Comments on: Adults Making Things For and About Children

By: Kathleen March

Kathleen March — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 19:47:45 +0000

This is unacceptable gendering. Take these off the market.

By: Sabriel

Sabriel — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 07:24:56 +0000

The inclusion of the word “secrets” stands out to me, because it’s a word related to silence. Do girls have more secrets than boys? What aren’t girls supposed to talk about?

Perhaps it’s just supposed to evoke a sense of shared moments between parent and child (a child whispering something silly into her mother or father’s ear), but it’s a bit strange.

By: A quick hit… « random babble…

A quick hit… « random babble… — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:54:49 +0000

[...] The extreme sexism in the supplies and the gender stereotyping has always grated on me, such as w/ these stamp sets from Sassafrass Lass. It takes some creativity to choose products that don’t pander to this kind of crap. I [...]

By: Penny

Penny — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:58:09 +0000

The manufacturer package the stamps that way, but it doesn’t mean anyone HAS to use them according to the packaging. You can always buy your daughter brown corduroys in the boys department, and you can certainly use swirly fonts in your son’s scrapbook, if you want to.

You could…buy both sets of stamps, throw away the packaging, and mix them up…or cut them up, so the words are separate–one snip and you can make phrases like “mommy’s boy” or “like father like daughter”…or even rough up the fonts a bit–an xacto knife and some sandpaper can put a lot of dings and angles into a too-perfect curve.

I wouldn’t look at Target for interesting clothes, and I wouldn’t look at Joann’s for edgy craft supplies. But they do exist, and they’re usually sold smaller woman-run businesses; they’re worth seeking out.

By: There are other people who think about these things… « Grimsaburger

There are other people who think about these things… « Grimsaburger — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:21:31 +0000

[...] the accompanying complaint about/explication of said stamps. See here for more fun criticism of gender in media, and here for similar commentary on the [...]

By: oliviacw

oliviacw — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:20:42 +0000

On the girl one – that’s not “Laughter”, it’s “Daughter”. Upside down, the curlicue D does look like a fancy L, but if you rotate the image it’s very clearly a D. So, the correspondent term to “laugh” on the boy’s set is actually “giggles” on the girl’s set, which has very different implications.

That also means that the girl’s set has far more relationship terms (I count six – mommy’s girl, daddy’s girl, daughter, little blessing, friends, our little angel) than the boy’s set (only 3: like father like son, that’s my boy, best pal). Definitely stereotypical in assuming that girls and women are more relationship and family oriented than boys and men our.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:49:04 +0000

Thought maybe I could add a little art/design context, because there is a lot of interesting things going on in the typography(although I make no claims at being a typographic expert).

There are a ton of juxtapositions between the type in the two categories:

Girls types are composed of thin strokes, suggesting dainty-ness, while the boys are thick, giving a solid, strong feel.

Many of the girls types are made to look calligraphic, or handmade. Most of the boys types are very machine-made lookings, having a ‘stamped’ feel.

Girls type has a lot more serifs, always an added ‘decorative’ touch, where the boys types are san serifs, in no need for that flowery bullshit.

A lot of the boys types seem drawn from venacular type of 1950′s-60′s comic books and cartoons. Dennis the Menace, anyone?

Overall, the girls types are organic, curvilinear, where the boys are all about hard-edge geometry, more of the boys=reason and girls=i’m not really sure.