5 ms·

My daughter is six. I never wanted her to be interested in things that were traditionally gendered - but she just is. I would buy neutral toys, but her eyes wou

My daughter is six. I never wanted her to be interested in things that were traditionally gendered - but she just is. I would buy neutral toys, but her eyes would light up when she saw the babies and pink princesses. So, is she wrong to like those things? We have done the minecraft hour of code together, (she likes minecraft too) but if there was an even more 'girly' version I an guarantee that she would be more engaged by it. Of course she is interested in coding because it's interesting, but if it takes some marketing to get her in the door, so what? Furthermore, I love to buy her books etc such as "Suzy shier engineer", but I wonder why all the books where girls are engineers or inventors or programmers they have to be wearing jumpsuits and glasses and rarely anything pink. I suspect it's because the books are sold based on the biases of the parents. I feel like my daughter gets the message that "You can be a pretty princess girl, or you can be a smart girl". So I say the opposite. Give my daughter some princess engineers in pink dresses please. She recently saw a barbie movie at a friends house (i know) and barbie was coding and it palpably raised her interest in the whole endeavor.

draw_down 9y ago
Nobody is attacking your daughter, stop it.
kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
I think both problems are instances of the same ridiculous thought process. So one side we push the pink obsession by default onto all girls (I can't begin to explain how much I hate the whole boy-blue girl-pink bullshit we do with babies even before they are born) On the other, we imagine that non-girly things (tech) are so because they do not signal traditional girly things (hence the jumpsuits and large glasses and all), so if only we made them a little more pink...! If your girl enjoys pink, awesome! Buy her pink stuff. The problem is not in girls liking pink, the problem is in us peddling irrelevant gendered nonsense onto our kids even before they are old enough to express a choice in that matter.
menacingly 9y ago
I agree with this, and hadn't thought of the clear problem in your last paragraph. I have 3 daughters. They all have at least a slight preference for stereotypical colors, but one will actively shun products she doesn't find frilly enough. Her interest in babies and glitter is borderline militant, and I am certain a lack of bright colors would disengage her. I can't believe articles like this are comfortable lumping "girls" in a single group with a consistent set of preferences.
waisbrot 9y ago
She's not wrong, but to say "she just is [interested in things that are traditionally gendered]" seems a little incurious. Princesses, pink ponies, and frilly dresses did not exist when modern humans came into being. So liking or disliking those things is almost entirely a matter of socialization and not some kind of biotruth. While you may have tried to socialize her away from "girly" stuff, peers are often a stronger influence than parents.
- menacingly 9y ago
  This is unnecessarily simplifying. Legos did not exist when we were monkeys, but social groups did. It's entirely possible that there is an individually-varying biological urge to attach to socially-informed norms, whatever they are at the time. This comes up a lot with attraction. No, testicles can't possibly be born with an image of Kate Upton imprinted on them, but they certainly can be born with a directive to find and be attracted to socially_valuable_person_of_era
- mantas 9y ago
  Princess-like societal figures existed since forever. Nice clothes too. So did blingy-but-useless impractical things like pink ponies.
- nullhypothewhat 9y ago
  let’s play a game - since you’re asserting a massively complicated social mechanism that instills these preferences, give us some evidence of its existence rather than just baldly assert it the way its taught in gender studies. elaborate it somehow. show us evidence that it works.
  - eacr49nhah 9y ago
    > give us some evidence of its existence rather than just baldly assert it the way its taught in gender studies. Wait, wait... what? So go out and do a bunch of scientific studies - but don't refer to any of the existing scientific studies because ... reasons. Yeah, that's a really useful way to have a discussion.
- 9y ago
watwut 9y ago
I used to be against "pinkification", I am not against it after having children. My kids knew what is "for girls" and "for boys" from around two and half - but I did not taught them that. They would actively ask in toys store what is for girls and what is for boys and then wanted only toys "for them". I lied a couple of times to test it and they stopped asking when they figured symbols. Also I have seen kids correct and sometimes mock each other about what is gender proper for who. They willing to have fun with "wrong toys" now, but I had to explain couple of times that it is ok. And also that they should not mock other kids for that. It does not matter what of it is biological and what not. What matters is that when you paint car or box to pink, it becomes "for girls" for many kids and adults. It makes it not shameful to play with it and it makes them think it is something with potential for them. I don't like pink, but it is symbol for "for girls" for many people. It is also pretty much any color that is not used used for pretty much anything smart. The association between pink and stupid is partly because that is how I remember it being used whole time while growing up. The distaste of pinkification is partly because coloring something to pink makes third parties assume it is stupid, but we dont want tech to look stupid. I get that too, but it would be better to break association then ban color.
heeen 9y ago
> Give my daughter some princess engineers in pink dresses please. like Princess Bubblegum? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKDghDZaS2M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKDghDZaS2M
vinceguidry 9y ago
> Give my daughter some princess engineers in pink dresses please. She recently saw a barbie movie at a friends house (i know) and barbie was coding and it palpably raised her interest in the whole endeavor. Precisely. Let kids get political when they're old enough to care about it. Until then can we just feed their imaginations and stop trying to shovel our insecurities onto them?
svat 9y ago
Have you looked at Danica McKellar's Math Doesn't Suck and other books (Kiss My Math, Hot X: Algebra Exposed, and Girls Get Curves: Geometry Takes Shape)? They are marketed towards girls (see book covers: https://mikeverta.com/cover-designs-danica-mckellars-math-doesnt-suck-series/ https://mikeverta.com/cover-designs-danica-mckellars-math-do...), and I like this comment about them and gender stereotypes: https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2007/08/20/math-doesnt-suck-and-the-chayes-mckellar-winn-theorem/#comment-9810 https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2007/08/20/math-doesnt-suck-a...
jagermo 9y ago
Same here. The short time it took for Elsa and Anna to break our non-gender toy approach is astounding.

