Gendered Children's Toys as an Ethical Dilemma: An Essay
This is an essay I wrote for business class about the gender segregation of children's toys as an ethical problem in business. It's a bit long, but I'm told it's pretty good.
Introduction
The gender segregation of
children’s toys is a huge problem to our society. It may not be mentioned on
television or in the codes of ethics of toy companies, but it is happening.
Almost all toy stores are stubbornly separated between boys’ toys and girls’
toys. Marketers condition children to want hyper-gendered products, but those
desires do not tell you anything about the children’s real yearnings. They tell
you that the marketing propaganda present constantly is working. Children do
not naturally want to separate into boys and girls; they are divided into those
categories by marketers. It is happening.
This childhood division has been
getting worse. The waves of feminism that changed government policy and
international opinions towards women have left toy stores untouched. As First
World parents consume more products for their children, those products become
more separated into boys’ things and girls’ things. As a result of this
consumerism, the gender roles present in toy stores have even regressed since
the 1970s. Clothing for young girls resembles that of their elder sister more
and more, becoming more restrictive as it does so. This tells girls that what
they look like is more important than their capabilities and prevents them from
playing actively outdoors the way children need to. Tomboys are becoming less
and less common. While the rest of the world frowns upon old-fashioned gender
roles, toy stores are still embracing them fully.
The splitting up of children into
boys and girls has many negative effects. It is not innocent or harmless. It
tells them not to interact with each other. By emphasizing the differences
between genders instead of the similarities, it encourages sexism and
homophobia. Many toys imply that science is a men’s field and art is a women’s
career. This false impression stays with them into adulthood and influences
their career choices negatively. The way many girls’ toys are based on fashion,
shopping, or housework reinforces old ideals that women should be passive, shallow
housewives. The increasingly violent themes in boys’ toys encourage boys to be
more violent and repress their gentler sides. The gender segregation of
children’s toys is a huge problem for today’s society.
Part 1: It is Happening
The segregation between boys and
girls is happening in every place where merchandise is sold to children.
However, it can be hard to realize what is happening, or that there is a
problem. It is not addressed in mainstream media, although we often see the
effects of this division. The codes of ethics of the major toy stores make no
mention of out-dated gender roles. For example, Toys”R”Us Safety Standards and
Practices (1) details their high ethical standards on child safety and the
appropriateness of their toys. However, they do not even mention the harmful
gender roles that are being taught to every consumer. Ethics are defined as the
moral principals by which people decide if something is right or wrong. By not
mentioning gender roles in their code of ethics, the document which tells
employees and consumers alike what their moral views are, they are saying that these
extreme gender roles are such a given that they do not count as an ethical
issue.
They are far from the only ones.
The majority of the population thinks there is no problem with boys playing
with Pro Wrestling figures while girls play with baby dolls. They do not see
the way these toys, along with everything else that the average child owns,
shape the child’s views on gender in a warped and unhealthy way. Many people
assume that if they wanted to buy gender-neutral toys, they would be able to.
However, such toys are significantly less common than you would think.
Currently, the only toys carried by Toys”R”Us which are gender-neutral are the
beach toys, and not even all of those. Even the board games show boys playing,
but girls merely watching from the background. (There are a few board games
targeted at girls, though. For example, there is Monopoly Pink Boutique: a
version of the original game where everything is pink and shopping-focused. (2))
“It’s almost impossible to buy toys now that are not putridly pink branded or
aggressively superhero male. Bikes, sleeping bags, lunch boxes; nothing is
neutral now,” says Poly Toynbee, in The Guardian (3). It really is that bad.
Some might say that if the children
are choosing these things, then it is fine. No one is forcing our children to
like what they like, they might say. However, with every aspect of the media
telling them what they should want, it is not surprising that the majority of
boys end up begging for the same Lego battleship while the majority of girls
ask for the same Bratz doll. “Examine that cute pink purse attached to the
brand-name jeans and see that the little purse and jeans are on a popular doll,
in a popular movie, in a popular magazine; see it talked about in a popular
book series and worn by a popular artist on a popular website and on a popular
book’s cover. You will begin to appreciate the impact of marketing on your
daughters. Her ‘choice’ to buy that purse suddenly doesn’t seem so free,” reads
one paragraph in Packaging Girlhood (4).
Marketers go after our children
ruthlessly, and not just during advertisements. They place their products in
the TV shows themselves, in magazines and at fast-food restaurants. The
advertising is on the websites your children visit and in the books they read.
It becomes a constant barrage of big businesses telling children that girls all
like pink and shopping, but boys are never allowed to like those things. These
messages are enforced nearly constantly. “The average child in the US, UK, and
Australia sees between 20 000-40 000 TV ads a year, not to mention billboards,
print ads, and new media ads.” “The average 10-year-old recognizes 400 brands.”
(5) With all that propaganda around them almost all the time, is it any
surprise that they ask for that particular toy? The request does not show the
child’s unique wants: it shows that the media brainwashing has been effective.
“People think it’s harmless enough,” says Lyn Brown, “but we don’t see the full
picture. When you put all the little pink things together and see how girls’
choices are narrowed, how the marketers have created desire in little girls to
express their uniqueness through accessories, you realize how precocious it is.”
