Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
A CAMPAIGN RUN by parents has set its sights on ensuring that children’s toys aren’t advertised specifically to girls or boys, saying that toys should just ‘be toys’.
The Let Toys be Toys campaign began in November of last year, one of the organisers, Kerry Brennan, told TheJournal.ie. They met on a parenting website while taking part in a discussion on the issue of gendered advertising targeting children.
Convincing retailers
“We decided to convince retailers to change how they advertise toys,” said Brennan. Despite not knowing each other in real life, around 10 of the parents from Ireland and the UK banded together to begin Let Toys Be Toys.
Brennan is the mother of a three-year-old girl who “loves anything to do with space, dinosaurs, and building things”, as well as fairy tales and castles.
“It became increasingly annoying to me,” said Brennan, that she would see space-orientated toys advertised as for ‘boys’, even though her daughter was playing with them.
It made me said and actually quite angry, that when she learned to read that she would see these big signs everywhere telling [her] they weren’t for her.
The group uses social media to spread its message, and initially targeted the stores Boots and Tesco. They used images to show people the pervasiveness of gendered-based advertising, which Brennan said has been the key to their success.
Pic: Let Toys Be Toys
Thanks to pressure from the group, Boots changed its signage so that science-themed toys are no longer marketed as ‘boys’ toys in its UK and Ireland stores.
The group has since contacted Marks & Spencers about their own brand range of toys, and a range of stores called The Entertainer.
Gender
The campaign is not just because girls lose out – little boys lose out too, said Brennan.
Little boys who see their own dads changing nappies and making dinner are then made feel ashamed if they want to go near a doll or a play kitchen.
She believes things have moved on for adults in terms of how products are marketed in stores, while in society men and women are encouraged to have an equal role in parenting and careers, but children are not getting this message through how toys are marketed at them.
She noted that women and girls are under-represented in science subjects and careers, “so it’s not too hard to draw the comparison”. “It certainly is part of what discourages girls from going down that path,” she said.
Brennan is also concerned at how the toys marketed towards girls are often image-focused or fashion-focused, and said people are concerned that their boys lose out on any kind of nurturing, domestic or craft-related play, as they are sent the message it is for girls.
She emphasised that the campaign is not about making judgements about the worthiness of different toys, or saying that parents should choose different toys for their children.
“It is not the place of retailers to make those decisions for their kids,” she clarified.
There is not anything wrong with girls who love pink, or boys who want rough and tumble. There is nothing wrong with the colour pink – it’s the narrowing of options for girls.
Pic: Let Toys Be Toys/Twitter
“It’s not saying baby dolls are less of a good toy than trucks. Children and parents will make their own decision about what is appropriate.”
The changes so far have been small but far-reaching. “Already I can take my daughter shopping in Boots in Cork, and not be worried that she sees something that puts her off her rocket ship. That is a real change,” said Brennan.
“We recognise the issue of limiting gendered messaging to children goes well beyond the toy aisle,” she added, but said that the group has a “very simple and very reasonable ask”.
We are not asking retailers to stock different toys.
Debenhams told the group that the gendered signs make it easier for customers to shop, but Brennan disputes that. She says that it doesn’t make it easier for parents to buy a toy kitchen for their son if the toy is under the girls’ games sign, for example.
She said that the group gets “a lot more support than criticism”, but that some critics – there is the odd criticism- usually falls under what’s “the big deal” about marketing toys towards boys or girls.
Let Toys be Toys say that this is something that affects their children and as parents that makes it a priority for them. They ask people to consider these stereotypes being applied to adults. “It might not be life or death but it is a quality of life issue,” said Brennan.
Low fat,low carb, low calorie????madness. …Eat in a balanced way….watching your portions….bingo. Dieting isn’t about food it’s about mental health…..Eat to support good mental outcome….eating in a balanced way gives wonderful physical and mental outcomes…..it’s as simple and as difficult as that.
Kathleen, you stand accused of over-punctuation. How do you plead?
Dot Guilty!
Ahhh sure I’m dotttty. …must be all the low fat…….
I looked at all these so called diets and low fat foods and what came out of it for me was eat what you want less and more often, so I did, and found over the day I consumed more food while eating what I liked and lost 3 1/2 stone in about a year and a half, and have maintained that weight lose, the only thing I done differently really was grill food instead of frying it, so did I go in a diet?? don’t feel like I went on a diet, just changed how I eat and when I eat, but didn’t have to change what I eat really,
Gimmick, most ow fat grub is full of crap, artificial sweetners, chemicals etc and it has only marginally less calories.
Calorie surplus = weight gain.
Calorie deficit = weight loss
/thread.
Alas it’s not as straight forward as that. Your body recognizes a reduced calorie intake as famine and its metabolism slows down, reducing calorie consumption. You get sluggish and tired but no weight loss :(
So if somebody eats 15% below maintenance level calories consistently, you dont think they will lose weight? They will by definition, thats what maintenence level means. What you seem to be suggesting is a calorie buffer zone of sorts, within which you will stay the same weight. Which is plausible.
