one may refer to a “gender apartheid”, as females are severely *legally* discriminated against and segregation of the sexes is enforced – such a situation does not exist in the UK, however. This is not to say that there is not an issue of gender inequality in the UK, just that it is not a legally enforced one, nor one of segregation.

Now, one might say that this is just pedantry (and I’m generally all for the mutability of language), but I would argue otherwise for the following reasons:

Firstly, to describe the situation in the UK as an apartheid would, to my mind, be to grossly discount the suffering of those that have and do live under actual apartheid regimes. As an analogy, one might say that one’s boss is “like a slave-driver”, but to think that your office situation is literally like being a slave would be patently ridiculous.

Secondly, by using such emotive but inaccurate language, the point of the piece may be rather lost to many, given that they will potentially have had a negative emotional reaction to it, severely biasing their response to the actual content (see all “sarcastic comments” above, although I’m not going to judge whether such comments would be justified or nor regardless of the language used – that’s up to the commentators).

With a “background in neuroscience” the author will know all about creating a strong argument using the available literature and evidence, and, importantly, terminology that conveys the meaning effectively to disparate groups. To my mind (and I realise that this is just my opinion), this article fails to do this as it does not get across to those who do not already think that the way Hamleys is organised is a bad thing *why* the way that Hamleys is organised is a bad thing.

On a geeky note, some mention of the interesting work on gender toy preference (seemingly to a large degree innate, although more culturally determined in the case of the dislike of toy types. e.g., Jadva et al, 2010, Arch Sex Behav, for humans; Hassett, 2008, Horm Behav, for non-human primates) and colour preference (probably to a large degree culturally determined in the case of pink and blue. e.g., Lobue, 2011, Br J Dev Psychol for UK infants; Ling, 2006, Perception, for a cross-cultural comparison) would have been a welcome addition to the article as I think it would have helped show why the way Hamleys do things might not be great (at least in the context of the pinkness, and any move to reduce the amount of bubblegum pink in the world can only be a good thing).

In all seriousness, I wonder where the author of this piece *does* stand concerning the legitimacy of gender-segregated clothes shops? I think the analogy is fairly close in that girls/women and boys/men really do, in general, as a matter of fact, have different preferences in these areas – even if those different preferences are wholly or mainly culturally conditioned.

It’s fair enough to ask whether we *ought* to live in a society where certain types of clothing are seen as being ‘for girls/women’ while others are seen as being ‘for boys/men’, but given that we *do* live in such a society, I don’t think it would be reasonable to expect shops not to reflect (and, yes, perpetuate) that. Don’t most customers find it helpful to be able to look for ‘men’s’ clothes in one place and ‘women’s’ in another – even if the fact that men tend not to wear skirts (say) is purely a matter of gender stereotyping/cultural conditioning? And isn’t it helpful in just the same way to have “boys’” and “girls’” toys displayed as such?

(That’s not to say I don’t think there could be instances where attaching genders to particular toys was a Bad Thing – the M&S example of a science toy being marketed as for boys looks like a good example.)

20
Interesting as the article is, I would certainly take the conclusions with a large degree of scepticism until I had read the full research paper.
One thing we know about babies is that their neurological pathways are not joined at birth and do not become so until in adolescence. As the research was performed on children between the ages of 9 and 15, during stages of high level learning, we cannot say for sure whether it was the outside stimulus which created the difference in neurological functioning.

If you don’t like Hamleys go elsewhere rather than try to impose your worldview on the rest of us.

Sunny@19 – “Its (sic) not unreasonable to simply ask that shops stock products by kind rather than designating genders and stereotypes to them.”

Well that is somewhat less hysterical than the use of the words ‘gender apartheid’. The so called hysterical response is directly related to the original hysterical use of the above words. Pepier has dealt with this point adequately at 26 above.

However, there is evidence – and I have provided anecdotal evidence – that girls and boys often prefer different types of toys and games. Therefore to group toys and games generally via gender is not really such a big deal in the scheme of things and to suggest boycotting the shop or even a little protest does seem rather absurd.

That’s nothing. Where I live there are separate toilets for men and women. A hugely wasteful practice.
But why is there an LGB section in my local library? Do they really read such different books from me?

However, there is evidence – and I have provided anecdotal evidence – that girls and boys often prefer different types of toys and games.

Well that deals with THAT argument then! Let’s continue stereotyping and assuming boys and girls have completely different interests driven by their gender. FFS.

That’s nothing. Where I live there are separate toilets for men and women.

This is basically the intelligence level of half the outraged commenters here: can’t even make a simple distinction between different services for different genders, and stereotyping.

Frankly, if I had a daughter, I’d be fucking angry if a store thought that astronomy and science-related material was only meant for boys.

Great article Laura. I hate the way toy shops are segregated. Surprised at the amount of commenters dismissing you. Of course the girls can go to the boys floor but that’s not the point. It’s about what girls are told they are supposed to be from the moment they are born. Pink everywhere, only princess costumes to choose between, hair and make-up, cooking and dolls. Every advert on kids tv is designed to teach boys and girls their place. It’s much worse now than it was for me growing up in the 70s and 80s

“But why is there an LGB section in my local library? Do they really read such different books from me?”

That’s to show “solidarity”.

A more worrying feature is special sections in public libraries for books on “crime” – much of it non-fictional – in localities officially classed as “deprived”, presumably on the assumption that local residents will find such literature selections more interesting and motivational.

@32: “Of course the girls can go to the boys floor but that’s not the point. It’s about what girls are told they are supposed to be from the moment they are born. Pink everywhere, only princess costumes to choose between, hair and make-up, cooking and dolls.”

Is that why girls have been achieving increasingly better grades in the school leaving exams than boys in Britain for the last couple of decades? And why the majority of undergraduate students are now young women?

I can understand the point being made, and I kind of agree.