(6)
Of course, it is not only girls
that marketers are after. They target boys with images of violence and
rashness. They tell boys they have to be tough superheroes, ready to fight at
any time. Boys are never shown playing with dolls. Do marketers think that men
do not want to have children? More importantly, are boys getting the impression
that they should not want to? Looking at the media, it seems that is the case.
This is not something that should
be brushed off or ignored. It is not harmless or innocent. It is not an innate,
natural thing for boys and girls to be completely separate. This is happening,
and it is a problem.
Part 2: It is Getting
Worse
This problem is not getting better.
If anything, it is getting worse. While governments around the world are
working towards gender equality, marketers everywhere are undermining their
efforts by telling children what careers are appropriate for boys, and which
ones are good for girls. The waves of feminism and girl power seem to have left
toy stores untouched. That is not to say you will not see the words “girl
power” in toy stores. “Girl power has been co-opted by marketers of music,
fashion, books, and television to mean the power to shop and attract boys.” (1)
While many people like sensitive, gentle boys, there are no role models for
these boys. There are no toys marketed to them.
If anything, the increased rates of
consumerism in First World countries have inflated this problem. Gone are the
days when boys and girls played outside together until the sun went down. As
parents are expected to buy more and more toys and other products for their
children, those children spend more time inside. The more time they spend
inside, the less time they spend interacting naturally, and the more ingrained
false impressions of gender get in their minds.
“I couldn’t believe how things had
gone backwards since the 1970s when my children were born,” says Dr. Capewell
(2). It is true. Toys used to be made to appeal to children’s sense of
creativity and adventure. This does not seem to be the case any more. The
majority of toys now, even the supposedly creative ones, come with rigid
instructions. A few decades ago, colouring books and Lego were for all
children. Walking into Toys”R”Us now, it looks like colouring books are for
girls and Lego is for boys. Dolls and action figures alike come with their
stories already written. Any opportunity for boys and girls to play together,
even with their own super-gendered toys, is written out of these stories. It
denies children not only to opportunity to come up with their own adventures,
but the chance that they could do that together. The less a child is allowed to
create their own stories, the less likely it is that they will play together,
boys and girls alike.
Clothing, too, is getting much worse. A few
decades ago, clothing for young children was all made for playing actively,
regardless of the child’s gender. Moreover, clothing for boys was not all that
different from clothing for girls. This is no longer the case. Clothing for
boys is all blue, black, green, or red; it often has camouflage. Most of it is
branded with sports logos or super heroes. Even the clothing they wear tells
them, ‘You are not anything like girls. You are rough and tumble; you do not
need any softness.’ This starts from before they have any self awareness.
Clothing for girls is even worse.
It is no longer made for playing outdoors. “Dressing for fashion…and dressing
for play are completely different things…Those crop tops and low-rise jeans do
more than discourage movement. They tell your daughter that how she looks is
more important than what she can do.” (3) Her clothing has logos that are soft
and cute, sometimes even bordering on sexual. “Unlike boys who wear NFL, NBA,
and NASCAR shirts, the [sports] logos that are given to girls aren’t real.” (4)
This tells her that she should not play sports. Even if she does, she will
never be as famous as her male counterparts. Almost all of it is pink, white,
or purple. “Pink has always been up there, but now it is omnipresent… Parents
forget that it was ever different.” (5)
“It used to be that clothing for
5-year-olds was different from clothing for 10- or 12-year-olds. Not anymore.”
(6) The impractical clothing starts from absurdly young ages. It is no longer
uncommon to see 7-year-old girls dressed exactly the same as their 17-year-old
sisters. They cannot climb trees or play tag in clothing like that. Young girls
now are often told they should not even get their clothes dirty. This all leads
to the impression that girls do not like being active or that they are less
athletic and capable than boys. This is not true at all. Girls can be every bit
as active and rambunctious as boys. However, if they are put in restrictive
clothing from the time they can walk, they will never live up to this
potential.
Girls are being put into clothing
meant for older girls and women much sooner than they used to. It was not too
long ago that seeing an elementary school girl wearing make up was extremely
unusual. Now, it is almost commonplace. “Mattel has teamed up with Bonne Bell
cosmetics to launch a make-up line aimed at girls aged 6-9.” (7) Short skirts
and halter tops are made in ever-smaller sizes. It is even possible to buy fake
high heels for babies who cannot even walk yet (8).
Tomboys are becoming increasingly
rare. While there used to be several tomboys in every daycare, it is now hard
to find even one. The only tomboy in the media is Dora the Explorer, and her
new teen version seems to have left adventure behind completely. In other
media, whether it is magazines or the internet or even books, tomboys are few
and far between, if they appear at all, when before, many novels had boyish
heroines. “The fashionable books for my time… all had tomboy heroines.” (9)
Where are today’s tomboys?
The segregation of children’s toys
is getting worse. Many people allow themselves to think that laws dictating
gender equality have solved the problem, but it still rages rampant in the
stores where we buy everything our children own. “Girls wear sexy camisoles;
boys get military camo? Pink and blue seem tame in comparison.” (10) Perhaps
boys and girls have always been separated in some ways, but never have they
been as far apart from each other as now.
