You are on page 1of 16

3

Origin of Gender Inequality in Toys


To begin, I would like to offer my definition of gendered toys. I would define this term
as toys that are aimed specifically at one gender or the other and that embrace traditional gender
narratives. Often, these narratives are problematic and undermine the process that has been
made toward gender equality.
Though gender has always been an integral aspect of toys, gendered toys similar to
modern toys date back to post World War II times.
The two pictures inserted to the right are toy
advertisements from the early 1950s: toy soldiers
for boys and play vacuum cleaners for girls. This
toy dichotomy may seem relatively harmless, but it
perpetuates the narrative of men going to war to fight
for their country while women are home taking care
of the household.
According to a study conducted by The New
York Times, in 1975, very few toys were explicitly
marketed according to gender, and nearly 70 percent
showed no markings of gender whatsoever. In the
1970s, toy ads often defied gender stereotypes by
showing girls building and playing airplane captain,
and boys cooking in the kitchen (Sweet). This can
be seen in the image to the left from a 1970 Sears
catalog, which shows a girl playing with carpenter toys and a boy in a play kitchen. This

4
example is empowering because both genders are pictured in nontraditional roles. Since the girl
is at a carpenter stand, it suggests that she is performing handiwork. The boy is in the kitchen,
indicating that he is home performing domestic duties.
But after the progress of toy advertisements in the 1970s, marketing reverted back to
gendered toys starting in 1997, arguably more sexist than
ever before. The picture to the left is from the 1995 Sears
toy catalog, yet it is markedly different than a comparable
toy advertisement from the same catalog 25 years earlier.
The gender stereotyping is profound in this ad, with a pink
dollhouse for the girl and castle fortress for the boy. This
advertisement supports the traditional gender narrative of
mens protective role and womens homemaking role.
Heavily gendered toys persist even in modern day, a comeback story that is generally not
welcomed.
In the introduction to her book, The Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir discussed the
origins of the othering of women. She asks, How did this all begin? It is easy to see that the
duality of the sexes, like any duality, gives rise to conflict. And doubtless the winner will assume
the status of absolute. But why should man have won from the start? (Nicholson 17). As the
origins of gendered toys display, boy toys offer clear advantage over girl toys (ruling and
protecting (ruling and protecting taking care of babies).
Beauvoir argues that women aspire to full membership in the human race (Nicholson
18). But how can that happen when from such a young age, girls are taught to adhere to gender
narratives?

5
Specific Case: Bratz Dolls
Throughout history, dolls have been one of the most common toys for girls. They allow
girls to practice childcare and homemaking. But modern dolls are becoming increasingly
sexualized and therefore problematic. I would specifically like to address Bratz dolls. These
dolls, pictured below, come with big lips and eyes, slender waists, and overly exaggerated,
detachable feet.

In a section of the book The Sexualization of Girls and Girlhood, editor Tomi-Ann
Roberts begrudgingly shares a story about her 7-year-old daughter. She describes the two of
them on the street in Berlin, Germany when they came across a group of prostitutes openly
soliciting themselves. She says, More shocking to me than their presence on the street was my
daughters careful scrutiny of and obvious enchantment with these women, who wore miniskirts,
thigh-high vinyl boots, bleached-blonde hair, and over-the-top makeup (Zubriggen and Roberts
22). Her daughter went on to remark that the girls looked just like Bratz dolls (Zubriggen and
Roberts 22).
Roberts explains that there are two general classes of theories to explain how media and
cultural messages about sexualization, as well as interpersonal sexualized treatment, get
translated and incorporated into the self, and, in turn, influence the physical and mental health of

