Toys for Boys

I know someone whose SISTER thought that she was Percy the train. I know several little girls who are wild about Thomas. And the Thomas people know this– that’s why they actually have lots of trains with girls’ names. So WHY, WHY call them “toys for boys”? I mean, it doesn’t even make good economic sense, since it may make people less likely buy them for their girls. And then who’s gonna buy Rosie or the other girl trains? (Other than the “we don’t care about your gender stereotypes” market, which sadly isn’t huge.)

2 thoughts on “Toys for Boys

  1. Ah, but there’s a pink star within the sea of blue – so that should appeal to the girls!

  2. I’m not sure about that “economic sense” point. My brother is very sexist, and such talk about “toys for boys” does sway him in his buying a toy for his son. So labeling it this way appeals to some people. I’m not saying that’s a good thing.

    Jender, do from that whatever you want: first I wrote “toys for boys might sway him”. On further thinking I wrote “could”. Then it dawned on me that only “does” would really be accurate. My father very much agrees. My mother avoids such talk. My sister doesn’t care. I guess I’m the feminist black sheep in the family, even though I’m not even female ;-)

Comments are closed.