oh dear. another day, another fail from Boots. The Guardian is reporting that Boots has been selling toys classified into categories of “for boys” and “for girls” but that after vociferous customer feedback they have posted the following:
obviously the fact that they have reconsidered the issue is a plus point but how did this ever become a problem in the first place? I cannot believe that a shop such as Boots could have sanctioned such a classification process in the first place.
I’ve yet to address the issues of gender and feminism and raising a daughter here. I’ve started a fair few posts but never got so far as hitting publish. I’m sure it will come as no surprise to you thought that I hugely object to the so called ‘pinkification’ and gender classification of toys and books, particularly the idea that sex or gender should play any part in what interests my child.
I find myself constantly disappointed by retailers and the staff that they employ. It’s not just Boots (although I note that they continue to classify their website by boy/girl and sadly all of the toys on the front page of the ‘girls’ page are pink or purple). I am told that it’s due to a mixture of customer feedback/market research and a (misguided?) attempt to help customers better navigate their site or shop. that’s not how I shop (and I don’t plan to buy books from Usborne as I particularly object to the idea that “Indicating which books appeal to boys and which appeal to girls works as a marketing technique because gender is one of the first criteria that is considered by those who are buying a book as a gift“). I’ve lost track of the number of times that Pip has been assumed to be a boy simply because of my purchase choices, or when I have been asked “is it for a boy or girl” when I have asked whether a shop stocks balls, or pyjamas or other similar products. (my response of “does it matter” has been generally met with confusion). Heck, even the so called ‘unisex’ shoes that we plan to purchase for Pip at the weekend are listed on their website under ‘boys’ (although the same shoe in pink, red, brown and white also appear under ‘girl’, with the red and brown options also appearing under ‘boy’ along with our preferred navy choice – which makes me wonder why they need the boy/girl distinction at all).
how I shop for Pip is largely derived from my taste, with the added input of her interests, which are appearing almost daily since she turned about 11 months. when I buy her a book, I don’t start by thinking what should a girl like. I like to shop at independent book shops where the books are simply sorted by type or age. I then pick on basis of subject and illustrations and whether I think the book can stand repeat reading out loud. likewise, with clothes shopping, I don’t start off thinking ‘I have a girl to clothe’; I think what does she need. and then filter by taste. or, more usually, I browse independent shops and websites and Gap (ha) and pick things I like, mostly when they are on sale. toys wise it is more difficult. we try and introduce to her a broad range of toys, mostly practical such as bricks, lego, shape sorters and so on although she does have a doll, a tea set and a pram to push the doll in. she also has a ride on truck/car. I want to encourage all aspects of personality and nurturing the nurturing and caring aspect of a child’s personality is important. she also herself expressed an interest in a doll. her birthday present from us however, was a homemade tipi and a Puffin treasury of Children’s Classics.
anyway, that is all digression. posts for another time, with more thought. I remain saddened by Boots. Again. (both my post yesterday and their refusal to provide me with a loan pram whilst ours goes off to be mended, although in comparison, this is worse. far worse). I already refuse to shop at places which obviously segregate toys in an arbitrary fashion, but I thought Boots were better than that. Sadly, perhaps, another shop to add to my ‘thanks but no thanks’ list.