6
girls and women: psychological and sociocultural (Zubriggen and Roberts 23). One major
psychological theory to explain the spread of sexualization is social learning theory.
Social learning theory argues that girls understanding of appropriate femininity is not
natural or innate but is acquired through a developmental process whereby girls draw
information from the adults and peers, real and fictional around them (Zubriggen and Roberts
23). Following this logic, little girls are not born with intrinsic ideas about proper femininity.
Rather, socialization, along with inappropriate toys like Bratz dolls, offer girls misconstrued
feminine ideals.
Another sexualization theory Roberts addresses is the sociocultural theory of the lookingglass self. This theory is split into three main parts: imagining how we appear to others,
imagining how others judge that appearance, and self-judgment based on the judgment of others.
Based on these three components, girls will likely equate their value to what others think of their
physical appearance. This can be detrimental to young girls self-worth. According to Roberts,
We are motivated to [look outside ourselves] because we believe the images portrayed by others
are desirable, obtainable, and realistic (Zubriggen and Roberts 26). Does this mean that young
girls believe that they can have body types similar to Bratz dolls? The standard of beauty in this
case is unobtainablelarge heads, slender waists, and detachable feet are not the norm. With an
unreachable and skewed beauty standard, young girls are often left feeling inferior.
While dolls like Bratz are marketed to young girls, young boys often play with toys like
cars, blocks, and sports equipment. Such toys are not immune to problematic narrativesoften
including aggression and violent behavior; however, while boys are encouraged to be rough and
tough, girls are urged to focus on domestic duties and appearances.

7
In a section of her book The Feminine Mystique, Betty friedan discusses the differences
in how boys and girls are raised. She says, The differences in the upbringing of the sexes are
obviously related to their respective roles in adult life. The future homemaker trains for her role
within the home, but the boy prepares for his by being given more independence outside the
home, by taking a paper route or a summer job. A provider will profit by independence,
dominance (Friedan 147).
Friedan continues, The risk of the traditional upbringing of girls, as this sociologist
sees it, is its possible failure to develop in the girl the independence, inner resources, and that
degree of self-assertion which life will demand of herin her role as wife (Friedan 147).
There is certainly risk and often damage done when the children are raised within a rigid gender
binary.

Damage Done
The damage of girl toys reaches far past the realm of femininity. In fact, stereotyped
toys for girls negatively affected boys development as wellthats right, the assignment of
gendered toys adversely impacts both genders. According to a study conducted by the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, strongly stereotyped toys appear to be less than desirable
on many fronts. We found that to be the case for both strongly masculine and strongly feminine
toys. In the contemporary world, childrens development is probably best served by exposure to
moderately stereotyped toys (especially moderately masculine toys, but to some extent
moderately feminine toys also) and gender-neutral toys rather than to strongly genderstereotyped toys (Owen Blakemore and Centers).

8
Another study from Washington and Lee University suggests that, Play with masculine
toys is associated with large motor development an spatial skills and play with feminine toys is
associated with fine motor development, language development, and social skills (Robb). Both
types of toys offer practice with different skill sets. With these studies in mind, it becomes clear
that both boys and girls are devoid of developing crucial skills when they only play with toys
deemed appropriate for their gender.
So while these toys communicate how one should view their gender (dainty or tough), it
also suggests how to view the opposite gender. If boys see girls playing with nothing but dolls
and play kitchens, they will begin to associate girls with domesticity. And if girls see boys
constantly playing with action figures and toy weapons, they will link boys with aggression.
Neither association is accurate or beneficial for either gender.
Ignoring the results of accredited studies about gendered toys proves to be repeatedly
detrimental as children grow up. The stereotypes we see in toy marketing connect with the
inequalities we see in adult life. By late primary age, research shows that children already
have very clear ideas about the jobs that are suitable for boys and girls; ideas that are very hard
to shake later on (Shaw).
These problematic narratives of traditional gender roles are conveyed to children even
today, through something as seemingly harmless as toys. But there is a dire need for a solution.
Childhood is the most vital time in a persons developmentsexist toys cannot persist. When
such toys consistently reinforce the need for girls to be pretty and domestic and boys to be
aggressive and tough, harmful consequences are inevitable. But how exactly do we go about
solving the problem of gendered toys today?

