Pink Lego - Sexist? Or another Feminist rant?

Fucking up children is, as the author of today's Guardian article - Lego Friends petition: why feminists should think twice before they sign - an entirely inescapable part of parenthood. But if you must fuck them up, she argues, at least do it with a little nuance. To fuck them up a little less than you inevitably will, don't limit their imagination. By this, she says don't deny little girls their little pink toys - but would this really limit their imagination?

The article in question can be found here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/04/lego-friends-feminists-think-twice) . In it is posed the question - is it ever right to police children's play? The author suggests that any attempt to regulate children's toys will lead to limits on their imagination, and so should be avoided by overly concerned parents. But would a change in Lego's gender stereotyping limit children's imaginations? Should those who signed the petition against Lego's Friend range regret that decision?

Pink for little girls, blue for little boys. The history and origin of these colour stereotypes are here entirely unimportant. Most people have heard by now that pink did in fact use to be for boys, studies have been carried out to see if children do innately have these preferences or not. Regardless of this, whether it is environment or an innate preference, in our society today pink is considered to be for little girls, blue for little boys. The problem is how these colour preferences (pink especially) are then used to influence children's toy choices. Toy manufacturers are aware of this societal distinction, and they use it to decree what toys little girls should play with, and what toys little boys should play with.  

I have been in toy shops many times since my own youth (to shop for young relatives, friend's children, and a few times – and don't judge me because it really is good fun – on dates) now with the eyes of a 21 year old woman aware of sexism, rather than a small girl overly excited by the prospect of a new toy. Rows upon rows of shelves in the "girl" section of toy stores are full of pink toys. The pink marking those toys out as being for girls, and not for little boys. Dolls are dressed in adorable pink dresses - because girls are meant to want to grow up to become mothers. Washing machines and vacuums in pink, because girls should want to do the house work when they grow up. Science sets are contained in pink boxes promising girls the chance to use science to create their own perfume - because girls could only be interested in science if it's then used to beautiful themselves, this fact clearly marked out to them by the pink - for girls - box. 

Girls are told clearly in the colour coding of their toys, what is expected of them from society. They are to be mothers, they are to be housewives, they may be scientists - but only when it would be for suitably feminine purposes. And it's not only girls that suffer here, boys see these toys are pink and they don't play with them, because pink is not for boys. Boys are not meant to look after children, and it's shameful for those boys to end up as house husbands vacuuming with their partner out to work. These harms are real. In her article, Hannah Bett assures us that kids work all this out for themselves, that they can decide for themselves that they don't think like this. But then why, for example, are women still responsible for so much care in the home? Why do women still do the vast majority of housework? Of course the entire blame here can't be put on toys, but we are allowing girls to be conditioned from a young age to think this is what they should be doing, and boys are taught this is what they should not be doing. We aren't helping children to question these stereotypes, we're allowing them to be re-enforced. 

The same applies to the overtly pink Lego Friends range, it's just another limitation on a girl's experience. Because it's so pink, it's marked out for girls. Girls should not use normal Lego, they should have this boring, shitty, easy to put together Lego, filled with bakeries and hairdressers, because these are things that girls should like. Any boys who may prefer this simpler lego, who may want to play with a Lego hairdressers, are told it's not for them. Why is this necessary? Why can't the same Lego exist, complete with hairdressers and bakeries, without the overt use of pink, so that it's not labelled as for girls, or not for boys. Surely this is the best way to optimise these children's imaginations? 

What I'm talking about here is not to necessarily treat children as entirely gender neutral, there are differences between genders, some environmental and some not. But we don't need to add to these distinctions, we don't need to tell a girl that just because she's a girl there are certain toys she should play with, even if those toys are the ones most little girls would pick. If most little girls want a Lego bakery, they can still choose that for themselves without colour coding, but so can a few little boys who may also want to play with a Lego bakery, or a toy vacuum, or a doll. Non colour coded toys give kids the most chance to explore their imagination, and so Miss Bett is wrong in her conclusions. No one who signed the petition should regret having done so. 