Part 3: It is a Problem
The fact that boys’ and girls’
products are completely different is a huge problem. It is not innocent or
harmless. It impacts the lives of all children from a very young age, and it
affects their decisions for their entire lives. It discourages interaction and
it divides the population.
The area where the effects of
childhood segregation are the most pronounced is career choice. In this day and
age, people can go into any career they choose, regardless of gender. It is no
longer illegal for a woman to go into construction; it is illegal to
discriminate against her for that choice. However, due to the huge difference
between boys’ and girls’ toys, children are told that some professions are for
men, and some are for women. These opinions stay with them into adulthood, and
influence their career choices.
The labeling and packaging of toys
is the first area where this difference is made. Creative things like colouring
books and craft kits always have girls on the packaging. More scientific toys
like chemistry kits and Lego almost always have boys on the boxes. When they do
have girls on the packages, they are almost always in the background, watching,
as boys do the work. Children pick up on these details quickly. “In 1997,
another study [asking children to draw a scientist] found that 80% perceived
scientists as male.” (1)
These differentiations last into
adulthood. “According to a more recent study, science fields such as physics
and computer technology are still considered masculine subjects and shunned by
most girls and women.” (2) This is not because girls and women have an inherent
dislike of science. It is not because they are not good at it. It is because
girls are not encouraged to go into science. Science and technology toys are
all marketed to boys. The only “science” kit marketed to girls currently in the
mall is a bath bomb making set. Beside it sat two different science kits with
only boys on the covers. On television, girls who are good at science are often
portrayed as uncool and antisocial. While boys are supposed to be good at these
subjects, it is almost considered a negative for girls to excel at scientific
studies.
The arts, on the other hand, are
attributed solely to girls. The crafts section of Toys”R”Us has a wide variety
of colouring books and craft kits, but almost none of them are marketed to
boys. This lines up with the other assumptions marketers make about boys: they
like fighting and being active; they destroy things rather than making them. It
is not that boys are not as creative as girls. However, they are not encouraged
to do “sissy” things like art. On television, many boys who enjoy the arts are
embarrassed about it, and try to hide it from the people around them. “[Boys]
often are hiding not only a wide range of their feelings but also some of their
creativity and originality.” (3)
Creativity is not the only thing
that is considered out of bounds for boys. They are also taught, in a variety
of subtle ways, to avoid the instincts to care for and nurture things. While
girls are given baby dolls and stuffed animals to treat as children, boys are
discouraged from these things. Commercials for these types of products never
have boys. This tells boys that they should not be gentle and nurturing. When
they grow up, we expect this gentle side to emerge, but it does not always.
Perhaps it is because of this idea that men are not nurturers that only 16% of
single parents are male (4). It is almost definitely the reason that only 3% of
the students enrolled in nursing programs at NSCC are male (5).
Sometimes, this labeling of certain
professions for certain genders is more than a subtext. At Halloween,
especially, these degrading assumptions come out full force. “[At Halloween]
you’ll see pirates, firefighters, and superhero clothes offered to boys; princesses,
cheerleaders, and sexy divas are offered to girls.” (6) Boys are given a wide
variety of different costumes to choose from, many of them valid professions or
adventurous characters. Girls, on the other hand, are given princesses and rock
stars. Not only are there fewer costumes offered to girls, but the ones
available are often downright shameful. Why is it assumed that girls do not
want to dress up as firefighters?
Telling children that some careers
are for men and some careers are for women is not the only negative effect of
gendered children’s toys. In fact, many toys for girls seem to imply that women
do not need careers at all. Many boys’ toys are based on search and rescue
teams, police officers, military professionals, train conductors, or cowboys. By
contrast, girls’ toys are often devoid of anything resembling a career. They
tell girls that they will get married to men, have babies, cook, look after
their children, and most importantly, shop. When dolls are given careers, it is
often in the form of an outfit that is supposed to represent that career, but
none of the props that should be associated. The outfits themselves are often
altered to be more flattering, form-fitting, and impractical. Even if they
manage to gather that they should enter the workforce, they are still put under
the impression that it is the woman’s job to look after the house. There are
never toys for boys designed to simulate cooking and looking after children.
Many toys are also
hyper-heterosexual. Girl dolls often come with male dates or boyfriends. If
there are girls present in boys’ toys, they are often someone to rescue or
impress (if not an evil villain). This entirely denies the existence of people
who are not straight. Perhaps if children’s toys and media occasionally showed
couples who are not straight, there would be less homophobic bullying in our
schools.
It also implies that single people
cannot be happy. This idea is especially strong in things marketed to girls.
They are told, subtly or not-so-subtly, that if they do not marry a man and
have children, they have not fulfilled their purpose in life. This assumption
lasts their entire lives. Women over a certain age who do not have children are
looked at with pity and concern, even if they have no desire to give birth.
Women who place their careers at a higher value than finding a man to start a
family with are often seen as cold or bitter. If a man has the same priorities,
he is perfectly normal. These double standards start in childhood, with those
baby dolls.