9
Where to Begin
With such a large problem as gendered toys, where should we begin? In my mind, there
are only two true options of where modifications could begin: toy companies or parents.
If the change begins at toy companies, I do not think that said change would be as
effective as if it began with parents. Without proper education about the problem of gendered
toys, I think that parents and children alike would became outraged when they no longer had
access to the toys they know and love. This is why I choose parental education as the place to
begin.

Parent and
Teacher
Education

Child
Education

Problematic
Toy
Boycott

NO MORE GENDERED TOYS!

10

Step 1: Parent and Teacher Education


Judith Elaine Blakemore, a psychology professor at Indiana University-Purdue University
in Fort Worth, Indiana advises parents and teachers that, If you want to develop childrens
physical, cognitive, academic, musical, and artistic skills, toys that are not strongly gender-typed
are more likely to do this (What the Research Says). Parents and educators alike must receive
education about the dangers of heavily gendered toys. The education of the two groups must be
consistent so that both can educate children in the same way. Though their explanations should
be the same their methodology should differ.
When parents are in a toy store with a child or engaging in playtime at home, they should
encourage their children to ask questions. If the child labels something as a boy or girl toy,
parents should explain that the toy is not specific to one gender or another. Parents should also
encourage children to play with a variety of toys and expand their horizons.
According to a study conducted at Wake Forest University, children practice culturallyprescribed adult roles and behaviors through their play, and thus, their play with different types
of toys may five rise to different types of adult behavior (Sutfin, Fulcher, Bowels, and
Patterson). Parents must foster an environment for their children where they are comfortable
exploring different types of toys away from rigid gender roles.

11
Educators must maintain such an environment as well. During school playtime, teachers
should allow children to play with any and all toys. If the teacher notices a girl playing with
solely girl toys or vice versa, they should encourage the student to play with a different type of
toyone that the child would typically not play with. The educator must also report any
resistance to toys for the opposite gender or gender-neutral toys to the students parents to
support consistency of information given to the child.
Step 2: Child Education
When it comes to childrens education about gendered toys, the children should make the
ultimate choice about toysthey are the ones playing with them, after all. According to childplay researcher and psychologist Peter Gray, theres almost nothing more important than
declaring yourself (Johnson). Proper education about gendered toys to children does not
necessarily mean that one should give, for example, exclusively dolls to a boy. Children should
be able to choose to play with what interests them without fear of repercussion by society.
A good example of child education about modern toys comes from Maureen Shaw, writer
for Quartz Magazine. She says, Drop by our house at any given time and youre likely to find
[her daughter] playing with trucks while dressed as Queen Elsa. And when our son is old enough
to engage in parallel, associative and cooperative play, I will similarly support him no matter
what toys catch his fancy. After all, play should encourage, not thwart, development. Nor
should it ever be used to shame a child who wants to pursue non-binary interests (Shaw).
In my mind, the ultimate goal when it comes to childrens education about toys, as
outlined by Shaw, is to make play a non-issue. Children should never feel ashamed for not
fitting neatly into the gender binary, nor should toys encourage children to pursue outdated

12
gender narratives. Rather, children should be encouraged to explore different interests while
they are young and their minds are developing.

Step 3: Problematic Toy Boycott


Lastly, parents must boycott problematic toys like Bratz dolls. I think that gendered toys
like baby dolls can be effective in environments where both boys and girls are encouraged to
play with them. Bratz dolls, however, are problematic however you slice or dice them.
Artist Sonia Singh started Tree Change Dolls (Bratz dolls without makeup) to make a
statement against the hypersexualization of little girls everywhere (Parker). While these dolls
prove slightly better than normal Bratz dolls, their bodies are still the samehypersexual with
exaggerated features.
So, parents should boycott such toys as Bratz dolls. They should exercise the power of
the pursefreedom to spend or withhold money as they wish. No one forces parents to buy
problematic toys for their children, and if no one buys them anymore, toy manufacturers will be
forced to switch their products to better serve the public.

