Me to my 2-year-old daughter:
– Are you a boy or a girl?
– I aren’t.


Our little girl is closing in on two-and-a-half, and she is making sense of the world at a ferocious rate. Everything she sees and hears is evidence, tracing complex patterns into a neural system of phenomenal density. It happens faster than conscious thought, which it seems to me isn’t learning but a kind of absorption or imprinting, like camera film reacting to light when the shutter opens.

Most days she chooses for herself what she wears, and she likes stripes and pictures of animals. When we go shopping, she runs her hand along the maroons and blacks of the boy section as easily as the pinks and pastels of the girls. Her toys switch pronoun from male to female frequently and without concern. She insists that a picture of Minnie Mouse is actually Mickey Mouse wearing Minnie’s shoes. She calls me Daddy The Man, a lot of the time. Her mum is Mummy the Lady.

She is absorbing gender, but she hasn’t compiled enough evidence yet for me to detect what she’s making of it. Soon that won’t be a problem. Gender coding is so overwhelmingly strong across our society that the patterns are impossible to miss. Soon she will have taken all of that information in, and she’ll be showing me with every word and decision what she has learned.


“She sat down and explained seriously to me that she was disappointed that there was only one girl character in Star Wars, that this seemed unfair to her, and that she didn’t care how cool Leia is, she thought it should be half each girl and boy characters.”

Rodger describes his daughter Ada’s reaction to Star Wars. I recommend you read the whole post, because while this is the eye-catching bit, it isn’t the important bit. The important bit comes right after, and is basically this: her reaction wasn’t accidental. Rodger and Maire put in a lot of effort to find media that presents men and women with something approaching equality; Maire shared her updated list of films back in October. This is the kind of thing you say, it seems, when your experience of culture has been weighed for balance.

And Ada’s right, though, isn’t she? Isn’t it obvious, put like that?


I don’t fret about it, actually. I don’t tut at my computer screen and wonder what kind of world my daughter will find. I don’t get a catch in my throat about the unpleasantries she is in for, and the injustice of it all.

I have faith in her. And by that I also mean, I have faith in the matrix of people of which she is part, the family and friends that have our back and wish us well, strong and smart women and men cracking the best jokes and living excellent lives. That network gives her power, and plenty of it. Of course she won’t be immune to the things that concern me here, but I’m not losing sleep over them either.


I keep returning to this subject, time and time again. It’s like I can see it more clearly now I have a child of my own. Something has become misshapen in our society. I want to see it brought into the light. We can’t repair it in the dark. Isn’t that obvious?


She gathers evidence.

Every Saturday morning she picks a DVD or two from the kid’s selection at the library. Thomas the Tank Engine, Spot, Pocoyo, Elmo, Postman Pat, Bob the Builder, Handy Manny, Meg & Mog, Fireman Sam, Fifi & the Flower Tots, Kipper the dog. Shows with a female lead character: two. Shows with a male lead character: nine. (Not counted: Yo Gabba Gabba which doesn’t really have a lead, but is still male dominated.)

She fills her arms with books, which have a better spread of male and female protagonists, but there’s still a gendered trend threading through the dozens of titles she reads each week.

She ventures into the toy aisles whenever she can, knowing these objects are for her, that this is a slice of the world devoted to her cohort and her interests and her delight. She runs her hands over everything, feeling the furry mane of a lion and pressing the button that makes the telephone ring, trying the digger and putting Spider-Man in the driver’s seat of the nearest helicopter.

And as she explores she’s silhouetted against walls of colour: bright primaries for trucks and superheroes, soft pinks for tea-sets and dolls with brushable hair. The packaging shows boys in navy tees in fierce competition, or girls in softly coloured dresses kneeling together and sharing admiring glances.

She doesn’t see how the division works, not yet, not consciously. But on some level she notices. The pattern sinks in. This is how it’s meant to look. This is how it always looks.


