On sexism and gender stereotypes

Hamleys, the toyshop in Regent Street, has changed its signage. There is some argument over exactly why they have done it. Hamleys claims that the move was part of a reorganisation which started in October, to improve customer flow. They claim it came about as a result of customer and consultant feedback. Feminist blogger Laura Nelson claims that it was changed as a result of pressure from her and her supporters. Originally a blue sign directed people to “Boys” on the fifth floor, and a pink sign directed people to “Girls” on the third floor. The toys are now apparently organised by type rather than gender preference and signs are all the same colour.

Now don’t get me wrong here, I have no strong feelings about this really. As the father of a boy, I think a sign directing me to boys’ toys is useful, but it’s not a big issue. I think the more interesting aspect to this story is Laura Nelson’s philosophy. Nelson is quoted as saying, “layout of the toyshop restricts children’s and parents’ choices and contributes to our society’s inequality”. I honestly don’t see how it can possibly restrict choices. I’ve spent many happy hours in Hamleys and I can confirm that all children and parents are welcome on all floors. It’s a very well managed shop actually. There are always demonstrators and other staff everywhere, and they are happy to direct you wherever you need to go. As for Nelson’s argument that this kind of thing contributes to, “society’s inequality”, that rather suggests that she thinks gender specific toys cause girls to get a bad deal somehow, but she doesn’t support the argument.

Of course, all toyshops stock items that are more likely to appeal to one one or other gender and they tend to group them together. There is an assumption that it’s a bad thing. People like Nelson argue that pink dolly things enforce the gender sterotype of maternal girls, while fire engines and guns encourage boys to be violent, but no causal link is ever demonstrated. Surely it’s just as likely that the status quo is a symptom of gender differences and not a a cause. What if tens of thousands of years of evolution has produced girls that like pink things for a reason? Trying to change things then becomes a problem.

This is all getting a bit intellectual now isn’t it, and I have no idea where I am heading with it. I think Nelson is an idiot, and there are more important things to worry about. Lets talk about nakedness…

Veena Malik, Pakistani actress, has appeared apparently nude on the cover of Indian FHM magazine. Exactly how nude she was during the photo session is in dispute. She claims that she was wearing a thong which was subsequently airbrushed out. The point is, she is plastered all over the magazine cover in a state of undress, displaying a tattoo seemingly depicting the initials of the Pakistani military spy agency (WTF?), and it has caused no end of controversy. Malik’s own father seems to have disowned her and she has reportedly revceived death threats. Odd isn’t it that in the 21st Century a woman posing naked can cause such outrage. It’s a very tame image (the Hindustani Times published it). I can’t really see how anyone can justify an objection to it. The moment you tell a woman she can’t do it, you oppress women don’t you?

Thanks very much to January Girl for this link. Sadly I am not psychic. If I was I would probably not have reversed into the garage door last night and smashed the rear window.