Kids like to play with toys. They are fun, but they also play an important role in how children learn about themselves, the world, and what it means to be a man or a woman. This type of socialization starts at a young age and continues into adulthood. Many psychologists, sociologists and parents accuse the toy industry of programming children’s sexuality, exploiting gender politics and reinforcing negative and repressive sexual stereotypes. However, the toy industry is in the business of making toys and money. The toy company marketing strategies are not a diabolical conspiracy to brainwash children or influence their sexuality. Parents and children dictate the colors, types and popularity of toys, and are responsible for the product and marketing they consume.
The first aspect of toy marketing that is immediately and blindingly observable is color. The girls section is pink and focuses on fashion, cooking, cleaning. Everything “pops” and the marketing revolves around the idea of fun. The boys section is all business, which primarily involves killing people or at least blowing something up. This is serious business, a matter of life and death. The toy section dichotomy is clear. Girls wear cool clothes, cook, clean and have fun. Boys protect things, fight and have a serious thing for gadgets and technology. However, people outgrow the toy section and as they get older, boys like to wear cool clothes and may even
become something of a foodie. Women seem to develop an appreciation for gadgets as well, so there is a natural progression away from child-like simplicity of gender-specific interests.
In a recent article in The Huffington Post, Rob Watson, a same-sex parent struggling to make sense of the current gender debate, calls this toy section dichotomy the “pink bubble” and believes it’s something that needs to be challenged. He accuses the toy industry of programming “eager, impressionable, wide-eyed young consumers to think in gendered ways.” Like many who criticize the toy industry, he is accusing the toy companies of using colors to divide boys and girls into sexually defined roles. Girls get the pink dollhouse and the dolls, and boys receive trucks and the military action figures. There is a sense that this kind of sex-role oppression is old fashioned and needs to change. The common solution offered is that boys and girls should be allowed to choose whatever color or type of toy they are interested in.
Allowing children to pick their own toys, regardless of gender orientation is a great idea, but parents, who pay for the toys, have been proven to choose gender specific toys time and time again. This was illustrated in a classic study on the toy preferences of children and buying preferences of parents. Children were asked what at gifts they wanted for Christmas and they overwhelmingly wanted and received gender-typical toys. They were much less likely to receive requested gender-atypical toys. The parents simply did not purchase the Barbie for Tommy or the G.I. Joe for Tammy, even when they were specifically asked to purchase the gender-atypical toy (Etaugh, 1992).
Despite the reality that parents are the driving force behind gender specific toys, there has been so much protest that Let Toys Be Toys, a grassroots organization in England, has convinced
Toys 'R' Us in the UK to stop marketing toys specifically to boys or girls. The toys will be the same, but the marketing will change, presenting even a plastic bazooka as “gender-neutral so that they may attract whatever child finds them interesting and compelling” (Watson). This is a good progressive concept, but again neglects the parental bias and the old-fashioned idea that maybe girls just prefer adorable pink dolls and boys do indeed prefer bazookas and other dangerous looking militarized toys. The fact that Toy ‘R’ Us is not marketing toys based on gender also fails to recognize that children can be peer-pressured into wanting and playing with specific toys.
Children, who are learning to fit in, make friends and find their place in the social hierarchy may be unwilling to play with a toy that violates accepted group norms concerning the gender suitability of toys. There are very few pink guns in the toy section.
There are negative examples of parental pressure and cultural norms regarding the “correct” toy. For example, allowing only girls to play with dolls that represent infants teaches children that only girls should take care of babies. Today, this is simply an outdated cultural norm. There are more stay-at-home dads and gradually these ideas of what constitutes traditional gender roles will change and so will the children’s preferences, parents buying habits and toy company marketing strategies. Another negative example is the early-sexualization of children and exposing them to adult oriented things at an early age. A good example would be make-up and tight fitting revealing clothing for young girls and overly realistic and possibly dangerous weapons for boys. The toy industry does have a responsibility to produce toys that are safe. There have been numerous instances of children being killed by police because they had overly realistic looking guns. Children need to be children and toys should be toys.
Since the 1960’s there has been a rapid increase in gender equality. Women work, men at least do the dishes, and gay people are here, queer and people are getting used to it. Toys, however, are stuck in the 1950’s. In an article in The Guardian, Kira Cochran makes an interesting argument that it is precisely because of these advancements in gender equality that we yearn for pink and blue toys for our children because we are experiencing “a deep, subconscious unease with the advances of the past few decades.” We want our children to be progressive and live in a world free of sexism, racism and all that other old-fashioned stuff. But when it comes to toys, we want the girls in pink and boys playing with the G.I. Joes because it seems “right” and conforms to what are still cultural norms. It is a reactionary and conservative response to rapid and drastic changes in the sexual landscape (Cochran).
Ultimately, the toy industry is not pursuing some Machiavellian agenda to make children conform to outdated sexual stereotypes. They are not interested in perpetuating oppressive gender expectations. The decision of Toys R’ Us UK to stop marketing toys in a gender specific way is a good example of how they are responsive to societal pressure. The parents and children are to “blame” for the rigid separation of genders in the toy section and there has been a conclusive body of research to explain this stubborn trend. If it really bothers parents or theorists, they can rest assured that in every toy section, pretty much around the world, you can still find an etch-a-sketch, or maybe even a slinkee, which is perfect for a boy or girl.
Works Cited
Cochran, Kira. "The Fightback against Gendered Toys." The Guardian. N.p., 22 Apr. 2014. Web. 30 Oct. 2014. <http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Flifeandstyle%2F2014%2Fapr%2F22%2Fgendered-toys-stereotypes-boy-girl-segregation-equality>.
Etaugh, Claire, and Marsha B. Liss. "Home, School, and Playroom: Training Grounds for Adult Gender Roles." Sex Roles 26.3-4 (1992): 129-47. Web.
Watson, Rob. "Hey, Toys 'R' Us, Stop Thrusting Gender Roles on My Kids!"The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 07 Oct. 2013. Web. 30 Oct. 2014. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-watson/hey-toys-r-us-stop-thrusting-gender-roles-on-my-kids_b_4025214.html>.