A campaign has recently launched in the UK: Let Toys Be Toys. “We’re asking retailers and manufacturers to sort toys by theme or function, rather than by gender, and let the children decide which toys they enjoy best.” Have a click through their briefing to get a sense of what they’re up to: Let Toys Be Toys briefing and survey results

Among other things, they’ve found some brutal evidence of the rise of pink:


They’re getting some wins, with major retailers agreeing to look at their signage. Everyone’s favourite scientist is in behind them, which has to help:

Here in NZ we seem to have escaped the signs marking “girls” and “boys”. (The Warehouse, which I’d guess is New Zealand’s biggest toy retailer, doesn’t have gendered signs, but it doesn’t have much signage at all, so…). Still, you don’t need the words “girls” and “boys” for the message to come through loud and clear. Most toy packaging is aligned firmly with gender, to the extent that even many toys popularly seen as gender-neutral come in boy flavour (bold colours and graphics) and girl flavour (pink).

Outside the physical environment you don’t need to look too far to find the kind of thing Let Toys Be Toys is arguing against. We get the same television advertisements as anywhere else, where even the audio is coded pink or blue. And popular retail chain Toyworld ships out a new catalogue nationwide every month or so, and it happily marks pages as “boys world” (blue background) and “girls world” (pink background). I have the April copy in my hands: boys get superheroes, remote control helicopters, nerf weapons, lightsabers and (incredibly) scooters. Girls get dolls, fashion toys, a dance game, and Barbie/Lego Friends building sets. The blue/pink background codes other pages as well: dolls and jewellery are pink, while blue is used for building toys (except for the Barbie or Lego Friends ones), Thomas the Tank Engine, toy cars and trucks, magic tricks, and – you guessed it – science experiments.

Dividing fun into pink and blue. If anyone’s looking for something to do in the next few months, getting on Toyworld’s case about this could be a good project, right?


Every time I’ve got caught up in this conversation about toys and gender, someone will say, but! Boys and girls are not the same. They play differently.

Yes. But.

Culture plays a role, we all know that. What many don’t know is that it hits kids young. No, younger than that. This researcher suggests it starts in the womb, where a pregnant woman might speak more strongly to their growing child if they are expecting a boy. Culture hits early and it hits hard, and it’s possible, then, that if we shift societal expectations enough, culture won’t push boys and girls in such different directions.

But even accepting the status quo, accepting that boys and girls play differently and that is just the way it is? There’s still a problem. Our culture constructs boydom and girldom as very distinct categories: sugar and spice HERE, snails and slugs THERE. But when you look at what kids actually do, the categories are much messier. There are play activities that boys prefer, and play activities girls prefer, but there is a lot of overlap. And that overlap is what’s missing in how we treat our kids and create gender through our cultural expression. Instead of doing this:


…we’re doing this:


And even that’s wrong, because when you look at the types of play coded blue, and the types of play coded pink, you see that it’s actually more like this:


Hey, here’s a specific example: Lego!


It doesn’t have to be this way. It never used to be. Lego was for everyone. This advertisement has become famous in retrospect, as a sign of how much things have changed:


As Anita Sarkeesian argues in this excellent Feminist Frequency video, Lego abandoned the cross-gender market for the apparently richer blue fields of boydom. Then, in an attempt to redress the imbalance it created, it has generated specific pink Lego for girldom. Lego Friends has been a success, and it really could be a lot worse, but it still feels like a pink ghetto in a city that used to be for everyone.

The circles get even more imbalanced in Feminist Frequency’s specialist subject, video games, which has disappeared so far down the rabbit hole of boydom that women and girls who game find themselves in a culture that actively suppresses and abuses them whenever they pop into view. Heck, even a lot of men feel unwelcome for being insufficiently dedicated to boydom-culture. The new FemFreq series on video game tropes and women is difficult, but perhaps necessary, viewing.

Yes, they play differently, boys and girls. But not nearly as much as the script demands. The script doesn’t just divide our children – it reduces them.


