In My View: Pink or blue children's clothes - it shouldn't make a difference to cost
With a little girl who's not even two yet, I'm well aware that as she grows up and potentially develops a love for shopping it's going to cost my husband and I dearly.
However, the true cost has already been revealed as a new report suggests parents are regularly forking out more for clothes and toys aimed at girls than boys.
According to the study by ChannelMum.com, two thirds of parents have noticed a kids’ ‘gender pay gap’ with shops charging more for almost identical items depending on whether it is targeted at boys or girls.
Now maybe it’s just me, but does pink dye, paint or material really cost more than blue or green?
If it’s only the colour of an item that’s different, then surely it shouldn’t make much difference, if any, to the cost.
And who is it that’s decided that those things aimed at little girls should be the ones that are more expensive than those targeting the boys? There shouldn’t be a difference in prices at all for any items solely because of gender.
But all this comes back to something else that really gets my goat. Why do manufacturers insist on producing clothes and toys that are aimed at children by gender stereotyping?
Just because I have a daughter doesn’t mean that she has to always be dressed head to toe in pink.
Yet if you walk into a children’s department in a shop you find the clothes segmented with the girls’ section an array of pink and the boys’ bathed in blue.
It’s no wonder if we all go by gender stereotyping that my daughter is often referred to as a boy by strangers when we’re out and about simply because we’ve chosen to dress her in a colour other than pink or purple.