13
And there are already better alternative toys out there. Take GoldieBlox for example.
They produce toys that encourage girls to
pursue careers in math and sciencerelated fields. On their website, they
state, Our goal is to get girls building.
Were here to help level the playing field
in every sense of the phrase. By tapping
into girls strong verbal skills, our story
and construction set bolsters confidence
in spatial skills while giving young inventors the tools they need to build and create amazing
things (About GoldieBlox). This type of toy is certainly empowering for little girls. It allows
them to work in fields previously overtaken by men and to exercise their minds.

One More Possible Step


One other possible in this process, I believe, would be the removal of boy and girl
aisles in toy stores. However, I did not include this in my process because judging from Targets
attempt to remove toy sections, this may not be a vital step after all.
In August 2015, Target announced that it would remove its boy and girl sections after
someone tweeted this picture to them with the caption, Dont do this (Dorstewitz).

14

But once Target removed the toy sections, there were still two major problems. One
problem was the backlash from the public. They argued that without some sort of labeling, it
became a lot harder to find what they need. Secondly, the aisles are still blue or pink. So while
the aisles may not be labeled by gender, they still have the remnants of a gendered past.
If a store is going to remove gendered toy aisles, they must do so completelyno labels
or pink/blue aisles. Toys should be grouped by type for organizational purposes, but they should
not be gendered. Target could have been a good model of gender neutrality had they also
removed traditional gender colors from the toy sections as well and simply grouped the toys
based on their purpose.
The Pitch
Overall, gender-neutral toys and playing with opposite gender toys makes logical sense
for children. Playtime may seem unimportant, but it has such benefits as helping children
develop self-guided interests, problem-solving skills, and emotional control (Entin). Children
spend a signifcant amount of their young lives playingwhy not make the most of it?

15
The good done by playing with gender-neutral toys cannot be ignored. Playing with a
variety of toys allows children to gain essential skills that they would be devoid of if they only
played with toys deemed appropriate for their gender. The coexistence of boys and girls in play
also allows the genders to respect others as equals and challenges stereotypes about the opposite
gender.
Little girls in particular need to be empowered. As a society, we need to teach girls that
they are more than a homemaker or a pretty face. Girls are our next generation of scientists,
doctors, lawyers; they should be treated as such.
If a girl wants to play with a princess doll, that is great. If she wants to play with a toy
car, that is great as well. The bottom line is, children need to be able to choose to play with what
interests them. Parents should also encourage children to push their boundaries and try
something new. Childhood is a time for experimentation.
In short, let toys be toys. Kids should not have outdated gender anrratives forced down
their throats through heavily gendered toys. Rather, we should take the steps to educate parents,
teachers, and children and boycott problematic toys. If these steps are taken effectively, children
can freely explore their interests, broaden their horizons, and ultimately become more openminded adults, free from the pressure of the gender binary.

Bibliography
About GoldieBlox, Meet Debbie Sterling GoldieBlox Founder. GoldieBlox. 2015. Web. 16
Dec. 2015.
Bologna, Caroline. Little Girl Shuts Dow The Idea That Superheroes Are Just For Boys With