But you shouldn’t be surprised at the comments being left here – your choice of language really doesn’t do you any favours, in terms of being taken seriously outside the feminist bubble.

If you scream that you’re “horrified” by this “apartheid” when what you mean is you disapprove of a toy-shop’s floor-labelling policy, then where have you left to go, in terms of whetoric, when someone suggests stripping women of the vote, or banning them leaving the house without a male escort?

“whetoric”

Oops.

Sunny@31 – “Well that deals with THAT argument then! Let’s continue stereotyping and assuming boys and girls have completely different interests driven by their gender. FFS. ”

Oh please Sunny! That is rather a childish and churlish response – and you are supposed to be the proprietor of this blog site! My comment was clearly not intended to shut down debate – merely to point out some anecdotal evidence on my part to throw into the debate. My comments also do not state nor support a position that welcomes and generally desires stereotyping of boys and girls. I do not know if you have children yourself or are familiar with young folk – but I have come to know a lot of young people as my kids have grown up and really girls have not suffered in this regard and as someone else has pointed out achieve generally better grades than boys.

I rather think it ill behoves you to slag off your own contributors. Rather, meet them with intelligent and considered debate methinks.

Some interesting points here (among the less imaginative ones!)

Firstly, let’s consider this issue in context. I included this is the article but there’s no harm in spelling this out again. We live in a society that is drastically unequal with respect to gender. Turn on the radio, the TV; count the number of politicians, business leaders, charity leaders, people on boards and committees… the vast proportion of high status positions are held by men.

We also see many more men in jobs relating to science, engineering, computing… while more women in care jobs.

Fits with the stereotypes right? Which would be valid if there was a universal scientific consensus that girls and boys/women and men are fundamentally different on a cognitive level. Thanks for the article @20. Bob B – there on many research articles on this topic and a large body of scientific literature. To date, there is no agreement and conclusion. In reality, it’s very difficult to do these kinds of experiments and the evidence is all over the place. In the article you cite @Bob B, the children were aged 9-15, so likely already affected by social influences (it starts in the cot: What a pretty girl! What an intelligent-looking boy!). Also bear in mind that science itself is male-dominated – this puts a particularly slant (usually subconsciously, I would guess) on how results are interpreted. If you are interested in reading about this further, do check out Cordelia Fine’s recent book called ‘Delusions of Gender’.

Given there is no consensus on boys’/girls’ differences, and there is increasing scientific evidence to show that experience itself changes brain function to result in cognition differences, is it not irresponsible and wrong to reinforce these stereotypes? Hamleys understandably does it because its priority is profit – yes, it is exploiting the gender stereotypes of society – but that doesn’t make it morally right.

The subject of clothes shops is an interesting one. The important distinction is segregation on the grounds of perceived interests, brainpower and aspirations (as with Hamleys toys) and practicalities (clothes that are made to fit women’s vs men’s bodies which are obviously different). Of course, clothes do also reflect gender stereotypes in society and part of the inequality picture – women are conditioned to be obsessed with pretty dresses, make up, beauty. This is also a battle worth fighting. You may be interested that a school boy recently went to school in a skirt to protest against the no-shorts rule for boys: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8504552/Boy-wears-skirt-to-school-in-protest-against-discrimination.html

On the subject of books, the publishing industry is well known for its stereotypical categorisation of books – that’s how the marketing is done. WHSmith has recently decided to do away with it’s ‘women’s fiction’ category because it is demeaning to women. Many of the books in this section had fluffy pink covers.

@25. pepier I looked up the definition of apartheid before I wrote this article. It means: a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race. I applied that definition to gender and called it ‘gender apartheid’. I will continue to use this term until the genders are treated equally, and given the same opportunities and encouragement. And we see 50:50 male/female parliamentarians (as opposed to 78:22), equal numbers of business people, top scientists, playwrights, entrepreneurs…

To all those who have supported me – thanks. It is very encouraging. I will consider next steps in this campaign.

39. Northern Worker

My previous and serious enquiry was censored, which I find surprising as on a site that I thought appreciated debate. So, I’ll put it another way. With all the horrors in the world, and the perilous state of the UK, Europe et al, does it really matter if Hamleys is being non-PC? Really, this is taking political correctness too far,and to suggest demonstrating when far more evil and dreadful things demand attention is .. well words fail me.

I have four children, though hardly kids now 27 to 37. None of them have any problem with their gender. Why? Because we brought them up as well-informed and didn’t treat them as children. No baby words. No inequality. Girl=boy=girl.

I must admit, when I was last there, I enjoyed the spectacle of my 7-year-old stepdaughter sweeping past the “girls’ floor” with a dismissive cry of “Ugh – pink!” and heading straight up to the Doctor Who stuff on the top floor. I suppose this was a form of protest in itself.

41. the a&e charge nurse

[38] “We live in a society that is drastically unequal with respect to gender” – that is simply not true – if you were talking about places like Saudi Arabia then you might have a point.
The UK/EU may not be perfect, but the inequalities of yesteryear have changed out of all recognition over the last 50 years.

Describing the UK as “drastically unequal” is the sort of hyperbolic rhetoric akin to describing the experience of a toy shop as horrifying?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWLBljvEG-M&feature=related

42. unionworkeruk

Why all the hysteria ? #31 Sunny Hundal quite reasonably says why segregate the toys by gender.

My niece likes football, rollerskating and boxing. Do I have to take her to the ‘boys’ section of Hamleys (if I could afford to).

My nephew went through a phase of liking sewing. Do I classify him as a ‘girl’ ? Have some of you never met any kids or been one ? Toys are toys.

Let the kids make their own minds up how they want to play instead of you lot stereotyping and forcing them into your preconceived boxes.

Luckily for my family East Street Market in Southwark is unisex.

