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/