The often quoted slow down in metabolism only happens in famine like conditions. If you wanted to slow your metabolism right now it would takes 72 hours of fasting before any drop in your metabolism occurs and then it’s only slightly. Oddly enough being overweight also reduces metabolism.
John I think your response illustrates a little negativity.The lees we eat the skinnier we will be….also we’ll be depressed tired sad and mentally low.
Combine the deficit with enough protein up preserve lean body mass, and you’ll reduce your body fat %. crash diets don’t improve body composition due to the deficit bl being too high and protein intake being too low.
Not true, lots of research that has been around for decades say otherwise.
Otherwise than what?
Absolute ring. unless your body defies the laws of thermodynamics, you obey this rule. Fact.
Eat less, exercise more
Eat less rubbish food….exercise in a balanced manner…..be kind and gentle to ourselves in our eating and exercising.
Eat less, exercise more is a myth. It’s not about the quantity of food you eat but the quality of food eaten. The more nutrient dense foods consumed lead to better health and weight loss. Eating veg, particularly green veg, lean proteins, citrus fruits and nuts and seeds in that order will give drastically better results than choosing to have one packet of crisps rather than two. Sugar and not fat is the enemy, practically all low fat foods have had the fat removed and replaced with sugar. When consumed they spike your insulin levels and cause cravings. Sugar also causes inflammation, which leads to many illnesses we see today. Eat as much nutrient dense food as you like, do high intensity exercise for shorter periods and the weight will come off.
I’m sorry the only proven way of loosing weight is calorie deficate. If you eat “enough” nutrient dense foods you will get fatter. You can lose weight and improve your blood pressure and other key health measures even on a “diet” of fast food: http://www.niashanks.com/teacher-lost-weight-eating-mcdonalds/
Don’t underestimate what your body is capable of. It is ruthless at extracting every nutrient from food, even crap food.
Yes I’m aware of the guy who lost weight eating purely Mc Donalds. This can be done and yes the body will extract every nutrient from that French fry of which there are so few. The impact of barely having enough nutrients will almost immediately show though. The guy who eats mc Donald’s will catch a cold or flu more quickly than than one who eats an abundance of nutrient dense food as he’ll lack vitamin c. If you choose to eat nutrient dense food but only eat nuts and seeds, then yes, you will likely gain weight, that’s why I stated above that you need to choose foods in order of veg, lean protein, citrus fruits and then nuts and seeds. When making a meal, the first decision should be, what veg am I having, then what meat, and what healthy fat (coconut oil etc) will I use to cook with. If after, you’re still hungry, then have a piece of fruit. If you must snack in between meals have some nuts. The simplicity of it really works.
If you’re talking about weight, allthay matters is calories. If you are talking about health, calories AND quality of nutrition. Its really not that complicated guys.
Just fat people making excuses. If you just say, I cant lose weight because I’m not diciplines enough thats fine. Nobody is saying its easy. But it sure is simple.
Your diet would work and I have previously lost 2 stone from a similar programme. Although your diet is simple it’s also very anti-social, do you have a slice of cake when it’s a work colleagues birthday? Do you have dessert when you eat out? How about having a few beers with your mates? The lack of carbs creates cravings and I don’t think it’s sustainable for more than a year. The guy who did the “McDonald’s diet” had a salad every day so he was eating some nutrient dense foods. The main point of his diet is that he made the right choices even though he had poor options (McDonalds food only). I think a diet that can fit into everyday modern life is the simplest option and one most likely to work. Personally I fast for 16 hours twice a week. It means I can still have a slice of birthday cake, stop and grab a burger if I’m on the road and enjoy a bottle of wine with my wife or a few beers with my mates on the weekend. I can do all this and still keep my body-fat at 10% (previous being 25%). I do eat plenty if veg and exercise regularly.
That’s great that you’ve found intermittent fasting works for you. Many people find it gives them brilliant results. My point is all things being equal, it’s best to choose high quality nutrient dense food over fast food, but if I could only choose mc Donald’s I’d choose the salad option too. Now, is it possible to eat exactly as I suggested 7 days a week? no, modern society doesn’t allow it. Once a week, I’ll have wine, eat out at a restaurant. As for a colleagues birthday, if you work in a big company these can be nearly daily events. Many people would rather not eat cake everyday but it’s a social norm now. As an obese society we should be okay with someone not wanting to have a piece of cake. We’re fine with an ex smoker refusing a cigarette, but if the cake is refused, you’re a health freak – sure don’t you only live once.
Eat less and drink more
Low-fat foods are abominable!
When I come to power, all foods that have the words “low-fat”, “sugar-free”, “light”, “reduced”, “zero” or “skimmed” in their names will be banned.
I will also reintroduce proper greasy, fatty crisps. Laden with salt and MSG.
Who’s with me?
Could you please bann the use of the world “natural” in advertising too. Everything is natural if it exists. Except of course yer wan 200 years ago who got preggers without gettin the ride, the hoor.
Duly noted M. It’s official. We’ll found the People for Unhealthy Food and Correct Terminology Party. I’m assigning you as chairman. We just need a military wing now to overthrow the government and crush all opposition.
I agree if we also ban artificial, fairness (in politics) and democratic. Fairness is the most abused word in the English language.