@ Laura

“The subject of clothes shops is an interesting one. The important distinction is segregation on the grounds of perceived interests, brainpower and aspirations (as with Hamleys toys) and practicalities (clothes that are made to fit women’s vs men’s bodies which are obviously different). Of course, clothes do also reflect gender stereotypes in society and part of the inequality picture – women are conditioned to be obsessed with pretty dresses, make up, beauty. This is also a battle worth fighting.”

So do you take the view that any difference between ‘men’s’ and ‘women’s’ clothes that *doesn’t* have to do purely with practicalities of fit amounts to gender apartheid, and that we could therefore reasonably demand that clothes shops cease to market clothes based on a feminine vs masculine ‘look’ rather than a female vs male fit? For instance, do you think it would be reasonable to protest that a shop was offering a certain style of dress in sizes and cuts suitable for women but not for men?

Again, to me it seems fair enough to say there’s something wrong with the deep-rooted, society-wide idea that men should look rugged or businesslike while women should look girly or sexy, but not really fair to protest that a particular shop reflects the preferences of its customers.

@unionworkeruk,

surely the issue is that whilst the argument is reasonable the manner in which it has been portrayed is anything but. To describe an ill-judged and old fashioned layout in a toy shop as apartheid is verging on the offensive at the worst and stopping to the level of the Mail’s “Berlin Time” at the best.

The fact Mr Hundal keeps appearing to lord it over anyone criticising the article does not help his cause

45. Leon Wolfson

@38 – Oh please. There are distinct differences in motivation between the sexes, and when I’m designing games that’s always something which needs to be borne in mind. Especially in what I’m currently working on (a near-future arg, a thriller – the escapist buttons for males and females have very little overlap)

Sure, it’s dealing with statistics rather than people. But it works.

Oh please Sunny! That is rather a childish and churlish response

It was as churlish as the comment it was in reply too. People who leave such idiotic messages shouldn’t really expect anyone to take them seriously.

but I have come to know a lot of young people as my kids have grown up and really girls have not suffered in this regard
And what if you were offered evidence to the contrary?

The fact Mr Hundal keeps appearing to lord it over anyone criticising the article does not help his cause

I’m bored of precocious commenters who throw a strop when I delete comments that have violated the comment policy. That was…oh so-2007. The only cause I have here is to stop threads getting degenerated into slagging-off fests by people who’re not interested in debate. Beyond that, I couldn’t care if you cry when your comment gets deleted.

47. Hodge Podge

I had both absurd amounts of stuffed animals and a massive Thunderbirds collection as a kid. I saw no contradiction making my (complete) set of Winnie the Pooh characters into a badass team of Transformers (Tigger was a helicopter).

If you were happy in just the boys section or just the girls section, good for you. Kids with messier, less mainstream interests shouldn’t be penalised by this sort of bollocks.

And putting microscopes in the “boys” section is misogyny, plain and simple. Even if you believe boys are more likely to go into sciences than girls because of brain structure or whatever (a claim I’m VERY sceptical of), by denying girls the chance to do this stuff you’re FORCING them not to.

“And what if you were offered evidence to the contrary?”

OK then, offer it.

“The only cause I have here is to stop threads getting degenerated into slagging-off fests by people who’re not interested in debate. Beyond that, I couldn’t care if you cry when your comment gets deleted.”

Are you quite sure you mean that first sentence, given the tone you’re using for the second? I think people are asking you to be civil, Sunny. You spend a lot of time moderating comments, occasionally a bit heavy-handedly, then you post stuff that’s really quite passive aggressive and unconstructive. You’ve also been happily strawmanning the arguments of people who disagree with you all down this thread. Just calm down, dude, most people here are on the same side.

“And putting microscopes in the “boys” section is misogyny, plain and simple.”

You sure you don’t mean chauvinism? ‘Cos what you just said is that putting microscopes in the boys’ section is equivalent to the hatred of women. Just a bit over the top.

You’ve also been happily strawmanning the arguments of people who disagree with you all down this thread. Just calm down, dude, most people here are on the same side.

I’m perfectly calm actually – and happily listening to wu-tang clan while moderating. I’ve not offered any straw-man arguments. And its my job to smack down anyone who gets all pissy when their idiot comment gets deleted. Occasionally I’m forced to point out that I don’t really care if people complain their idiot comments are deleted, nor for their complaint this somehow restricts ‘liberal debate’. I was just repeating myself.

OK then, offer it.

Just to be clear – you want evidence that people in different genders or stereotyped, or that stereotyping hurts people?

51. Leon Wolfson

@49 – When the article leads with “apartheid” as a key word, saying that further comments are over the top is rather redundant.

The whole concept of the organisation of microscopes being anything more than a minor annoyance – to have to go to another floor of the store – to look at them, as if something was actively preventing people from doing so…

If their organisation is out of step with the social norms, less people will shop there. There’s no evidence that it’s anything more than that. And, bluntly, it’s very much a 1% store and I’d not be caught dead in there. Protesting outside it about it’s organisation gives the right considerable ammunition to be used against us over serious issues, nothing more.

@30 Trofim

But why is there an LGB section in my local library? Do they really read such different books from me?

Yes, obviously. Unless you read a lot of books where the protagonist is gay, with all the pertinent changes that would have upon how they live their lives in the story, whereupon, no.

@31 Sunny

Frankly, if I had a daughter, I’d be fucking angry if a store thought that astronomy and science-related material was only meant for boys.

Generally they don’t, they do however insist on making pink versions of microscopes, telescopes and other such sciency toys specifically for girls, with the cost but not the quality matching up with the very best boy’s equivalent. Which is bad enough I suppose, since the message there is “if it ain’t pink, girls ain’t interested”.

