John McGuirk

The irrepressible RosemaryMacCabe has a post this morning where she takes issue with a HSE photo-op showing a group of children in garb that reflects the future careers they may take – a cook, a mother, a builder, and a doctor. The former two are depicted by little girls, the latter two by little boys. Rosemary’s complaint reminds me of the equality authority’s infamous 2007 report on gender stereotyping in toy advertising, which basically said that the way toys are marketed at children is a sinister plot to persuade women that they must adopt certain, (in the eyes of the authority, it appeared) lesser roles in life whilst boys were subconsciously encouraged to do the manly, outdoorsy, things.

The argument here can be summarised in a sentence: The images and ideas we take in in our early years determine how we see the world and our role in it, and as such, these adverts tell women that they are predestined to be homemakers, or cooks, or some such thing.

It may be – may be – the most facetious, nonsensical tripe I’ve ever heard. For one thing, advertising and corporate executives do not sit around a table and discuss how best to convince little boys that they should be cowboys, and little girls that they should be princesses. They actually sit around and discuss how to produce and market products that appeal to children. The advert is the means, not the end. Interestingly, most major corporations undertake extensive research into their markets, and tailor their ads to what their target market is likely to respond to. So, I guess all those barbie ads, or action man commercials, are better blamed on little children themselves. Yes, indeed. The little children are to blame.

Now, back to the photo Rosemary is livid about. Here it is:

Awful, isn’t it? Those poor children. Rosemary, of course, doesn’t look at the other person in the photograph – a successful, professional, woman (wearing, might it be said, clothing that not that long ago it would have been relatively rare to see a woman in). Also, I might ask my feminist friends – have you ever tried to get a little girl to dress up as a construction worker? Have fun with that. Oh, and when you’ve done that, try and convince a four year old boy to dress up as – I don’t know – a male nurse, or something. Those children look pretty happy to me.

You see, the logical end point of the feminist/equality agenda position here is that we frown on parents who dress their little girls in pink. And that we encourage little boys to push prams around. And that we get private sector corporations – who, you’ll remember, buy ad space to make profit, not make life choices for the next generation – to subsidise adverts which confuse young children and satisfy the insane prejudices of our chronically unhappy feminist elite.

Girls will be girls, and boys will be boys. How many girls who’ve gone on to be successful barristers, or doctors, or gardai, or politicians, played with a barbie doll, or her equivalent, in their youth? I’d wager lots. In the case of boys, my toys were tractors, and farm machines in general. And a few tanks. I am neither a farmer nor a soldier, and work in a profession – subjective statement ahead – more commonly associated with women.

If you want to blame your unhappiness with society on the desires of the majority of little children, go ahead. But the equality authority, in their report, fundamentally misunderstood the objectives of private enterprise (lefties in misunderstanding business shocker), and Rosemary, in her own piece, has rather revealingly missed the part of the photograph that contradicts her interpretation of the world around her.

There are many problems in the world. Children’s role-playing preferences come pretty far down the list.