The multitude of beauty products
and fashionable clothes marketed to ever younger girls tells her that how she
looks is more important than her abilities. By the time she is in high school,
she is so concerned with her appearance that if often affects her mental
abilities, “One study showed how anxiety about appearance harms brain function:
girls were asked to try on a swimsuit or a sweater in a private dressing room,
supposedly to give their opinion. While they were waiting, they were asked to
do a math test. The girls in swimsuits did much worse than those in sweaters,
as thinking about their bodies, mostly negatively, undermined their
intellectual self-confidence.” (7) Boys, too, are intimidated by the high
standards for rough masculinity that they are expected to live up to, although
actually doing so may well be impossible.
On the packages of and commercials
for the few supposedly unisex toys, girls are almost always in the background,
or watching, while the boys are actively participating. On television and in
books, too, girls are more likely to be secondary characters than main
characters. This shows everyone that girls are not to be taken as seriously as
boys. If male is considered neutral, then female will always be considered
other, and by consequence, less than. Girls are taught not to take themselves
too seriously. They are taught that no matter what they do, they have to do it
like a girl. This means doing it while obsessing about their looks and taking
up as little space as possible. Women might be allowed to do the same things
men do, but they are not allowed to do those things the same way men do. They
have to do things ‘like girls.’ This often means ‘not as well.’ To throw ‘like
a girl’ is considered an insult because women are not taken as seriously as
men.
Both boys and girls are given
unrealistic expectations to live up to. Girls are taught to want to imitate
Disney princesses; boys should aspire to be like Superman. However, no one can
be exactly like either Cinderella or Superman, and even if they did, it would
not be a good thing.
Disney princesses, Barbies, and a
multitude of other supposed role models tell girls they should be thin, gentle,
and passive. They need to look pretty all the time and do everything they
possibly can do find a man to get married to. They are not shown as able to
take care of themselves. They are only good for looking pretty and doing
housework. If they are not pretty and good at housework, they are not good for
anything. They should not go on adventures, but if they do, it is all for the
sake of their men.
Boys, on the other hand, should
look up to superheroes and sports stars. They should always be ready for
action. They cannot rely on anyone. Violence will solve the majority of their
problems. They need to have super athletic abilities and rugged good looks.
They do not need to waste time with art or nurturing. “They feel free to show
their heroic, tough, action-oriented side, their physical prowess, as well as
their anger and rage. What the Boy Code dictates is that they should suppress
all other emotions and cover up the more gentle, caring, vulnerable sides of
themselves.” (8)
Both of these stereotypes are
incredibly harmful. They tell children that they can only express one, very
limited set of emotions. They play up violence for boys and weakness for girls.
The lingering effects of this obsession with violence in boys’ toys may be the
reason why men are ten times more likely to commit murder than women. (9) The
idea that women should be passive and do anything for their men may be the
reason that women are three times as likely to be the victims of spousal abuse.
(10)
The gender segregation of
children’s toys and other merchandise is not harmless. It has many negative
effects. It limits children’s career choices and harms their self-esteem. It
enforces harmful, old gender roles. It tells girls to be passive and
boy-obsessed, and it tells boys to be violent and aloof. It encourages sexism
and homophobia. There is nothing innocent about it. The way children’s merchandise
is divided into boys’ things and girls’ things is a huge ethical problem.
Conclusion
Our toy stores are gender
segregated. Neither the media nor the codes of ethics in major manufacturers
talk about it. However, it is so commonplace as to be nearly unavoidable.
Marketers brainwash children into wanting these hyper-gendered products, but
that artificially-induced desire does not reflect the real wants of children.
It merely demonstrates that the system is working. This is not something that
can be ignored.
It has been getting steadily worse.
In the early 70s, waves of feminism spread across the planet, changing laws to
bring women equality. Many people assume that equality reached the toy stores,
as well. It did not. As first world countries buy more and more things,
children spend more and more time playing inside, boys in one room, girls in
another. The toys get less creative as well, allowing children even less
opportunity to play together. Clothing that should be for university students
is now made is sizes small enough for elementary school children. Girls as
young as six can now wear make up and short skirts, depriving them of the
active play that children need. Tomboys have almost entirely vanished. While
society has taken huge steps towards gender equality, toy stores are living in
a world where feminism never happened.
This is a huge problem. Children
are taught at very young ages that science is for boys and art is for girls.
This idea stays with them their whole lives, and goes on to affect their career
choices. Girls’ sports are not taken seriously. Boys are told they cannot be
gentle. Many toys imply that while boys can work in action- or science-oriented
fields, girls should stay home and do housework. It is also implied that boys
do not want to have babies, an implication that the children absorb
subconsciously. The hyper-heterosexuality of many children’s toys tells girls
that they are not complete unless they are married with children, and
encourages homophobia. Girls are told by Disney and Barbie to be passive and
boy-crazy. Boys are taught to be violent and aloof. They are both given
unrealistic expectations which affect their self-esteem deeply. These terrible
lessons learned in childhood affect them for their entire lives, and may play a
part in male violence and the high likelihood of women to be in abusive
relationships. The obsessive gender segregation of children’s merchandise is a
huge problem in our society.