@52 Though they probably don’t have pink microscopes at Hamleys they do ere:
http://www.toysrus.co.uk/Toys-R-Us/Learning/Science/EDU-Science-Pink-Core-Microscope%280078257%29

54. Leon Wolfson

@52 – That just proves that fiction is still catching up with general views. And it’s certainly not all kinds of fiction – gay protagonists in science fiction have been unremarkable for years. Also not surprising given how it usually asks leading questions.

“I’m perfectly calm actually – and happily listening to wu-tang clan while moderating. I’ve not offered any straw-man arguments. And its my job to smack down anyone who gets all pissy when their idiot comment gets deleted.”

I think that Wu-Tang are having a bit too much of an affect on you: you’re writing like you’re in The Wire…

56. Hodge Podge

“You sure you don’t mean chauvinism? ‘Cos what you just said is that putting microscopes in the boys’ section is equivalent to the hatred of women. Just a bit over the top.”

You know what I meant.

“You know what I meant.”

Yeah. Good thing I did, instead of – say – writing for a right-wing publication reading these comments and assuming people here can be a bunch of right loonies at times. Less shouty diatribey name-calling would be nice.

“Just to be clear – you want evidence that people in different genders or stereotyped, or that stereotyping hurts people?”

Well, I dunno Sunny, someone said x, you asked what he’d say if he was presented with evidence y. You’re either being fatuous or evasive. Put up evidence y or shut up. Look at what he said. Find evidence to refute it. Not difficult.

On the surface, this looks like a pretty whimsical debate, but there is a serious undertone.

The problem with extreme feminists and their supporters is that when they discover that the reality of the world diverges from how their rather shallow philosophy says it ought to be, they get all authoritarian in an effort to try to make it conform.

Comical, as in this thread, but concerning deep down.

59. Simon (but not the one above)

53. Cylux, thanks for that link.

I’ve found they have a pink boxed “Wild Science Perfume Laboratory Set”: http://www.toysrus.co.uk/Toys-R-Us/Learning/Science/Wild-Science-Perfume-Laboratory-Set%280018608%29

This leads me to the question: do they have a blue boxed “Wild Science Aftershave Laboratory Set”? It seems not.

I wonder if this is the sort of thing Julie Bindel means when she says she wants girls to grow up to be scientists?…

@54

That just proves that fiction is still catching up with general views. And it’s certainly not all kinds of fiction – gay protagonists in science fiction have been unremarkable for years. Also not surprising given how it usually asks leading questions.

While true, the important part of my comment was “with all the pertinent changes that would have upon how they live their lives in the story”, the themes covered by LGBT books are usually about acceptance of sexuality or gender identity and indeed the questioning of sexuality, interactions with family and those who would be hostile to any deviation from the ‘norm’ and of course courting and relationships and the fact that they tend to be different in character to hetro relationships. Very interesting stuff to someone who’s either had to or is dealing with similar issues, probably not very interesting to those who don’t. All of which are expected to take a back seat to blasting hostile aliens in the sci fi genre.

61. Simon (but not the one above)

But seriously, while categorising science sets as specifically boys’ toys is clearly and offensively sexist, the feminist overreaction to this isn’t helping. It’s just making sexist defenders of such sexism seem relatively reasonable in comparison, and that’s not good.

The idea that categorising science sets as boys’ toys is like categorising clothes according to gender is ridiculous, sexist nonsense. What on earth could it be about boys’ and girls’ bodies or minds that make science sets specifically boys’ toys? Is there something about the science sets that Hamleys sells that means girls aren’t anatomically equipped to be able to carry out the experiments? Of course not.

The argument, offered by some, that some toys tend to be favoured much more by one gender than the other simply doesn’t support such sexist categorisation. Boys who are interested in such science sets would still be able to find them if they’re in a gender neutral category instead. (Presumably, boys have no trouble finding “games” and “interactive” toys in Hamleys.) And while not all girls will be deterred by having science sets in the “boys” section, some will be, just as some boys will be deterred from choosing a toy they actually do want when it’s in the “girls” section. And that’s something that’s simply not necessary.

There really is no need to have “boys” and “girls” sections in a toy shop. It’s unnecessary, for the simple reason that children, and adults buying toys for children, will still be able to find the toys they want with gender neutral categorisation anyway. Hamleys clearly know this, since most of their shop isn’t confined to the “boys” and “girls” sections.

And I’ve been able to say all this without having to make hysterical/hyperbolic claims of “gender apartheid”, and without having to bring a whole load of feminist dogma into it.

The OP may well be overreacting and the solution is to stop shopping in Hamleys. However, is the accusations on this thread of being hysterical not sexist? Something to do with having an upset uterus that causes women to get hysterical, while men just get outraged.

I will continue to use this term [gender apartheid] until the genders are treated equally, and given the same opportunities and encouragement. And we see 50:50 male/female parliamentarians (as opposed to 78:22), equal numbers of business people, top scientists, playwrights, entrepreneurs…

Fine. If you’re determined that every discussion you have about sexual politics outside dedicated feminist websites should be derailed by a rowdy crowd pointing and laughing at your hyperbole, that’s your inviolable right. Just don’t complain about it.

you’re writing like you’re in The Wire…

There is a world of difference between Wu-tang Clan and the Wire. Please don’t assume its all the same just because it involves black people.

The usual storm in a teacup.

I’ve spent my life ignoring the pink girlie stuff and going for “the men’s bikes”, “the men’s trousers”, “the men’s” whatever. Funnily enough, “the men” never seem bothered about me going for their stuff, it’s generally the women who get all upset.

Get a life!

Just how far up your own guardianista do you have to be to get this sort of response on this site? It would be funny if it didn’t illustrate just how insane much of the feminist movement has become.

“you’re writing like you’re in The Wire…

There is a world of difference between Wu-tang Clan and the Wire. Please don’t assume its all the same just because it involves black people.”

You’re like a cultural inspiration, man.

