The winter holidays always seem to highlight that the world tends to divide toys into “girls” and “boys” varieties. Most of us here, I think, would agree that  no one should be forced into particular types of play based on real or perceived gender.

Over at Skepchick, Natalie Reed has a great article on “Guyliner, Murses, Bromance and Femmephobia,” in which she argues that girls should not be forced into playing with pink, feminine toys—but also that we should not denigrate pink, feminine things entirely. She explains, “Denigration of that which is feminine is to denigrate that which is female-ish. The misogynist implications are fairly clear cut.”

She also notes problems with the marketing of certain products for men:

The “for girls” marketing seems to have as its goal making women find the product more appealing. The “for men” marketing . . . seem designed to somehow protect or insulate men from the girliness of whatever you’re selling. As though . . . touching it or using it will contaminate them with… I don’t know… cooties or something. Maybe turn them gay. Or trans. Gasp!

It’s a great read, so go check it out. (Thanks to The Mary Sue for the link.)

I’m also pleased by Reed’s note that Edmund Scientifics, purveyor of kits and gadgets to geeks everywhere, has stopped marketing its children’s science kits in “girls” and “boys” varieties, but will simply call them “Novelty Science Kits” from now on. You should go read their blog post about it, too—it’s a nice example of a company realizing that they were “projecting gender bias and defining gender roles,” and taking action to change that.