Introduction
The gender segregation of
children’s toys is a huge problem to our society. It may not be mentioned on
television or in the codes of ethics of toy companies, but it is happening.
Almost all toy stores are stubbornly separated between boys’ toys and girls’
toys. Marketers condition children to want hyper-gendered products, but those
desires do not tell you anything about the children’s real yearnings. They tell
you that the marketing propaganda present constantly is working. Children do
not naturally want to separate into boys and girls; they are divided into those
categories by marketers. It is happening.
This childhood division has been
getting worse. The waves of feminism that changed government policy and
international opinions towards women have left toy stores untouched. As First
World parents consume more products for their children, those products become
more separated into boys’ things and girls’ things. As a result of this
consumerism, the gender roles present in toy stores have even regressed since
the 1970s. Clothing for young girls resembles that of their elder sister more
and more, becoming more restrictive as it does so. This tells girls that what
they look like is more important than their capabilities and prevents them from
playing actively outdoors the way children need to. Tomboys are becoming less
and less common. While the rest of the world frowns upon old-fashioned gender
roles, toy stores are still embracing them fully.
The splitting up of children into
boys and girls has many negative effects. It is not innocent or harmless. It
tells them not to interact with each other. By emphasizing the differences
between genders instead of the similarities, it encourages sexism and
homophobia. Many toys imply that science is a men’s field and art is a women’s
career. This false impression stays with them into adulthood and influences
their career choices negatively. The way many girls’ toys are based on fashion,
shopping, or housework reinforces old ideals that women should be passive, shallow
housewives. The increasingly violent themes in boys’ toys encourage boys to be
more violent and repress their gentler sides. The gender segregation of
children’s toys is a huge problem for today’s society.
Part 1: It is Happening
The segregation between boys and
girls is happening in every place where merchandise is sold to children.
However, it can be hard to realize what is happening, or that there is a
problem. It is not addressed in mainstream media, although we often see the
effects of this division. The codes of ethics of the major toy stores make no
mention of out-dated gender roles. For example, Toys”R”Us Safety Standards and
Practices (1) details their high ethical standards on child safety and the
appropriateness of their toys. However, they do not even mention the harmful
gender roles that are being taught to every consumer. Ethics are defined as the
moral principals by which people decide if something is right or wrong. By not
mentioning gender roles in their code of ethics, the document which tells
employees and consumers alike what their moral views are, they are saying that these
extreme gender roles are such a given that they do not count as an ethical
issue.
They are far from the only ones.
The majority of the population thinks there is no problem with boys playing
with Pro Wrestling figures while girls play with baby dolls. They do not see
the way these toys, along with everything else that the average child owns,
shape the child’s views on gender in a warped and unhealthy way. Many people
assume that if they wanted to buy gender-neutral toys, they would be able to.
However, such toys are significantly less common than you would think.
Currently, the only toys carried by Toys”R”Us which are gender-neutral are the
beach toys, and not even all of those. Even the board games show boys playing,
but girls merely watching from the background. (There are a few board games
targeted at girls, though. For example, there is Monopoly Pink Boutique: a
version of the original game where everything is pink and shopping-focused. (2))
“It’s almost impossible to buy toys now that are not putridly pink branded or
aggressively superhero male. Bikes, sleeping bags, lunch boxes; nothing is
neutral now,” says Poly Toynbee, in The Guardian (3). It really is that bad.
Some might say that if the children
are choosing these things, then it is fine. No one is forcing our children to
like what they like, they might say. However, with every aspect of the media
telling them what they should want, it is not surprising that the majority of
boys end up begging for the same Lego battleship while the majority of girls
ask for the same Bratz doll. “Examine that cute pink purse attached to the
brand-name jeans and see that the little purse and jeans are on a popular doll,
in a popular movie, in a popular magazine; see it talked about in a popular
book series and worn by a popular artist on a popular website and on a popular
book’s cover. You will begin to appreciate the impact of marketing on your
daughters. Her ‘choice’ to buy that purse suddenly doesn’t seem so free,” reads
one paragraph in Packaging Girlhood (4).
Marketers go after our children
ruthlessly, and not just during advertisements. They place their products in
the TV shows themselves, in magazines and at fast-food restaurants. The
advertising is on the websites your children visit and in the books they read.
It becomes a constant barrage of big businesses telling children that girls all
like pink and shopping, but boys are never allowed to like those things. These
messages are enforced nearly constantly. “The average child in the US, UK, and
Australia sees between 20 000-40 000 TV ads a year, not to mention billboards,
print ads, and new media ads.” “The average 10-year-old recognizes 400 brands.”
(5) With all that propaganda around them almost all the time, is it any
surprise that they ask for that particular toy? The request does not show the
child’s unique wants: it shows that the media brainwashing has been effective.
“People think it’s harmless enough,” says Lyn Brown, “but we don’t see the full
picture. When you put all the little pink things together and see how girls’
choices are narrowed, how the marketers have created desire in little girls to
express their uniqueness through accessories, you realize how precocious it is.”