“Frankly, if I had a daughter, I’d be fucking angry if a store thought that astronomy and science-related material was only meant for boys.”

Not just angry. Best not have any kids, eh?

Commentators should know that science toys will be stored under “Hobbies” or “Interactive,” not “boys” or “girls.” If you think Hamleys should organise their stock by type or function they already, largely, do that. If you look at the photo accompanying the article you will see that under each floor name is a list of the types of toys stocked there. The photo is blurry so its hard to see, but the “boys” floor clearly lists “Action Figures.” All you have to do to eliminate the gender inequality is to change the names by the lifts and escalators to something like “Action and Adventure” and “Beauty.” This might be worth a few polite letters, but hardly a protest.

Frankly, the best reason not to shop at Hamley’s is that they’re insanely over-priced and stock nothing you can’t elsewhere for a lot less cash.

I love the way lefty liberal types tell us we have to celebrate diversity but then tell us in the same breath that we all have to be exactly the same.

The next thing laura will be telling us is that it is “genderist” to use him and hers.

There are differrences between the sexes and it would be stupid not to reralise that. It would be even stupider to think it is some kind of problem that needsd to be overcome. Though I think it would be pretty increedible to overcome nature itself.

Schools teach the same subjects to both girls and boys. Girls tend to get better results yet regardless fewer girls tend to choose science subjects to study at uni. There is nobody stopping them choosing such su bjects – they just don’t. For some reason physics is less popular with girls, but why is that a problem?

But Laura; please do go and organise some sort of protest at Hamleys. It is your right to do so. I think you’ll find that most people will disagree with you or simply not care, and you’ll end up looking pretty silly.

Nobody seems to be calling for “something to be done” about girls achieving increasingly better results than boys in school leaving exams and now making up the majority of undergraduate students in the universities despite all the gender stereotyping. That probably has something to do with girls preferring to read books than watching football.

“If you don’t like Hamleys go elsewhere rather than try to impose your worldview on the rest of us.”

Ironically, that is what Hamleys is trying to do. It’s promoting the idea that you should only buy certain toys for girls and certain toys for boys.

Surprised so many people are happy with a shop telling them that they should only buy their daughter certain stuff, and their son certain stuff. Imagine being a boy who wanted to go and buy something while out with his friends, but he would be laughed at if he ventured into the girls’ section.

73. So Much For Subtlety

71. Bob B

Nobody seems to be calling for “something to be done” about girls achieving increasingly better results than boys in school leaving exams and now making up the majority of undergraduate students in the universities despite all the gender stereotyping. That probably has something to do with girls preferring to read books than watching football.

Actually it is simpler, it is a direct result of fixing the system so that it will benefit girls. Exams have been down graded. School assessed work has been increased. Girls tend to suck up to teacher more and do worse on exams. Also virtually every subject now has an essay component. Girls do better at essays.

The school system is designed to help girls pass. Hence their higher numbers at University. It is not a problem with boys. Ultimately it doesn’t mean girls are doing well at school either. It just means we are rewarding conformity more than we are intelligence and skills.

74. So Much For Subtlety

72. Richard

Ironically, that is what Hamleys is trying to do. It’s promoting the idea that you should only buy certain toys for girls and certain toys for boys.

No it isn’t. But even if it was, its remit runs the entire gamut of Hamley’s store. It says nothing about what anyone else does. It is not trying to limit your choice or control what you do elsewhere. The OP on the other hand is trying to stop other people she has never met before from doing something that has, essentially, no social harm whatsoever. The OP is trying to reduce the rich diversity that is the modern United Kingdom to political uniformity. Hamley’s is just trying to do what they want to do. Consenting adults and all that. Don’t like it, don’t go.

Surprised so many people are happy with a shop telling them that they should only buy their daughter certain stuff, and their son certain stuff. Imagine being a boy who wanted to go and buy something while out with his friends, but he would be laughed at if he ventured into the girls’ section.

His parents are likely to be there, his friends are not. What is more, this is not the 1950s any more. I doubt his friends would give a flying rat’s ar$e.

75. James from Durham

If women get hysterical, men become “testy”.

What cave has the OP just crawled out of? Is this somehow supposed to be shocking? Producers make toys they think will interest girls and market them in a way that will be attractive to females; they make toys that they think will appeal to boys and so market them in that way too.

I was looking for a microscope for a male member of the family in a catalogue and discovered two identical ones – the first was blue and being ‘played’ with by boys directly next to it on the page was one in pink and being played with by girls.

Watch television adverts and sponsorships and count the number of times you see a boy and a girl playing with the same toy. Is this sexist? Is this as gender unequal as showing only women using perfume and men aftershave and writing “pour femme” and “pour homme” on the bottle?

The makers and sellers of such want to make money if they can do so by segregating the two markets and maximising appeal by stocking only boys’ toys on one grey/blue/green floor and girls’ toys on a single pink floor than that’s what they’ll do.

The real question here is – are girls predisposed towards pink and the fairy princess type toys (with boys predisposed to things that go bang).; is it societal conditioning that’s become self-reinforcing; or a mix of both?

73
‘Actually it is simpler, it is a direct result of fixing the system’

You mean like the 11 plus when boys needed to score less than girls to pass?

78. ManonClaphamOmnibus

Interesting that not much has been said about the actual purchasers of the toys who pretty much must be adults for the first few years at least. Is the writer arguing that Parents are incapable of making a distiction between departments on behalf of their children. I didnt know a colour had a gender either. Nor, apparently, did the Victorians who dressed their boys in pink.
Thanks to Bob B for the interesting article.
Overall I think this discussion has been interesting for the division of opinion which has formed across gender lines. Is this I wonder because the chaps never played with Barbie and the Girls never played with Trains. Or maybe we are wired differently. I think we should be told!

