Children's stationery bearing sexist slogans is designed to humiliate and shouldn't be sold here, argues psychologist Rosemary Troy
It was a long time since something had shocked me so totally. One of those rare "clamped to the floor in frozen incredulity" moments. This was a response to a display of brightly-coloured stationery designed for children bearing slogans that stunned.
Imagine a statement of racism on the covers of these ring binders, pencil cases and purses, full blast in your face on the shelves. Imagine these items carry the message "stupid factory - where blacks are made"; "blacks are so stupid they can't even chew gum"; and "blacks wet their pants when no one is looking."
Any one of us would be in disbelief that such items would be manufactured and displayed, least of all in a leading national bookstore and stationery outlet.
Are such racist slogans on display? Thankfully not. We have progressed too far as a multi-cultural and - hopefully - civilised society to tolerate racism at this level. Think sexism instead: that was the nature of the display. The target? Young children.
Right there where your children buy their pencil cases - "Boys are so stupid"; "Stupid factory - where boys are made" - totally sexist statements dressed up as children's stationery and pretty purses.
A complaint to senior management at the company's head office elicited the response that the gentleman in question did not find them offensive. He should! He told me he had asked members of staff who are parents if they found the items offensive and they said "no".
Sexism is as pernicious in its effect on our society as any other discrimination, and yet it survives relatively unchallenged. Perhaps one reason for this is that sexism is a cultural norm and we are conditioned to accept it without question, if indeed we are even consciously aware of its presence. If we aspire to be a just, progressive and peaceful society, the fostering of practices of equality should be our greatest strength - equality between races, religions, social classes and gender.
The slogans mentioned above go way beyond gender incitement to hatred; although we could argue that, the messages are certainly an incitement to hurt and diminish. They are designed to humiliate and provide a forum for anti-boy jokes and put-downs.
A senior staff member in one store told me the main consumers of this material are adolescent and pre-adolescent girls, who probably buy them with their Confirmation money, mainly unaware of the unhealthy aspect of the product.
Certain defences can be anticipated: (1) "It's harmless fun", and (2) girls and women have been subjected to discrimination and harassment in most societies ever since Eve got framed for eating the apple, and it's no harm if the balance is tilted a bit every now and then.
Neither argument stands up. Firstly, any message that hurts and diminishes the individual is never funny, particularly when it is creating a negative stereotype. Secondly, outstanding battles unfought or unresolved between the sexes are for adults to resolve. It is wrong to ask children to do it for us.
Most important is that girls do not escape as targets of sexist and self-discriminating message on the offending display units. Right beside the "Boys are stupid" material is a section of pink stationery that would appeal to lots of little girls, in a sparkling, Barbie sort of way. The message there is a little more covert but it escapes few adults. The items carry a little picture of a bunny in the centre and the word "playboy" inscribed in bold block lettering. Get it? So little boys are stupid and little girls are sexualised.
We hear about the crisis of identity being experienced by young people these days. These messages tell young boys and girls what and who they are, and it is untrue and unhealthy.
We have progressive laws in this country prohibiting discrimination against the person on nine different grounds, including on grounds of gender. The law does not appear to include sanctions against offensive display. It is apparently left to "the good taste" of the proprietor. Good taste would appear not to be sufficient to protect children in this situation and it may be time to re-evaluate that.
The direct marketing of sexist material to children certainly needs to be evaluated. In the absence of legislation protecting children from such messages, the least we can hope is that parents and teachers negate these messages by explaining to children why they are unacceptable and inappropriate and by banning such products from the house and the classroom. Well, it's a start.