(6)
Of course, it is not only girls
that marketers are after. They target boys with images of violence and
rashness. They tell boys they have to be tough superheroes, ready to fight at
any time. Boys are never shown playing with dolls. Do marketers think that men
do not want to have children? More importantly, are boys getting the impression
that they should not want to? Looking at the media, it seems that is the case.
This is not something that should
be brushed off or ignored. It is not harmless or innocent. It is not an innate,
natural thing for boys and girls to be completely separate. This is happening,
and it is a problem.
Part 2: It is Getting
Worse
This problem is not getting better.
If anything, it is getting worse. While governments around the world are
working towards gender equality, marketers everywhere are undermining their
efforts by telling children what careers are appropriate for boys, and which
ones are good for girls. The waves of feminism and girl power seem to have left
toy stores untouched. That is not to say you will not see the words “girl
power” in toy stores. “Girl power has been co-opted by marketers of music,
fashion, books, and television to mean the power to shop and attract boys.” (1)
While many people like sensitive, gentle boys, there are no role models for
these boys. There are no toys marketed to them.
If anything, the increased rates of
consumerism in First World countries have inflated this problem. Gone are the
days when boys and girls played outside together until the sun went down. As
parents are expected to buy more and more toys and other products for their
children, those children spend more time inside. The more time they spend
inside, the less time they spend interacting naturally, and the more ingrained
false impressions of gender get in their minds.
“I couldn’t believe how things had
gone backwards since the 1970s when my children were born,” says Dr. Capewell
(2). It is true. Toys used to be made to appeal to children’s sense of
creativity and adventure. This does not seem to be the case any more. The
majority of toys now, even the supposedly creative ones, come with rigid
instructions. A few decades ago, colouring books and Lego were for all
children. Walking into Toys”R”Us now, it looks like colouring books are for
girls and Lego is for boys. Dolls and action figures alike come with their
stories already written. Any opportunity for boys and girls to play together,
even with their own super-gendered toys, is written out of these stories. It
denies children not only to opportunity to come up with their own adventures,
but the chance that they could do that together. The less a child is allowed to
create their own stories, the less likely it is that they will play together,
boys and girls alike.
Clothing, too, is getting much worse. A few
decades ago, clothing for young children was all made for playing actively,
regardless of the child’s gender. Moreover, clothing for boys was not all that
different from clothing for girls. This is no longer the case. Clothing for
boys is all blue, black, green, or red; it often has camouflage. Most of it is
branded with sports logos or super heroes. Even the clothing they wear tells
them, ‘You are not anything like girls. You are rough and tumble; you do not
need any softness.’ This starts from before they have any self awareness.
Clothing for girls is even worse.
It is no longer made for playing outdoors. “Dressing for fashion…and dressing
for play are completely different things…Those crop tops and low-rise jeans do
more than discourage movement. They tell your daughter that how she looks is
more important than what she can do.” (3) Her clothing has logos that are soft
and cute, sometimes even bordering on sexual. “Unlike boys who wear NFL, NBA,
and NASCAR shirts, the [sports] logos that are given to girls aren’t real.” (4)
This tells her that she should not play sports. Even if she does, she will
never be as famous as her male counterparts. Almost all of it is pink, white,
or purple. “Pink has always been up there, but now it is omnipresent… Parents
forget that it was ever different.” (5)
“It used to be that clothing for
5-year-olds was different from clothing for 10- or 12-year-olds. Not anymore.”
(6) The impractical clothing starts from absurdly young ages. It is no longer
uncommon to see 7-year-old girls dressed exactly the same as their 17-year-old
sisters. They cannot climb trees or play tag in clothing like that. Young girls
now are often told they should not even get their clothes dirty. This all leads
to the impression that girls do not like being active or that they are less
athletic and capable than boys. This is not true at all. Girls can be every bit
as active and rambunctious as boys. However, if they are put in restrictive
clothing from the time they can walk, they will never live up to this
potential.
Girls are being put into clothing
meant for older girls and women much sooner than they used to. It was not too
long ago that seeing an elementary school girl wearing make up was extremely
unusual. Now, it is almost commonplace. “Mattel has teamed up with Bonne Bell
cosmetics to launch a make-up line aimed at girls aged 6-9.” (7) Short skirts
and halter tops are made in ever-smaller sizes. It is even possible to buy fake
high heels for babies who cannot even walk yet (8).
Tomboys are becoming increasingly
rare. While there used to be several tomboys in every daycare, it is now hard
to find even one. The only tomboy in the media is Dora the Explorer, and her
new teen version seems to have left adventure behind completely. In other
media, whether it is magazines or the internet or even books, tomboys are few
and far between, if they appear at all, when before, many novels had boyish
heroines. “The fashionable books for my time… all had tomboy heroines.” (9)
Where are today’s tomboys?
The segregation of children’s toys
is getting worse. Many people allow themselves to think that laws dictating
gender equality have solved the problem, but it still rages rampant in the
stores where we buy everything our children own. “Girls wear sexy camisoles;
boys get military camo? Pink and blue seem tame in comparison.” (10) Perhaps
boys and girls have always been separated in some ways, but never have they
been as far apart from each other as now.