Laura,

@25. pepier I looked up the definition of apartheid before I wrote this article. It means: a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race. I applied that definition to gender and called it ‘gender apartheid’. I will continue to use this term until the genders are treated equally, and given the same opportunities and encouragement.

Laura, “apartheid” doesn’t merely mean “segregation” or “discrimination”; “apartheid” means everything that happened to non-whites in South Africa in the mid to late 20th century. Hamleys’ store layout is not akin to that!

Do you (and Sunny) really not see how this kind of hyperbole distracts from – even harms – the serious point you are trying to make? (let alone demeaning the experiences of those who suffered apartheid). ISTM your post would be much improved without it and not lose any of its underlying meaning.

As Larry said, “I can understand the point being made, and I kind of agree”, but where can you go from there (in terms of rhetoric)?

Didn’t Orwell used to write that Socialism’s worst enemy is Socialists? Because they put everyone else off what was otherwise a perfectly sensible and desirable worldview? I often feel the same about liberals.

Overreacting about Hamleys putting action figures in a section labelled ‘boys’ has a ‘boy who cried wolf’ effect in that when you’re trying to point out something that really is harmful people will assume you’re overreacting again. And of course, by using words like apartheid you’re not only being potentially offensive towards people who have lived through *real* apartheid, and also alienating everyone who isn’t naturally outraged by the way a toy store organises its toys by insinuating that they must support gender apartheid in some way.

Choose your battles. This faux outrage is more harmful to the perception of feminism than the layout of Hamleys is to gender equality.

Amazed at how some people lead such empty lives that they get hysterical over how a toy shop organises its toys. It’s like something from The Onion.

If you actually looked around Hamley’s, the other floors are filled to the brim with toys for both genders, it’s just that the girls’ floor is full of Barbies in sparkly dresses and the boys’ floor is full of Action Men. I’m sure you do get some boys wanting Barbies and girls wanting Action Men but I would say they are in the minority.

are girls predisposed towards pink and the fairy princess type toys

While I guess nothing should be ruled out, I’m highly skeptical that this would genetic – there were no fairy princess thingies on the African Savannah.

Also, a hundred or so years ago, the colours were the other way round – pink was a boy colour.

Oh, and on the general article itself, yes “apartheid” is unhelpful hyperbole that has distracted from the issue (although, personally I think the MRAs will find any excuse to attack even a reasonable feminist article), but the overall point is good. I’m a physics student, and the number of women who go into physics is poor. There’s no a priori reason to suppose women are less able inherently, so the reason is probably cultural. I can’t see why science should be marketed in a boy’s only way (it may make them more money, but that’s not a reason to justify it – ask the people outside St Paul’s if you disagree), and I can’t help feeling that this has something to do with a subject like physics being male-dominated. If this helps, then I support it.

Amazed at how some people lead such empty lives that they get hysterical over how a toy shop organises its toys

I’m amazed how some people manage to click through the article, read it, and become so opposed to its contents that they must type their own hysterical comment.

Hamleys stuck in 1970s timewarp it seems – Argos catalogue runs it a close second. And WH Smiths were happy to use the old ‘womens fiction’ category until recently. They’re all at it! did a blog on the Smiths thing http://foolsgoldsmith.blogspot.com/2011/09/wh-smiths-have-lost-plot.html

84. Simon (but not the one above)

I shouldn’t have unquestioningly accepted what Laura Nelson wrote about the science sets without checking.

While I can’t just pop into Hamleys on a passing whim, I can easily visit their website: http://www.hamleys.com/

It’s easy to find the science kits in “Arts & Crafts”: http://www.hamleys.com/Science_Kits_%7C_Hamleys_Toys/030030000,default,sc.html

There is, I note, a gender selector on the side of the page. It lists, “Boy(34)”, “Both(25)” and “Girl(31)”.

So, while there’s clearly gender categorisation at this site, it already contradicts Nelson’s article, which clearly conveys the idea that Hamleys categorise science kits as being only for boys.

Under the “Both” category, there are such things as telescopes, microscopes, a nature explorer set, a model skeleton, a dynamo torch, a crystal growing set, an anatomy set, a chemistry set, and more.

Under the “Girl” category, there are all the things under the “Both” category, and six extra items: Bath Bomb Factory, Perfume Lab, Wild Science Pampering Boutique, Wild Science Moisturising Laboratory, Luxury Soap Science Kit, and, intriguingly, Wild Science Physics & Chemistry Set that appears to have been mistakenly miscategorised as female only.

Under the “Boy” category, there are, again, the things under the “Both” category, and nine extra items: Hamleys Climbatron (a “window climbing robot”), a Triop Volcano Play Set, a Spy-Tech spy kit, a Metal Detector Blue, Slime Laboratory, Technkit Dragster, Dinorobot Make your Own Monster, 7 In 1 Spy Sleeve, and, intriguingly, a Hot Wires electronics set that has clearly been wrongly categorised as male only: http://www.hamleys.com/Hot_Wires_%7C_Hamleys_Toys/110122,default,pd.html

Both the Wild Science Physics & Chemistry Set and the Hot Wires electronics set should be categorised under “Both”. According to Hamleys, the Hot Wires kit “supports the National Curriculum.” How, then, can it be categorised under “Boys” and not “Girls”?

So, yes, there’s a bit of sexism here, but not to anything like the extent that Laura Nelson made it sound.

That leaves such hyperbole as “gender apartheid” appearing even more ridiculous, and, yet again, serves as an example of feminists making a mockery of their own movement.

“you’re writing like you’re in The Wire…”

Not unless the dialogue in The Wire has changed dramatically. I suppose it’s possible that it now includes an attempt at discussing how British toy stores have some pretty silly ideas about how to organize their stock, but I must confess to having missed that episode. Also, the dialogue in The Wire seems to include rather more profanity and F bombs than does the usual Hundal Contra Mundum piece.