Pinkstinks is a UK campaign group aiming to highlight gender stereotyping in clothes, toys and the media. Their website can be found here - http://www.pinkstinks.org.uk/

The state has no right to deny the choice of death to Tony Nicklinson

After this week's court ruling, the options remaining for Tony Nicklinson are far from pleasant. This week the High Court refused his request to allow a doctor to end his life, a life that has been paralysed in a state known as “locked in syndrome” for the past seven years. Tony cannot move his limbs, has problems even swallow water, let alone lethal medication, and can communicate only by the movement of his eyes and eyelids. He already views his life as intolerable, and says that his quality of life is becoming harder to bear every day. After this court ruling, the choices left to him are limited. 

The only way that Tony can take his own life is to refuse nourishment, a highly unpleasant and lengthy process. Alternatively, he could travel to Switzerland to have his life ended there legally. But this is expensive, and Tony himself has expressed the wish not to be forced to die on an industrial estate in a foreign country. The final option is the waiting game, Tony could wait until he dies of natural causes, which doctors have said could mean suffering for as much as another 20 years. 

What Tony is asking for is euthanasia, that someone else will act to end his life. This is different from assisted suicide whereby help is given to someone committing suicide, but they must take the medication themselves. Both assisted suicide and euthanasia are currently illegal in the UK. the outcome of the court case is hardly surprising, changes in law, especially a law as important as murder law, are the job of parliament. This doesn't mean the case was pointless, it has generated a large amount of media attention and brought the subject back into public discourse. These is also of course the small chance of future appeals, although these are unlikely to be successful. So, the question is - should Tony's case lead parliament to think again? Do we need a change in the current laws on assisted dying? Changed that would allow Tony, and many others like him, more choices. 

Opponents of assisted dying and euthanasia tend to focus on two main arguments. Firstly that changing the law would leave other disabled and terminally ill patients who did not want to end their lives vulnerable, and secondly that no one, including the state, has the right to end or endorse the ending of life. 

So would a change in the law mean that such people would be made vulnerable? Would people fee pressure to end their lives early? Conveniently, we do not need to speculate here. In Oregon assisted dying, whereby medication is provided by a doctor that a terminally ill patient may then take to end their life, is already legal. In the Netherlands doctors inject terminally ill patients with lethal drugs. In 2007 a study published in the Journal of Medical Ethics looking as these laws found that they do not have a disproportionate effect on those in vulnerable groups. The study found that - "those who received physician-assisted dying in the jurisdictions studied appeared to enjoy comparative social, economic, educational, professional and other privileges." People who may have financial pressures were not asking for assisted death more than those without such problems, nor were people in lower social-economic groups or those with lower levels of education compared to those with higher. All the factors that could possibly pressure someone into an assisted death they did not want were found not to do so. Another concern is that were assisted dying legal, less money would be put into end of life care and help for disabled people. There's no need for this to be the case, and not a scrap of evidence to suggest it would be. 

The organisation against assisted death in the UK, Care Not Killing, say that whilst they understand that Tony's case is distressing, the law should not be changed as it's needed to protect others. Care Not Killing, and the judges in court, both described Tony's case as “tragic”, but said that the law must remain to protect others. This implies that, were the law just for Tony, things might be different. But if they can see that Tony's case is different, it's clear that a system could exist whereby situation such as his were judged on a case by case basis, and individuals in cases such as Tony's, where their decision is clearly made carefully and free from pressure, could be given the right to die. 

Suicide is not illegal in the UK, the state here already allows these deaths to occur legally. If Tony were able to move an arm and had the ability to swallow, he could end his life tomorrow without breaking the law. Because of his disability, this choice is taken away from him. By making killing Tony on his request illegal, the state is taking away this choice from him in a discriminatory manner. Because he cannot move, he cannot have a right that everyone of us has, even if he is fully mentally competent to make that decision. Tony can clearly understand the level to which he is suffering, and so is therefore best placed to decide if he should continue to live his life. 

Tony's choices are limited, but it shouldn't be this way, the state has no right to deny him the choice of death. The fundamental role of the state is to act in the best interest of its citizens, legalising assisted dying would maximise choices for individuals like Tony, so has great benefit to those individuals. In addition, there's no evidence that legalising assisted dying would lead to the deaths of vulnerable people, so no clear harm. What we do have is the certainty that for people like Tony, legalisation would give choices that after this week's ruling they can still only dream of. 

If you think euthanasia and assisted suicide should be legalised, do something about it. Write to your MP and/or sign Tony's petition (http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/tony-nicklinson-s-right-to-die-change-the-law).