Professional Documents
Culture Documents
But with the growth of the consumer economy, toy companies worked to
stimulate demand by honing their appeal to kids. Gender categorization
provided a handy tool for toy companies to define target markets, and
gender stereotypes drew the interest of young children forming their
own sense of identity.
Today, the pink-washed versions of toys that had been marketed solely
to boys for decades are promoted as a shift toward gender neutrality.
But while these toys may broaden the offerings within segregated toy
aisles, they do nothing to challenge the underlying fact that the aisles are
still segregated. And rather than busting stereotypes, such toys reinforce
the idea that gender is the primary determinant of interests and skills.
On the other hand, Jim Silver, the chief executive and editor of TTPM, a website
publishing reviews for toys, writes that toy makers are listening to parents and children:
Since I’ve been working in the toy business for more than 25 years, I am
often asked, “What should I buy my daughter or son?” My usual
response is something like, “Does your daughter like Hot Wheels? Or
does your son like activity or cooking toys?” The days of applying a
gender to a toy are declining.
Toy manufacturers have noticed this trend and are making changes on
some of their traditional “boys or girls” toys that they feel will make
them attractive to the opposite gender. For example, after some
controversy, the Easy-Bake Oven introduced a black and silver version
— although I would like to debate with whoever declared the purple
oven a “girl” color. Lego introduced its Lego Friends line to attract more
girls, to resounding success. Initially, the line was criticized for trying to
appeal to girls by using pink and purple — a color palette associated
with a “girls” toy. Was it successful by using these colors? Yes. But
there’s more to it — the line succeeded because Lego Friends
incorporated interests that girls found attractive, such as a horse stables
set.
Questions:
1. Should toys be more gender-neutral? Would more gender-neutral toys help boys
and girls discover their own unique interests, rather than be boxed into gender-
specific expectations? Or, does the growing number of toys marketed specifically
for boys or girls simply provide families with more choices? Why?
2. Do gender-directed marketing efforts actually diversify the types of toys boys and
girls play with? For example, do they get girls to play more with archery sets and
construction kits that they might otherwise not like?
3. Or, does color coding toys pink and blue based on gender stereotypes reinforce
gender biases? Do gender-specific toys perpetuate the notion that interests and
skills are inherently gender based — that boys and girls naturally like different
things?
4. Do you think parents and children appreciate gender messaging in toys? Does
pink and blue color coding in toys make toys more appealing for boys and girls?
Or, does it turn off some families and children?
https://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/are-toys-too-gender-specific/