Incidentally, books in libraries are organized by subject matter/topic, not presumed gender interests. LGBT is a subject matter, not a statement of gender exclusivity.

86. Simon (but not the one above)

PS: I should probably add that on Hamleys’ website, it appears that gender categorisation doesn’t apply by default. It looks like you actually have to start choosing gender categorisation for it to apply. Otherwise, you just get all the toys listed, regardless of gender categorisation.

That makes it even harder to support Laura Nelson’s condemnation of Hamleys.

I dislike the assumption some feminists make that because there are more women in care jobs and “many more men in jobs relating to science, engineering, computing…”, that it’s not at all due to personal choice.

I work in the engineering department of a water utilities company, and our department is comprised of 3 women and 2 men (who are in lower positions). Around the company there are plenty of women in high ranking, technical positions – no one cares about gender.

I also know plenty of women choosing to go for nursing degrees out of their own personal choice. Don’t put it all down to some kind of oppressive society and consider, for just a moment, that these women aren’t mindless idiots controlled by men and they might just know what they want to do as a career.

And Patricia Hewitt as the New Labour minister for trade and then health is a lesson to us all.

@82 –

I’m highly skeptical that this would genetic – there were no fairy princess thingies on the African Savannah.

However tests suggest that girls’ do better at linguistics than boys and this may be down to brain patterns. If this is the case, and expecting people to gravitate towards activities that mesh with these patterns, one would expect girls to favour those toys that emphasise socialising/talking.

Consider the difference between a doll marketed at girls (realistic babies, family sets etc.) and those marketed towards boys (military etc.). There’s some overlap (Lego Harry Potter?), but those aimed at girls seem to involve more social interaction beyond ‘Bang bang you’re dead’.

What’s important is to recognise these distinctions and consciously determine how the toys being presented match these stereotypes.

89
But there is still the problem of whether the observable difference in neurological functioning is caused by the different learned stimulus or the other way round.
Toys for children is a relatively new concept, and as @82 suggest, there are no toys for children in Africa. In fact in many parts of Africa, women take on many roles, which we would see as a contradiction to our own stereotypal ideals.
Yes, toys tend to reflect the perceived role of the genders but that follows cultural norms, where is the evidence that this is somehow genetic?

91. Churm Rincewind

@ Jojo: “Toys for children is a relatively new concept, and…there are no toys for children in Africa.” Eh? Do you have any evidence, any evidence at all, for that bizarre statement?

91
The acknowledged expert on childhood history is the French historian, Phillipe Aries, his book ‘Centuries of Childhood’ is the gold standard academic reference on the subject.
You will find many more bizarre facts about society’s past treatment of the childhood state than the lack of toys.

“Toys for children is a relatively new concept”

This assertion would surprise students of the Greco-Roman world. Not to put too fine a point on it, it is utterly wrong. There is abundant archaeological evidence for children’s toys, we know of rites of passage in which children dedicated their toys to the gods on reaching adulthood or being married in the case of girls, there are textual references to children’s games and toys etc etc. Aries, incidentally, was writing about the ancien regime in the book you cite ( as its French title – L’Enfant et la Vie Familiale sous l’Ancien Régime makes clear).

94
As the OP is about Hamleys in London, I was making reference to the U.K. and western Europe, and our, not so long ago cultural practices and beliefs regarding children. As interesting as Greco-Roman history is, it is a tad obscure relative to the discussion in question.

Basically, the OP makes a fair point using ill-advised and somewhat over the top language.

There, I’ve summarised most of the comments above. Sorted. :)

96. Churm Rincewind

90, 92, 94

I’m sorry but this will not do. You claim that “…there are no toys for children in Africa”. Well, you could try searching google for toyshops in Africa. There are quite a lot, so presumably lots of people in Africa are buying enough toys to keep all these outlets in business, especially in the wealthier North and South. In poorer African countries toys are homemade – you may like to check out UNESCO’s “Children’s Toys from Africa” or “Jouets des Enfants d’Afrique” by Michel Massal and Marie-Francoise Delaroziere, for example, or if you have the time, inclination and money, you could visit the current exhibition of African children’s toys at the Museo Africano in Italy.

As for the UK, literature and archaeology offers many examples of early toys. “Toys, Trifles and Trinkets 1200 to 1800″ by Hazel Forsyth and Geoff Reagan, for example, makes for an engaging read, and actual items are on display at the Museum of London.

And without in any way wishing to detract from Aries’ scholarship, I do not buy his “progressive” interpretation of data, nor does he contemplate whether the increased commercial availability of children’s toys from (let’s say) 1800 was simply a result of growing wealth, technology, and mass-production.

Oh get over yourself.

Go to the Hamley’s website and use the toy finder to search for a toy for a 10 year old girl. You’ll get suggestions for everything from a Millenium Falcon to Train Sets, Racing Cars etc.

So in their Bricks and Mortar Stores they “guide” kids of particular genders to particular floors. Why do they do this? TO SELL MORE TOYS.

They are in business and they know that they will sell more toys by surrounding kids with toys they are likely to be interested in, rather than mixing toys together in such a way that a given kid will only be interested in some of what they see.

They have been around long enough to know the toys that boys like and the toys that girls like. And like all retailers their number one goal is to get the customer to see things they might buy.

It’s not Apartheid, it’s marketing.

They don’t have Child Catcher’s roaming the different floors trying to catch kids of the wrong gender away from their approved area.

If you have a girl who’d like a telescope but object to bringing her to the BOYS floor, then buy from their website, where it’s in a section simply called Science.

Above all, stop wasting valuable time and energy on this sensationalist nonsense. You get one shot at life, is this really how you want to spend it? What kind of lesson is that for your kids?

Go out and play with them instead of protesting outside toy shops about nonsense.

