It’s a book that almost every child of the ’80s and ’90s knows and loves – but Australians in 2023 noticed a few details they weren’t happy about.
You might ask about the auto race track, or the butterfly, or, if you’re very lucky, your dad might try their hand at the famous swimming pool or the duck with potato chips for its beak.
While the cakes in Weekly kids birthday cake book for women Undoubtedly iconic and the source of many good memories for countless Australians, looking at some of the recipes suggested today may raise a few eyebrows.
The book was first published in 1980 and sold more than half a million copies. Due to its popularity, the company decided to reprint it 30 years later, calling it the “old edition”.
The Women’s Weekly Children’s Birthday Cake Book is an Australian classic. Photo: Australian Women’s Weekly/Power Media
And although the cakes we know and love still grace the pages, there are those who can’t help but notice the stark divide in the options available to boys and girls.
The “Boys” section is filled with things like pirates, helicopters, trains, and trucks, while the “Girls” pages contain a few questionable household items, like a sewing machine, sewing basket, and stove.
While the reprint has hundreds of glowing five-star reviews, more than a few Australians can’t help but notice some ‘outdated’ stereotypes.
“The cake designs are too sexist for the modern eye – sports cars, rockets and tug boats for the boys and sewing machines, stoves and tea parties for the girls,” one review said.
“This cake book is very old. It’s also very sexist which was typical of that era,” another person pointed out.
The boy’s section included things like a helicopter. Photo: Supplied
While the girls had a sewing machine. Photo: Supplied
One wrote: “Old but goodie? Probably not. Very sexist and sexist. If you don’t want your child to grow up thinking there are cakes for girls and cakes for boys, don’t miss it.”
However, they added that the images were “fun” and that the cake designs were not overly polished so that they looked “completely achievable.”
Even members of a Facebook group dedicated to fans of the book pointed out the gender gap.
“Was anyone else amused when they looked at the book when they were a little older to discover that most of the ‘cakes for girls’ were household stereotypes like ovens, baskets and sewing machines?” one member asked.
Another revealed that her mother, when she was a child, didn’t make anything she thought was “sexist”, which she claimed “pretty much eliminated the girls’ half of cakes”.
If you were a boy, you could have had a rocket cake. Photo: Supplied
Girls can have a bun that looks like a fireplace. Photo: Supplied
The book’s author, Pamela Clark, seems to realize that not everyone is happy with the gender gap in the book.
Speaking to the ABC in 2018, she revealed that having a boys’ and girls’ section had caused a stir when the book was first published.
“We had a boys’ section and a girls’ section. Now we’re talking about 1980 here,” Ms. Clark said.
“The phone wouldn’t stop ringing in the test kitchen as people were saying: ‘How dare you segregate boys and girls?’ How sexy of you.”
“That was in the 1980s.”
The history of gender “appropriateness” for children is interesting to look back on, psychologist Carly Dauber told news.com.au.
She said: “Many people do not know that pink was historically considered a color for boys and not girls, but this changed decades ago and remains largely the same today.”
“Assessing what kind of toys were being marketed to young children and their parents that were trying to enforce very traditional gender roles is very difficult when you look at these images.”
Ms Dawber said the photographs in the cookbook show that the clearly defined roles for female children at the time were that of housewife.
“Boys, on the other hand, were expected to engage in all forms of hard work that included making noise, smashing things and behaving aggressively, without a baby doll in sight,” she said.
“After decades of research and mental health and wellbeing policy, we know that allowing children the freedom to explore the world in their own way is more enriching for their overall development.
“Not only that, but many parents now remember that they lost out on some fun toys that they weren’t supposed to play with, and they don’t want their children to now feel like they’ve lost out on all forms of play.”