Does the “War on Pink” need to stop for boys’ sakes? No, and here’s why.

In a recent blog post on Girl w/Pen, professors CJ Pascoe and Tristan Bridges—sociologists whose work focuses on masculinity—make a strange request of their fellow feminist scholars and activists. “Stop the war on pink,” their headline pleads; “let’s take a look at toys for boys.”

Pascoe and Bridges claim that boys’ toys’ problems have been overlooked too long. Boy culture is too violent, too “gunnified.” Now, they say, we need “at least a pause” in critiquing girls’ toys and their “pinkification,” so that we can give boys’ toys our full attention.

As the mother of two little boys, I fully agree with their concerns about boys’ toys. Countless boys’ toys function to socialize our sons into stereotypical masculinity, and that is unfair. Boys deserve expanded play offerings every bit as much as our girls do—which is why I already support the Let Toys Be Toys campaign they mention. It’s why my gift-buying guide for children is gender-neutral. It’s why I’ve even read the book My Princess Boy to groups of preschool children: ALL toys, whether pink or blue, princess or superhero, should be socially acceptable for both girls and boys to play with. Full stop.

Unfortunately, Pascoe and Bridges’ ultimate assertion perplexes me. “Stop,” they say–“stop the war on pink.” This makes no sense.

Why? Why must we stop critiquing girl culture to address boy culture’s problems? After all, both problems coexist. Addressing them is not an either/or proposition. The dichotomy Pascoe and Bridges suggest—that we need to stop the war on pink to focus on boys’ toys—is as false as the dichotomy the toy industry presents to boys and girls. It’s not right.

Near their post’s conclusion, Pascoe and Bridges backpeddle a bit; rather than stopping our critiques of girl culture, they wonder if maybe we just “need to add to it a focus on the toys that we market to boys.” As an alternative to the “pause” they argued for, they suggest that girl-centric scholars and activists could just address both boys’ toys and girls’ toys simultaneously. You know—do all the work at once.

Well, I take issue with this assertion, too. Individual scholars and activists who work on girls’ issues have no obligation to “add to it a focus” on boys. It’s valid for girls’ toys and media to be the “project” that some of us choose to focus on. And that choice in no way detracts from the attention available to boys’ toys—a project that many activists and scholars are already engaged in (though Pascoe and Bridges’ post would lead readers to believe otherwise).

Dr. Jennifer Shewmaker, an associate professor of psychology at Abilene Christian University, agrees with this stance. “There are groups of scholars and activists who focus on different issues,” she explained, offering Crystal Smith and The Achilles Effect as an example. “Focusing on one does not negate the validity of the other.”

The thousands of people who support Let Toys Be Toys and similar initiatives are also well acquainted with how easily one can address stereotypes about boys’ and girls’ toys simultaneously.

In short, if Pascoe and Bridges feel there is not yet enough work on boys’ toys, it’s fair for them to call for further research and activism in that area. They can even seek out like-minded scholars and activists, and band together to make a positive impact on boys’ popular culture—just as my colleagues and I are working to do with our Brave Girls Alliance. After all, when you’re trying to sustain a cultural conversation, there’s strength in numbers.

But to suggest that the rest of us should “pause” in our work on girl culture while they work on boy culture—or shift our attention to boy culture ourselves—is preposterous.