16
One Angry Glare. The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 25 Nov. 2014. Web. 1
Dec. 2015.
Category Archives: Toys For Boys. Hot Chrristmas 2015 Find The Hottest Xmas Toys of The
Year. 24 Nov. 2015. Web. 7 Dec. 2015.
Category Archives: Toys For Girls. Hot Christmas Toys 2015 Find The Hottest Xmas Toys of
The Year. 15 Nov. 2015. Web. 7 Dec. 2015.
Defending GoldieBlox and LEGO Loving Girls The Culture Mom. The Culture Mom. 23
Nov. 2013. Web. 16 Dec. 2015.
Do It Your Way with Create-A-Bratz. Target Corporate. 4 Aug. 2015. Web. 4 Dec. 2015.
Dont Buy It. Hooker Dolls for Kids. 20 Jan. 2007. Web. 1 Dec. 2015.
Dorstewitz, Michael. Angry Customers to Ditch Target Stores after They Remove Genderbased Signage, BizPac Review. BizPac Review Angry Customers to Ditch Target Stores
After They Remove Genderbased Signage Comments. 8 Aug. 2015. Web. 16 Dec. 2015.
Entin, Esther. All Work and No Play: Why Your Kids Are More Anxious, Depressed. The
Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 12 Oct. 11. Web. 16 Dec. 2015.
Friedan, Betty. The Feminine Mystique. New York: W.W. Norton, 1963. Print.
Gender and Politics. Gendered Toy Advertisement. 24 Sept. 2014. Web. 1 Dec. 2015.

Howard, Lauren E. Gendered Childrens Toys. The Odyssey. 15 July 2015. Web. 1 Dec. 2015.
Johnson, Chandra. How Important Is Gender in Childrens Toys and Play? How Important Is
Gender in Childrens Toys and Play? 7 Sept. 2015. Web. 16 Dec. 2015.
My Field Report: Target Toy Department. English 114b. 20 Mar. 2014. Web. 16 Dec. 2015.

17
Nicholson, Linda J. The Second Wave: A Reader in Feminist Theory. New York: Routledge,
1997. Print.
Owen Blakemore, Judith E., and Renee E. Centers. Characteristics of Boys and Girls Toys.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Nov. 2005. Web. 3 Dec. 2015.
Parker, Brinton. Without Makeup, Bratz Dolls Actually Look Like Little Girls. RSS/ 12 Feb.
2015. Web. 16 Dec. 2015.
Robb, Alice. How Gender-Specific Toys Can Negatively Impact a Childs Development.
Women in the World in Association with The New York Times WITW. 12 Aug. 2015. Web.
2 Dec. 2015.
Sexism in Childrens Toys. The Musings Of A Digital Humanist. 26 Nov. 2013. Web. 1 Dec.
2015.
Shaw, Maureen. Science Shows Gender Neutral Toys Empower Children, and Possibly Society
at Large. Quartz. 5 Sept. 2015. Web. 1 Dec. 2015.
Speak Up Archive: They Might (Not) Be Giants. Speak Up Archive: They Might (Not) Be
Giants. Web. 1 Dec. 2015.
Sutfin, Erin L., Megan Fulcher, Ryan P. Bowles, and Charlotte J. Patterson. How Lesbian and
Heterosexual Parents Convey Attitudes about Gender to Their Children: The Role of
Gendered Environments. Wake Forest University, 15 Dec. 2007. Web. 14 Dec. 2015.

Sweet, Elizabeth. Guys and Dolls No More? The New York Times. The New York Times, 9
Dec. 2013. Web. 14 Dec. 2015.
---. The Gendering of Our Kids Toys and What We Can Do About It. New Dream Blog. 7
Oct. 2011. Web. 8 Dec. 2015.

18
---. Toys Are More Divided by Gender Now Than They Were 50 Years Ago. The Atlantic.
Atlantic Media Company, 9 Dec. 2014. Web. 8 Dec. 2015.
Toys. Advert Museum, Vintage Advertisements. 2015. Web. 1 Dec. 2015.
Vartak, Janhavi. Target Is Reevaluating Its Gender Signage, And Its A Big Deal. The
Odyssey. 11 Aug. 2015. Web. 1 Dec. 2015.
What the Research Says: Gender-Typed Toys. NAEYC.org. National Association for the
Education of Young Children. Web. 14 Dec. 2015.
Why It Matters. Let Toys Be Toys RSS. 9 Dec. 2012. Web. 1 Dec. 2015.
Zubriggen, Eileen L., and Tomi-Ann Roberts. The Sexualization of Girls and Girlhood: Causes,
Consequences, and Resistance. New York: Oxford UP, 2013. Print.

You might also like