Girls tend to embrace girldom. This is not something that should surprise anyone. Girldom-culture ruthlessly polices status and conformity, much more so than boydom-culture. Girls can dabble in boydom-culture but they run significant risks for violating the script. Sometimes, thankfully, the world fights back, like when the world rallied behind a girl who was being bullied for liking Star Wars.

(The social costs for girls who dabble in boydom are probably less than the reverse. That’s a simple result of social power – the low power group (girls) can adopt signifiers of the high-power group (boys) more freely than the opposite. Indeed, there is an established social role of tomboy for girls who seize boydom culture, whereas boys who delve into girldom are straight-up deviants. But still, as Rodger cuttingly pointed out describing his reaction when Ada was called a tomboy, being a tomboy in turn closes you off to aspects of girldom – you’re not a Real Girl, are you? – and, basically, to hell with that.)

So girls exist within girldom, and are punished for violating it. There are obvious problems here around freedom of identity. But the stakes are higher than that, because girldom itself is toxic.

“Many studies have suggested that the culture delivers abundant messages about the objectification and sexualization of adult women and that this is the cultural milieu in which girls develop… the sexualization of girls is associated with many negative consequences.” Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualisation of Girls (2007), page 19.

The report details many negative consequences of sexualization and self-objectification: disruption of cognitive and physical performance; body dissatisfaction and appearance anxiety; eating disorders; low self-esteem; depression; dangerous addictive health behaviours; inability to develop a healthy sexuality; and a limited conception of the role of women.

The report lists the sources of sexualising influence, and it is staggering. TV, film, music videos and lyrics, advertising, magazines, dolls, the internet, and more, and more. One near-throwaway comment mentions research noting that Disney’s female characters project a sexier image now than in earlier times; timely, considering the recent uproar over Merida. She was the lead character in the Pixar movie Brave, and Disney decided to induct her into their bevy of Princesses, to be marketed to little girls with ruthless efficiency. Accompanying this announcement was a new look for Merida – a sexier look. Merida’s creator was furious, as were thousands upon thousands of people who signed petitions and raged online.

Disney backed down, reluctantly, and incompletely. They lied that they had always intended to honour Merida’s distinctive qualities; the existence of a doll like this is pretty damning evidence to the contrary. And for all that the victory over Disney was incomplete, it was still real. They had to change their plans. Merida didn’t fit the script, and she broke free of the first attempt to force her into it. She won. We won.

This post isn’t a lament. To hell with that.

This is a hit list.


The world is giving my child, and yours, a script. Here are your lines; here is your costume; here is where to stand. Our children learn this as easily as a nursery rhyme..

And in return for this narrowing of possibilities, this exclusion of alternatives, this veneration of one cultural pattern, what do we get? What is the grand reward? It is simply this: to make purchasing decisions require less effort.

(See also: hilariously overstated outrage by right-wing newspaper columnist, claiming that removal of gendered signage will just make parents give up on buying presents entirely.)

That is not a balanced trade. In fact, that is not a trade at all. To reduce the thinking needed when we shop? That is not a reward, that is a trap.

I want to think more. I want to think harder. I want to be vexed by the children in my life because they are human beings, with all the glorious messy frustrating complexity that implies. I want them to defy simple patterns, because doing so means embracing potential and possibility. I want them to make their own scripts out of patches and shreds. I want them comfortable in a world where “boy” and “girl” aren’t narrow paths; in fact, a world where other paths, transgender or asexual or whatever, are also simply part of the landscape. [1] I want them to surprise me. I want them to surprise themselves.


We can change it.

Wisdom can cut through. Another world is always possible, now more than any time in the recent past, because this system lost its shape through communication imbalance. Big companies driven by a profit marketed their ideas on a massive scale. Now, that old structure is breaking down. Big content is splintering into thousands of unfiltered voices. Digital distribution, social media, 3D printing, smartphones, and the half dozen tech advances hiding around the corner have opened space for new voices. The breakdown of girldom and boydom circulates through countless shifting online venues: teenage girls seize control of their own media, hacker parents recode video games and flip the genders of the hero characters, little girls genderswitch male superheroes and become viral celebrities, visions of media full of powerful women capture the imagination of millions and highlight the painful limitations of the present reality.

