Fact-finding mission!

On a recent fact-finding mission to Mothercare it became clear just how early one's baby becomes gendered.  That said, this fact-finding mission was undertaken with a tape measure in my pocket to give it a manly purpose, and it was called a fact-finding mission, so in terms of gender I'm no angel...

Which appears to be the point:  only girls can be angels, while boys are expected, from birth, to be monsters or monkeys.  Trying to shop for baby clothes that don't cover your unknowing child in prejudice really limits your choices.  Helicopters, robots and a range of motor vehicles can be found on blue backgrounds, while pink options mostly involve princesses, hearts and glitter.  Boys are all action, while girls look pretty, a distinction that Grayson Perry is so adept at playing with. 

Grayson Perry's fabric, possibly still available at Liberty

The toy section also provides much grist for this particular mill.  Flick through the Argos catalogue for more examples, and consider adverts for shaving products, the contrast between gender targeting made all the more stark by the products being essentially identical. 

I would feel uncomfortable if I was responsible for pigeonholing my child so early on.  I know that I can probably look forward to a Princess phase if it's a girl, and a football player phase if it's a boy. These things are almost inevitable, but Speaking as a Father, I would seek to minimise parental indoctrination as much as possible, although I'm still the one with the tape measure, and my wife has candles at bath time.

It's easier to challenge accepted role models with girls, as you can dress them in blue and buy them fire engines and hammers to play with.  Girls can be de-gendered.  How do you do that for boys?

I've posted about this before, and probably will again, but for the time being we're putting our stock in the Jungle Friends range.  Jungle explorers of either sex all wear khaki.

Pernicious little assumptions

Week 16 - 166 days left

I can't remember where I read it, but it was some kind of thing for new fathers.  It was probably one chapter of a much larger book written for women.  More on that some other time.  Anyway...

Roughly what it said:  once a baby is born, a man is capable of doing everything for it except actual breast-feeding.  The idea was that getting up in the night, dealing with nappies, feeding and getting the baby to sleep is just as much the father's role as it is the mother's.

Thankfully, the place where I read it was well-written enough not to perpetuate the ideologies which usually come with this sort of advice.  Examples from the NHS Pregnancy Book:

Now is the time to start sharing the housework, if you don't already do so. (p.49)

Beware of that comma in the middle, it marks the edge of a gaping chasm between the two halves of the sentence.  Imagine the difference in meaning without it.

Also from the same page:

carrying heavy shopping can put a lot of strain on her back, so try to do the shopping yourself or together.  (p.49)

These pernicious little assumptions get everywhere, and, Speaking as a Father, do not represent the reality for myself and many of my peers, with or without children.  My worry is that they do represent reality for many households.  My fear is that to have these issues acknowledged in order to address them during pregnancy will result in a return to previous inequalities once the mother is "not pregnant any more, so what's the problem?"

Tangential extra reading along the lines of gender inequality and outdated assumptions:  Lisa Jervis' excellent article, If Women Ruled the World, Nothing Would Be Different  Share and Enjoy.