draw_down 9y ago

Nobody is attacking your daughter, stop it.

kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago

I think both problems are instances of the same ridiculous thought process. So one side we push the pink obsession by default onto all girls (I can't begin to explain how much I hate the whole boy-blue girl-pink bullshit we do with babies even before they are born) On the other, we imagine that non-girly things (tech) are so because they do not signal traditional girly things (hence the jumpsuits and large glasses and all), so if only we made them a little more pink...! If your girl enjoys pink, awesome! Buy her pink stuff. The problem is not in girls liking pink, the problem is in us peddling irrelevant gendered nonsense onto our kids even before they are old enough to express a choice in that matter.

menacingly 9y ago

I agree with this, and hadn't thought of the clear problem in your last paragraph. I have 3 daughters. They all have at least a slight preference for stereotypical colors, but one will actively shun products she doesn't find frilly enough. Her interest in babies and glitter is borderline militant, and I am certain a lack of bright colors would disengage her. I can't believe articles like this are comfortable lumping "girls" in a single group with a consistent set of preferences.

waisbrot 9y ago

She's not wrong, but to say "she just is [interested in things that are traditionally gendered]" seems a little incurious. Princesses, pink ponies, and frilly dresses did not exist when modern humans came into being. So liking or disliking those things is almost entirely a matter of socialization and not some kind of biotruth. While you may have tried to socialize her away from "girly" stuff, peers are often a stronger influence than parents.

menacingly 9y ago
This is unnecessarily simplifying. Legos did not exist when we were monkeys, but social groups did. It's entirely possible that there is an individually-varying biological urge to attach to socially-informed norms, whatever they are at the time. This comes up a lot with attraction. No, testicles can't possibly be born with an image of Kate Upton imprinted on them, but they certainly can be born with a directive to find and be attracted to socially_valuable_person_of_era
mantas 9y ago
Princess-like societal figures existed since forever. Nice clothes too. So did blingy-but-useless impractical things like pink ponies.
nullhypothewhat 9y ago
let’s play a game - since you’re asserting a massively complicated social mechanism that instills these preferences, give us some evidence of its existence rather than just baldly assert it the way its taught in gender studies. elaborate it somehow. show us evidence that it works.
- eacr49nhah 9y ago
  > give us some evidence of its existence rather than just baldly assert it the way its taught in gender studies. Wait, wait... what? So go out and do a bunch of scientific studies - but don't refer to any of the existing scientific studies because ... reasons. Yeah, that's a really useful way to have a discussion.
9y ago

watwut 9y ago

I used to be against "pinkification", I am not against it after having children. My kids knew what is "for girls" and "for boys" from around two and half - but I did not taught them that. They would actively ask in toys store what is for girls and what is for boys and then wanted only toys "for them". I lied a couple of times to test it and they stopped asking when they figured symbols. Also I have seen kids correct and sometimes mock each other about what is gender proper for who. They willing to have fun with "wrong toys" now, but I had to explain couple of times that it is ok. And also that they should not mock other kids for that. It does not matter what of it is biological and what not. What matters is that when you paint car or box to pink, it becomes "for girls" for many kids and adults. It makes it not shameful to play with it and it makes them think it is something with potential for them. I don't like pink, but it is symbol for "for girls" for many people. It is also pretty much any color that is not used used for pretty much anything smart. The association between pink and stupid is partly because that is how I remember it being used whole time while growing up. The distaste of pinkification is partly because coloring something to pink makes third parties assume it is stupid, but we dont want tech to look stupid. I get that too, but it would be better to break association then ban color.

heeen 9y ago

> Give my daughter some princess engineers in pink dresses please. like Princess Bubblegum? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKDghDZaS2M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKDghDZaS2M

vinceguidry 9y ago

> Give my daughter some princess engineers in pink dresses please. She recently saw a barbie movie at a friends house (i know) and barbie was coding and it palpably raised her interest in the whole endeavor. Precisely. Let kids get political when they're old enough to care about it. Until then can we just feed their imaginations and stop trying to shovel our insecurities onto them?

svat 9y ago

Have you looked at Danica McKellar's Math Doesn't Suck and other books (Kiss My Math, Hot X: Algebra Exposed, and Girls Get Curves: Geometry Takes Shape)? They are marketed towards girls (see book covers: https://mikeverta.com/cover-designs-danica-mckellars-math-doesnt-suck-series/ https://mikeverta.com/cover-designs-danica-mckellars-math-do...), and I like this comment about them and gender stereotypes: https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2007/08/20/math-doesnt-suck-and-the-chayes-mckellar-winn-theorem/#comment-9810 https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2007/08/20/math-doesnt-suck-a...

jagermo 9y ago

Same here. The short time it took for Elsa and Anna to break our non-gender toy approach is astounding.