New scripts are being circulated like whispers in an exam room. Change is already happening, and you’ll hear it if you just listen hard enough. The challenge is for the message to spread faster than it can be tamped down.


Everything I write and think always comes back to this point: we are porous. Our identity is not secured in a protective casing, and influenced only by those designated sources that learn the secret password. Who we are and what we think and what we do is influenced, profoundly, by everything around us.

Saying we are products of our environment doesn’t go far enough. I’d say it this way: we are our environments. There is no clear line between me and not-me; outside elements drift and stray inside and set up shop there, indistinguishable from the rest.

So, then, it isn’t that we have a responsibility to our children to save them from conformity. It isn’t about responsibility at all. It’s about humility. I want us to allow a world of many paths, both welcoming to and hungry for a massive diversity of spirit. A world in which we allow dignity for all; a healthier world in which to be human.


I tend not to use my daughter’s name when writing about her online. She can build her own online identity, instead of being stuck with the one I create for her.

Her name is Willamina Therese Davie. Willa, you’re stuck with this one. When future-google puts this on your screen, use it as a measure of me, and the world you were born into. Look around yourself and see what has changed; see what still must be changed.

Hold us to account.


Daddy The Man


Many thanks for comments on a draft of this post from Maire, Gem Wilder, and my lovely Cal. Of course any screwups here are entirely my own.

Additional note added 7 June:
[1] It has been pointed out to me (thanks, iona!) that this line is a bit of a mess: “I want them comfortable in a world where “boy” and “girl” aren’t narrow paths; in fact, a world where other paths, transgender or asexual or whatever, are also simply part of the landscape.” Yep, it is a mess. Mea culpa. I don’t mean to imply that transgender is a gender identity like “boy” or “girl”, nor that asexual is a gender identity. What I’m going for is that I want a world where the whole range of human diversity in sexual expression and gender identity and sexual orientation and more is accepted and acceptable; the current construction of “boy” and “girl” tends to carry with it a narrow set of options on all those things. Anyway, this phrasing is (at best) a pretty confused way of putting that across. I regret the error.



  1. THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU. As a mother to a 2 1/2 year old daughter, I totally sympathise with your disgust. We have never forced a particular gender on our daughter, which has certainly confused many old ladies (“What do you mean she likes trains???”), which only then confuses me (“We live 250 meters from a train line you twit! What’s your point???”). I have to admit that while I am outraged at gender enforcement, I tend to let it wash over me and ignore it as much as I can, but your post makes me realise my daughter doesn’t have the luxury yet of consciously ignoring it.

    • Willa loves trains like crazy. So does her best friend, another 2.5 yo girl. We visit nearby train station frequently just to look.

      It took me a while to realise that trains are deemed boy-stuff, not all-kids-stuff. That confusion directly fed into this piece.

      Thanks for your thanks anyway 🙂

  2. Very nice Morgan – the idea of gender performativity (and the social construction of these performative roles) is something which often seems to get lost when people are discussing this sort of issue, but you pretty much nailed it on the head. Focusing on the visual rhetoric of pink/blue just underscores the really insidious ways in which some performances of gender get authorised as authentic, whilst others get the inauthentic label (the fact that we label something inauthentic is bad enough).

    Anyway – nice job!

  3. I hate the toys aisle in shops that burn your retina with pink when you just look down them. They may not have ‘boys toys’ and ‘girls toys’ signs but with the colours that the toys are packaged in it’s a sign none the less. It makes me cringe and to be honest less likely to buy the overtly girly pink things. And I guess these choices that I make will influence my girls somehow. I just want them to be kids and experience all aspects of ‘play’ without being pigeonholed into girls play and boys play. Am finding that kindy does influence things though…..

  4. Wow, great article. This sums up my thoughts entirely. People always say how naturally different boys and girls are, but how can we *know* how different they are, really? We raise them so differently and always have, it’s no surprise they turn out different.