Part 3: It is a Problem
The fact that boys’ and girls’
products are completely different is a huge problem. It is not innocent or
harmless. It impacts the lives of all children from a very young age, and it
affects their decisions for their entire lives. It discourages interaction and
it divides the population.
The area where the effects of
childhood segregation are the most pronounced is career choice. In this day and
age, people can go into any career they choose, regardless of gender. It is no
longer illegal for a woman to go into construction; it is illegal to
discriminate against her for that choice. However, due to the huge difference
between boys’ and girls’ toys, children are told that some professions are for
men, and some are for women. These opinions stay with them into adulthood, and
influence their career choices.
The labeling and packaging of toys
is the first area where this difference is made. Creative things like colouring
books and craft kits always have girls on the packaging. More scientific toys
like chemistry kits and Lego almost always have boys on the boxes. When they do
have girls on the packages, they are almost always in the background, watching,
as boys do the work. Children pick up on these details quickly. “In 1997,
another study [asking children to draw a scientist] found that 80% perceived
scientists as male.” (1)
These differentiations last into
adulthood. “According to a more recent study, science fields such as physics
and computer technology are still considered masculine subjects and shunned by
most girls and women.” (2) This is not because girls and women have an inherent
dislike of science. It is not because they are not good at it. It is because
girls are not encouraged to go into science. Science and technology toys are
all marketed to boys. The only “science” kit marketed to girls currently in the
mall is a bath bomb making set. Beside it sat two different science kits with
only boys on the covers. On television, girls who are good at science are often
portrayed as uncool and antisocial. While boys are supposed to be good at these
subjects, it is almost considered a negative for girls to excel at scientific
studies.
The arts, on the other hand, are
attributed solely to girls. The crafts section of Toys”R”Us has a wide variety
of colouring books and craft kits, but almost none of them are marketed to
boys. This lines up with the other assumptions marketers make about boys: they
like fighting and being active; they destroy things rather than making them. It
is not that boys are not as creative as girls. However, they are not encouraged
to do “sissy” things like art. On television, many boys who enjoy the arts are
embarrassed about it, and try to hide it from the people around them. “[Boys]
often are hiding not only a wide range of their feelings but also some of their
creativity and originality.” (3)
Creativity is not the only thing
that is considered out of bounds for boys. They are also taught, in a variety
of subtle ways, to avoid the instincts to care for and nurture things. While
girls are given baby dolls and stuffed animals to treat as children, boys are
discouraged from these things. Commercials for these types of products never
have boys. This tells boys that they should not be gentle and nurturing. When
they grow up, we expect this gentle side to emerge, but it does not always.
Perhaps it is because of this idea that men are not nurturers that only 16% of
single parents are male (4). It is almost definitely the reason that only 3% of
the students enrolled in nursing programs at NSCC are male (5).
Sometimes, this labeling of certain
professions for certain genders is more than a subtext. At Halloween,
especially, these degrading assumptions come out full force. “[At Halloween]
you’ll see pirates, firefighters, and superhero clothes offered to boys; princesses,
cheerleaders, and sexy divas are offered to girls.” (6) Boys are given a wide
variety of different costumes to choose from, many of them valid professions or
adventurous characters. Girls, on the other hand, are given princesses and rock
stars. Not only are there fewer costumes offered to girls, but the ones
available are often downright shameful. Why is it assumed that girls do not
want to dress up as firefighters?
Telling children that some careers
are for men and some careers are for women is not the only negative effect of
gendered children’s toys. In fact, many toys for girls seem to imply that women
do not need careers at all. Many boys’ toys are based on search and rescue
teams, police officers, military professionals, train conductors, or cowboys. By
contrast, girls’ toys are often devoid of anything resembling a career. They
tell girls that they will get married to men, have babies, cook, look after
their children, and most importantly, shop. When dolls are given careers, it is
often in the form of an outfit that is supposed to represent that career, but
none of the props that should be associated. The outfits themselves are often
altered to be more flattering, form-fitting, and impractical. Even if they
manage to gather that they should enter the workforce, they are still put under
the impression that it is the woman’s job to look after the house. There are
never toys for boys designed to simulate cooking and looking after children.
Many toys are also
hyper-heterosexual. Girl dolls often come with male dates or boyfriends. If
there are girls present in boys’ toys, they are often someone to rescue or
impress (if not an evil villain). This entirely denies the existence of people
who are not straight. Perhaps if children’s toys and media occasionally showed
couples who are not straight, there would be less homophobic bullying in our
schools.
It also implies that single people
cannot be happy. This idea is especially strong in things marketed to girls.
They are told, subtly or not-so-subtly, that if they do not marry a man and
have children, they have not fulfilled their purpose in life. This assumption
lasts their entire lives. Women over a certain age who do not have children are
looked at with pity and concern, even if they have no desire to give birth.
Women who place their careers at a higher value than finding a man to start a
family with are often seen as cold or bitter. If a man has the same priorities,
he is perfectly normal. These double standards start in childhood, with those
baby dolls.