Last time I visited a lingerie store and asked to try something on I was discriminated against and asked to leave – just for being a man!! Can you organise a protest for me outside a few shops please? I feel so degraded…..just because I like to wear womens clothing…..

99. Graham Smith

Read about the “victory” for gender equality (what on earth does that mean?) with the signs now being changed at Hamleys.

I believe in fair pay and equlity between the sexes but seeing the before and after signs in the Northolt and Greenford Gazette only leads me to the opinion that some people have more time on their hands that they could use for something REALLY constructive and worthwhile…

utter nonsense deliah… put the scissors away for goodness sake!

Liberal lies…

If that is true how do you explain so many man-cook when they do not play with kitchen when kids?

Liberals have the worong attitude: they evaluate their very particular right/wrong and then apply it to the world without actually taking care of the reality.

Girls/boys like a certain kind of toys becuase of thousands of years of evolution. WE ARE NOT EQUAL.
When that will fit your brain, you’ll finally see the world how it is, and not how you’d wish it to be.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Kirstin Donaldson

    How Hamleys toy store promotes gender apartheid and stereotypes | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/VnFrj2Ef via @libcon

  2. Hannah B

    Really? REALLY?! http://t.co/g0cpy9r5

  3. Gareth Hughes

    Why does Hamleys toy story promote gender segregation and stereotypes asks @delilah_mj – http://t.co/jAHQuY5o

  4. Rob

    Dear @libcon, I'm *really* not sure a comparison with apartheid was appropriate or tasteful for this article: http://t.co/GMLwE8Dt

  5. Nicola

    Why does Hamleys toy story promote gender segregation and stereotypes asks @delilah_mj – http://t.co/jAHQuY5o

  6. Harriet Marshall

    Why does Hamleys toy story promote gender segregation and stereotypes asks @delilah_mj – http://t.co/jAHQuY5o

  7. Delilah MJ

    My article: How Hamleys toy store promotes gender apartheid and stereotypes | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/EvBWvAwC via @libcon

  8. Progressive Women

    My article: How Hamleys toy store promotes gender apartheid and stereotypes | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/EvBWvAwC via @libcon

  9. nia

    My article: How Hamleys toy store promotes gender apartheid and stereotypes | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/EvBWvAwC via @libcon

  10. hollabackWY

    MT@Delilah_mj:How Hamleys toy store promotes gender stereotypes | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/NILIbz7Q

  11. Platform51

    Blog post about how Hamleys toy shop divides its toys into boys & girl toys, #gender stereotyping http://t.co/HPj92prx via @libcon

  12. Matty Mitford

    This has bugged me for YEARS. Gender messages and Hamleys http://t.co/8bU91gZk

  13. AVA

    Blog post about how Hamleys toy shop divides its toys into boys & girl toys, #gender stereotyping http://t.co/HPj92prx via @libcon

  14. Rachel

    How Hamleys toy store promotes gender apartheid and stereotypes http://t.co/UCAZ6TV3

  15. Dom Weinberg

    Blog post about how Hamleys toy shop divides its toys into boys & girl toys, #gender stereotyping http://t.co/HPj92prx via @libcon

  16. Bridget Harper

    How Hamleys toy store promotes gender apartheid and stereotypes … http://t.co/iWz9znC9

  17. Antonie Phillips

    Blog post about how Hamleys toy shop divides its toys into boys & girl toys, #gender stereotyping http://t.co/j9Eg0cyM via @libcon

  18. Odille Middleton

    Blog post about how Hamleys toy shop divides its toys into boys & girl toys, #gender stereotyping http://t.co/mNgOFsPk via @libcon

  19. David Davies

    How Hamleys toy store promotes gender apartheid and stereotypes ~ http://t.co/i8drx831

  20. Adam Round

    How Hamleys toy store promotes gender apartheid and stereotypes http://t.co/UCAZ6TV3

  21. Bridget Harper

    How Hamleys toy store promotes gender apartheid and stereotypes … http://t.co/iWz9znC9

  22. Bridget Harper

    http://t.co/iWz9znC9 How Hamleys toy store promotes gender apartheid and stereotypes …

  23. Tony Tassell

    a campaign worth backing to pressure Hamleys to stop dividing store into boy and girl areas. Led by @Delilah_mj http://t.co/CnOrVaZH

  24. Rebecca Bream

    a campaign worth backing to pressure Hamleys to stop dividing store into boy and girl areas. Led by @Delilah_mj http://t.co/CnOrVaZH

  25. Andrew Wilson

    My article: How Hamleys toy store promotes gender apartheid and stereotypes | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/EvBWvAwC via @libcon

  26. Andrew Wilson

    My article: How Hamleys toy store promotes gender apartheid and stereotypes | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/EvBWvAwC via @libcon

  27. Delilah MJ

    RT @TonyTassell campaign worth backing 2 pressure Hamleys 2 stop dividing store into boy/girl areas. Led by @Delilah_mj http://t.co/bcX9SFAM

  28. Alom Shaha

    @Hayleystevens If you haven't seen this, you may go apoplectic: http://t.co/zvNqdZki

  29. Hayley M Stevens

    @lgladdy I'm pretty sure people would buy multi-coloured balloons with 'birthday girl' written on them! http://t.co/BouXmy3R

  30. The Social

    Moving on to Hamley's and their apparent gender apartheid http://t.co/q9lXJRqr #rtethesoc

  31. Michael Conville

    Moving on to Hamley's and their apparent gender apartheid http://t.co/q9lXJRqr #rtethesoc

  32. MrsC

    Here is Laura's original blog. Obviously Hamley's are saying it wasn't consumer pressure… http://t.co/XTCw2RwT

  33. Frank O'Riordan

    Moving on to Hamley's and their apparent gender apartheid http://t.co/q9lXJRqr #rtethesoc





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.