    It would be so fascinating to know what differences would be found between them in a world where the whole concepts of sex and gender simply didn’t exist. If there was just one pronoun for people instead of he and she, all names were for everyone, all colours and clothes and hairstyles were for everyone. No stereotypes based on the possession of a penis or breasts, beyond being able to give birth/breast feed or not.

    THEN we would be able to observe if there are any innate differences between groups of people. My hypothesis is that there would be some, based on the differing dominant sex hormones. They would be quite minor and would overlap a lot due to the great malleability of the brain, but I do think there would be some small differences in the average personality types/behaviours/ability levels in certain areas. Dominant sex hormones exist on a spectrum though and can be changed if the individual prefers, so even those differences would not be static or binary in nature. Nor would they always match up with chromosomes and genitals in the way we currently expect, so today’s construct of sex and gender would be completely meaningless anyway.

    But we’ll never know for sure. Instead, we have loads of pseudo-scientists and the media drilling into us that men and women are completely different creatures – boys and girls are opposites and that’s that. All the better to sell the gendered products.

  5. Thanks Morgan, I think this is a really excellent piece, with some amazing points. I love the bit about lego Friends being a ‘a pink ghetto in a city that used to be for everyone’. And the Venn diagrams are brilliant!

  6. I do worry that even though boys have a greater range of toys pitched at them, most of the ones that encourage nurturing, caregiving and even self-care are labelled as girls’ toys, suggesting that those activities are also for girls. Obviously this can be countered by careful parenting and adult role-models, but it’s still disturbing.

    • Yeah, this is totally true. The venn diagram circle is bigger for boys, but it still excludes a whole bunch of stuff, and as you say it tends to be quite humane and generous stuff that we like to see in all people. It is disturbing, for sure.

  7. Katherine H says:

    Hi Morgue, great read. The Venn diagrams are perfect and sum everything up really. My four year old daughter will sometimes say things like “girls don’t drive” or “men are doctors, women are nurses”. She does know that girls (or in fact women) drive, and many doctors are women. So what is a good way to respond?

    • I wish I knew the best way to answer that stuff! I suppose it’s worth remembering that statements like that don’t necessarily have the weight of truth in them – just trying out ideas, or saying things that have been heard elsewhere without reflection, or something. I expect I’m gonna be flailing for good answers myself before too long. How are you answering these questions at the moment?

    • I’ve tended to answer these statements with a question… Do you think that’s real or just in the story? Does Mummy drive? What about our doctor? I think encouraging critical thought is the best way to defeat stereotypes.

  8. Craig Oxbrow says:

    A year or two ago inescapable UK supermarket chain Tesco briefly put up signs dividing its children’s magazines by gender, there was an outcry (which I first saw from offended female Doctor Who fans) and they were gone within two weeks, so far never to return. The pink and pastel mags are still arranged together, but you don’t have to cross a store-demarcated gender divide to pick up Doctor Who Adventures or The Beano.

  9. Sarah Barnett says:

    Lovely piece of work – even book stores aren’t immune. Tried to find a colouring book for my 2.5yo dinosaur-and-train-mad girl the other day, and they’re filled with activity books “for boy” and “for girls”. I didn’t look inside them, was too busy having The Rage.

  10. I completely agree with your sentiments and observations about toys. I get frustrated when I buy a “boy toy” for my daughter and are asked by helpful shop attendants whether I realize that its a boys toy. Clothes shopping for both genders is just as frustrating. Boys get blue, grey or black. Occasionally green. Girls – 50 shades of pink and sparkle, purple and occasionally red. With all the possible colours in the world why on why do shop keepers insist on promoting so few colours. I know the argument is that it sells – well it does but only because there is not alternatives!