Qwerty, you’ve got my vote.
Was in a hotel in UK recently… No ordinary milk… Just umpteen low fat varieties.
You had me at military wings, but chicken wings would be better. Call it the Organised Belly Enlargement Society Eire and I’m in.
200 years ago? Around 1815 then? Who was it?
Well I wasn’t there was I! But ah no, Philimena I think her name was, absolute weapon of a young one.
I’m with you. Hurrah!!
I found a great way to burn of the fat, I just up the heat on the aul frying pan a notch.
I know a woman who only ate rashers and lost 10 stone in a day
Are you sure it wasn’t £10
now that I think of it yeah , that sounds right
Cancer will do that alright
I’m on a low fat diet the last 4 weeks.Leavin aside the murders…..
The boy be doing good like.
If it’s packaged, it’s generally bad.
Fresh veg, fruit and a variety of meat and fish.
Whole meal or whole grain bread less butter.
Cereal , porridge or wheetabix.
Drop salt and sugars.
No science. Lifestyle changes. Exercise a little..
Include dairy in small portions, cheese, milk.
Eggs for all..
This report contains old knowledge. Not all fats are bad. Indeed fat is an essential component of our diet. The low fat recommendation is yet another indication of poor science. The real problem is that when you remove fat manufacturers replace it with salt and/or sugar The body does not treat all calories the same. It depends on the source of those calories and a host of other processes within the body. The western diet contains too many simple carbs combined with too much protein which is a recipe for disaster. The second problem is that we are too sedentary and overeat given that we do not exercise sufficiently to burn off what we eat. The low far recommendation has led to an epidemic of obesity. Fat is sweet and our bodies crave this sweetness. Take out the fat and we replace it with sugar to mimic what our bodies need or we overeat or eat the “wrong” foods in an attempt to satisfy a craving for sweetness. Our diet is skewed as are our lifestyles. Attempting to remedy these factors using fat as the “badie” is simply stupid and very poor science. It is reductionism at its worst. We need to view humans more holistically is we are to solve the crisis of obesity and ill health such as rampant diabetes.
Any chance of a link to the actual article so we can read for ourselves?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
I’m crying into my muesli here for f**k sake!
Back to bacon for me.
There’s never been a better time in this country to eat well! Ingredients and foodstuffs that were once elusive and unavailable are easily accessible now and there’s greater choice of ‘healthy’ restaurants to choose from. The recession also gave the opportunity for some to develop some fantastic food.
I keenly ate high carb, low fat for many years and only after becoming very ill I reversed the process.
I have to take steroids daily, and I soon discovered that my love of fruit and juicing had to stop as in combination with steroids I was gaining weight and I was so uncomfortable about it.
I now follow a diet high in good fats and protein and have reduced my carbs way down, to no more than 30g a day and it works very well for me.
Same here ! Great way to eat isn’t it ? Never get overly hungry and good steady energy I find.
The journal reported on another problem with low fat diets in 2013
http://www.thejournal.ie/low-fat-high-calorie-foods-safefood-913126-May2013/
Gluttony is the number one cause of obesity.
Get into the gym, lift weights, walk, run, swim ,play, eat balanced meals, more veg, and guess what not only will you feel better you will also look better. Forget the sham diets of shakes and low fat. That’s just a diet of high sugar and little nutrients.
I use lots of butter, then half an hour later I’ve definitely lost weight
Journalie states ” Low-fat diets…led to slightly less weight loss compared with low-carbohydrate diets, ”
The Lancet states “low-carbohydrate interventions led to significantly greater weight loss than did low-fat interventions” “Significantly greater” interpreted as “Slightly less” . ???
That’s why it’s not a great idea for unqualified people to take stuff from the medical journals and spread it around to the general public! Why give the impression that there is no difference between low fat and full fat?
Is anyone arguing that a low fat diet is not better than a full fat one? The findings may show that low fat and full fat on their own may make no difference in weight loss BUT what we don’t know is if the calories were cut to compensate for the full fat diet AND low fat is better for your HEART!
Read how the experts interpret the study in the irish times for instance
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/fat-fight-researchers-disagree-over-study-into-low-fat-diets-1.2411293
D’oh! Found it
Its true that all calories are not created equally. Eating low fat generally results in eating higher amounts of sugar and carbs. This can lead to energy highs and lows ie sugar crashes. Eating low fat also has a very negative effect on your moods as your brain needs healthy fats to work properly. I’ve been eating low carb and high healthy fat for over two years. I lost weight effortlessly and all my blood test health markers improved significantly. A highly recommended way to eat I think.
you post this like it’s informative, this has been known for decades. Calories in vs calories out, simple.
a new study.. what a joke. anyone that knows anything about nutrition(which sadly isn’t many people :/) knows this.. I laugh every time I see a woman buying low-fat milk.. How about read the back, see the sugar content of that against full fat mat.. Full fat milk is much better for you.. Excess fat is not bad at all.. New study, god I sill laugh at that statement
Ger Comings.:-)
All this study found was that diets are more effective at losing weight than not being on a diet.
Hate to say, I’m underweight, no, no, no!
have your say