The multitude of beauty products
and fashionable clothes marketed to ever younger girls tells her that how she
looks is more important than her abilities. By the time she is in high school,
she is so concerned with her appearance that if often affects her mental
abilities, “One study showed how anxiety about appearance harms brain function:
girls were asked to try on a swimsuit or a sweater in a private dressing room,
supposedly to give their opinion. While they were waiting, they were asked to
do a math test. The girls in swimsuits did much worse than those in sweaters,
as thinking about their bodies, mostly negatively, undermined their
intellectual self-confidence.” (7) Boys, too, are intimidated by the high
standards for rough masculinity that they are expected to live up to, although
actually doing so may well be impossible.
On the packages of and commercials
for the few supposedly unisex toys, girls are almost always in the background,
or watching, while the boys are actively participating. On television and in
books, too, girls are more likely to be secondary characters than main
characters. This shows everyone that girls are not to be taken as seriously as
boys. If male is considered neutral, then female will always be considered
other, and by consequence, less than. Girls are taught not to take themselves
too seriously. They are taught that no matter what they do, they have to do it
like a girl. This means doing it while obsessing about their looks and taking
up as little space as possible. Women might be allowed to do the same things
men do, but they are not allowed to do those things the same way men do. They
have to do things ‘like girls.’ This often means ‘not as well.’ To throw ‘like
a girl’ is considered an insult because women are not taken as seriously as
men.
Both boys and girls are given
unrealistic expectations to live up to. Girls are taught to want to imitate
Disney princesses; boys should aspire to be like Superman. However, no one can
be exactly like either Cinderella or Superman, and even if they did, it would
not be a good thing.
Disney princesses, Barbies, and a
multitude of other supposed role models tell girls they should be thin, gentle,
and passive. They need to look pretty all the time and do everything they
possibly can do find a man to get married to. They are not shown as able to
take care of themselves. They are only good for looking pretty and doing
housework. If they are not pretty and good at housework, they are not good for
anything. They should not go on adventures, but if they do, it is all for the
sake of their men.
Boys, on the other hand, should
look up to superheroes and sports stars. They should always be ready for
action. They cannot rely on anyone. Violence will solve the majority of their
problems. They need to have super athletic abilities and rugged good looks.
They do not need to waste time with art or nurturing. “They feel free to show
their heroic, tough, action-oriented side, their physical prowess, as well as
their anger and rage. What the Boy Code dictates is that they should suppress
all other emotions and cover up the more gentle, caring, vulnerable sides of
themselves.” (8)
Both of these stereotypes are
incredibly harmful. They tell children that they can only express one, very
limited set of emotions. They play up violence for boys and weakness for girls.
The lingering effects of this obsession with violence in boys’ toys may be the
reason why men are ten times more likely to commit murder than women. (9) The
idea that women should be passive and do anything for their men may be the
reason that women are three times as likely to be the victims of spousal abuse.
(10)
The gender segregation of
children’s toys and other merchandise is not harmless. It has many negative
effects. It limits children’s career choices and harms their self-esteem. It
enforces harmful, old gender roles. It tells girls to be passive and
boy-obsessed, and it tells boys to be violent and aloof. It encourages sexism
and homophobia. There is nothing innocent about it. The way children’s merchandise
is divided into boys’ things and girls’ things is a huge ethical problem.
Conclusion
Our toy stores are gender
segregated. Neither the media nor the codes of ethics in major manufacturers
talk about it. However, it is so commonplace as to be nearly unavoidable.
Marketers brainwash children into wanting these hyper-gendered products, but
that artificially-induced desire does not reflect the real wants of children.
It merely demonstrates that the system is working. This is not something that
can be ignored.
It has been getting steadily worse.
In the early 70s, waves of feminism spread across the planet, changing laws to
bring women equality. Many people assume that equality reached the toy stores,
as well. It did not. As first world countries buy more and more things,
children spend more and more time playing inside, boys in one room, girls in
another. The toys get less creative as well, allowing children even less
opportunity to play together. Clothing that should be for university students
is now made is sizes small enough for elementary school children. Girls as
young as six can now wear make up and short skirts, depriving them of the
active play that children need. Tomboys have almost entirely vanished. While
society has taken huge steps towards gender equality, toy stores are living in
a world where feminism never happened.
This is a huge problem. Children
are taught at very young ages that science is for boys and art is for girls.
This idea stays with them their whole lives, and goes on to affect their career
choices. Girls’ sports are not taken seriously. Boys are told they cannot be
gentle. Many toys imply that while boys can work in action- or science-oriented
fields, girls should stay home and do housework. It is also implied that boys
do not want to have babies, an implication that the children absorb
subconsciously. The hyper-heterosexuality of many children’s toys tells girls
that they are not complete unless they are married with children, and
encourages homophobia. Girls are told by Disney and Barbie to be passive and
boy-crazy. Boys are taught to be violent and aloof. They are both given
unrealistic expectations which affect their self-esteem deeply. These terrible
lessons learned in childhood affect them for their entire lives, and may play a
part in male violence and the high likelihood of women to be in abusive
relationships. The obsessive gender segregation of children’s merchandise is a
huge problem in our society.