  11. Awesome stuff. When I was a baby my parents brought me home from the hospital to a pretty pink room. I have detested the colour ever since 😉 How could someone assume I’m going to like pink just because I’m a girl? I’ll write my own script thanks 🙂

  12. May I recommend a great positive resource for girls
    brilliant stuff, especially books!

  13. Nice article, and put me on to a lot of things I hadn’t previously thought about (the Bechdel test, for one). Just came across this female lego set idea – seems apropos:

  14. Brilliant post, Morgan. Wow.

    And this line:

    This post isn’t a lament. To hell with that.
    This is a hit list.

    I’ve felt that feminism has stumbled backwards over the past few years, that women and girls are being increasingly squeezed back into more traditional places, cornered. I think it’s been exacerbated by the financial crisis. But lately something new is afoot … a backlash against the latest backlash – and it’s exciting!

    • Thanks Johanna! And I do agree that there’s some kind of new movement gathering steam. Certainly issues around including women on an equal footing and challenging sexualisation are hot topics in many communities (tech, web, science, comedy, games, writing, “geek culture”, etc) right now, more than any time I can remember. The conversations are fierce and sometimes vicious, which might indicate something major is going on. It’s a good opportunity. Let’s hope it embeds some big changes deep enough that they can’t be rolled back.

  15. I wonder how this all got started, though? When I was a little girl in the seventies, there was no “princess” culture. There a few girls who were very girly and dressy, and a few boys who were very sporty and boyish, but majority of us were just kids. I played with dolls and had a microscope, climbed trees, wore boy colors. By the time I had my own kids, things had gotten very strange: someone asked if my son was a girl because he was wearing red!

    Is this very powerful reinforcement of gender roles something our culture swerved toward naturally and marketers picked up on, or were we pushed in that direction? Why did we go along with it? I remember feeling sorry for little girls in frilly dresses and girly shoes because they had to sit inside and couldn’t run around outside!

    • I dunno where it came from, but I’m sure there are loads of explanations out there (some of which might even be true).

      I have a feeling – i.e. this is my guess – that at least part of the story of the pink/girly/princessification of girls was the Barbie brand, which was the huge brand for girl toys for decades (& still is). Barbie solidified its brand around pink in the early 80s and never looked back. Pink was already the “girl colour” but it became much more prominent after this.

      A second strand is the Disney Princess brand – which began in the mid-90s and only really took off around 2000 or so, but quickly became a huge driver of girl culture.

      I’d be really interested to read a well-researched account of what changes, probably little ones here and there, ended up pushing us all in this direction!

  16. Wow, that Telegraph link is really depressing.

  17. The Telegraph is an appalling paper much of the time.

  18. Ariel Chesler says:


    I am also the father of girls and have been thinking about these same issues. This is an excellent article, similar to something I wrote that will hopefully be posted soon. I’ll send it you.

    We are in a constant struggle against the grain here, but it is a necessary struggle and one that is helped if our children are surrounded by strong women and men who will teach them that they are individuals and that anything is possible!

    Thanks for writing this!

  19. Pingback: The Subtle Backlash: It’s My Kid In a Box — The Good Men Project

  20. Great post, Morgan! These are exactly the reasons why I started Jill and Jack Kids, and why I’m involved with Let Clothes Be Clothes – an ally of Let Toys Be Toys that’s fighting the good fight against gender stereotypes in kids’ clothing.

    Change may have to come from the ground up on this one, but by supporting the small businesses that are fighting back, we can get there! Muka Kids based in Wellington, NZ is one you might want to check out.

  21. Gillian edwards says:

    My baby is 30… what you are talking about is absolutely right on, I enjoyed your musings! …..and it is sad that it has got worse! Yes lego then was just lego and toys were in categories not colours and not recommended female or male….. my kids wore hand me downs, so wore what was available rather than a particular colour. But the big hoot is pink for girly girls! It is only the last 100 years it has been feminine!! It was always considered strong, a shade of red and presumably warlike? Whereas blue was the virgin Mary’s colour!!!…. I tried hard to avoid the gender stereotyping……and my kids have turned out pretty good and not too brain washed (well, I like to think so) BTW, Look up the pic of Franklin Roosevelt in a dress as a toddler…. might even have been in pink!! Cheers!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *