Toys : Toys Affect Their Gender

Further, certain toys seem to suggest that boys are valued higher in society than girls (Starr, 1999). The information appears to show that there may be more stereotyping with regard to toys offered to boys. It seems that most parents choose more masculine and gender-neutral toys for the boys such as, soldier action figures, wrestling kits, and karate fighters (Starr, 1999). These types of toys encourage competitive and aggressive behaviors, however; they are also more constructive, conductive to handling, and more reality based (Starr, 1999).

Toys play an important role in childhood development as children learn roles and skills from playing. As a result, the toys children are subjected to have an affect on which roles, interests, and skills are learned and practiced. Through Lego’s product Duplo, I will demonstrate the influence particular gendered toys have on children and their performance of traditional gender roles. Gender, which is a learned performance, is something society has been taught from a very early age and toy advertising has played a significant role in reinforcing the performance. One tradition that is reinforced and naturalized by society is the ideology of a male dominated society, representing strong characteristics of heterosexuality and masculinity; also known as hegemonic masculinity. Therefore, using Ideological Criticism, I will analyze how through the branding and design of Lego’s Duplo toys, children have been constructed to do gender differently, ultimately perpetuating and reinforcing hegemonic masculinity.

In the world of toy marketing, choices are made with direction put in place for both genders (girl and boy). For example, as I walked down each toy aisle, I felt the gender conformity among the parents as they were with their children. With multiple aisles and two dominant colors (pink and purple) designated for girls, the message (in my perspective) marketed on the toy package yelled: “Your ambition is to be stylish, while a nurturing mother who partakes in domestic works!” In addition to the toy packages being in pink, the words (on the toy) were predominately frivolous and amusing. On the contrary, the boys’ aisle contained wide varieties of colors, although the color blue caught my eye the most. The boys’ toys entailed sports, building sets, as well as action figures. Conversely, the message in my perspective, marketed on the toy package screamed: “You have the power to do whatever you want; however, it is imperative that you build yourself physically, as well as train yourself in order to properly excel.” This type of act, referred to as the social role theory—“a gender difference that mainly results from the contrasting roles of females and males” (p.165),—gives a great cause of difference in gender regarding power, nurture, and

When you walk into the toy section of any store, you do not need a sign to indicate which section is the girls’ side and which section is the boys’ side. Aside from all the pink, purple, and other pastel colors that fill the shelves on the girls’ side, the glitter sticks out a lot as well. The boys’ toys however are mostly dark colors – blue, black, red, gray, or dark green. The colors typically used on either side are very stereotypical in themselves.

Girls and boys both grow up being socialized on what is normal and unusual for their gender. Toys are a prominent factor in this socialization, because they are typically presented for one gender and are unacceptable for the other. To assess how toys play a role in gender socialization, I made a trip to Toys “R” Us in College Station and was surprised by how the store was organized.

The sexualization in children’s toys does not stop at the commercials for them that are aired on TV. Around the 1980’s, products for children suddenly saw a stark divide in gender. The gender difference in toys is characterized by often harmful gender roles. Toys for boys are usually based on being macho, tough, and violent, while girl’s toys tend to focus on appearance, being pretty and attractive to boys. These toys are often highly structured, limiting creativity and are centered around adult themes. According to Levin and Kilbourne, when we give children these toys, “We’re letting the sexualized media and popular culture, not ourselves, control the lessons children will learn” (44). When a culture that treats sexuality in such harmful ways controls children’s experiences, it creates an artificial and harmful identity in young girls that focuses on sexiness, and an identity in boys that values violence and devalues kindness and nurturing.

According to cook and Cusack (2010), Gender stereotypes are concerned with social and cultural construction of man and women, due to their physical, biological, sexual and social functions, structured set of beliefs about the personal attributes of man and women. Childhood is a fundamental and significant period in forming an impression of an individual boy or girl, and man or women finally. Subsequent researchers Ania and Cameron(2011) hold an accordant opinion with Cook and Cusack(2010) that gender stereotyping is problematic only when it operates to ignore personal characteristics, abilities, needs, wishes, and circumstances (Cook & Cusack, 2010). In fact, during children’s learning process of gender stereotypes, most of them are under gigantic pressure of the society they belong to and formed a problematic view through normally ignored. One obvious phenomenon is about the toys. Toys are designed and retailed separately for boys and girls with different colours, styles and functions by toy manufacturers. When acquiring a toy, gender will normally be the first issue to consider instead of children’s inherent preferences. It will highly possible to limit children’s personal experiences and future development for both gender groups (Martin, Eisenbud & Rose, 1995). This article will analyse the role of toy manufacturers in gender development in order to decide whether they are responsible to

Children love toys because they find them enjoyable and help them in building an imagination. Toys are advertised on televisions and radios in order to get parents to buy them for their kids. Playing with toys helps to build character and teaches children the basics of early life, like shape-sorting or building things with building blocks. Some toys are educational and teach kids numbers, letters, and how to read using fun ways that they find understandable and delightful. All kids have their own preference of toys, boys like cars and Nerf guns and girls like American Girl and Easy-Bake Ovens. Girls and boys are different genders and have their own preference of toys based on what society says is “for girls” or “for boys”. Since the beginning of time, societies have made women out to be frail people that do “feminine” activities, such as: making clothes, cleaning the house, and taking care of the children. Today, we see these activities as “sexist”, women can other things when given the proper motivation. It’s demeaning to think of women as people who only love shopping, overly romantic tokens-of-affection, chick flicks, and etc. Stereotypes and demeaning rumors still go around today, it’s even shown in toys that young children play with. Toys in today’s society affect gender stereotypes.

In the blog post Gender Bias in the Toy Aisles, the author discusses the issue of big-box stores’ gender gap in the toys they market to children, and the difficulty she encounters when trying to find toys for her sons that do not enforce gender bias. Her main point emphasizes the gender gap by pointing to the stylistic choices made by toy companies – girls’ toys are laden with pink and incite feelings of innocence, while boys’ toys are highly ruggedized, typically bearing camouflage or other male stereotypes such as flames. Finally, the author expresses her wish for the toy companies to stop enforcing gender biases to better equip children for their future. The author’s statement on the bias of toys is clearly well-supported.

Gender is the personal traits and social positions that members of a society attach to being female of male. “Are Gendered Toys Bad for Boys and Girls?” is the question asked with in the podcast. So in this essay it will discuss the opinion in the podcast vs. the fact of the sociological perspective in the book.

Toys also influenced children with gender roles. In our society, the typical expectations of men is to financial support the family, and for females it’s to cook, clean, and take care of the children. “Both wives and husbands tend to perceive this as a “fair” arrangement” (Zimmerman 30). To instill this idea in young minds, there are toys that influence these gender roles. Boys have toy tool sets, promoting hands on work. Girls on the other hand have cooking and cleaning toys such as the Easy Bake Oven or toy vacuums. Also “parents tend to encourage more gender-typed activities. One study found that household tasks differ along gender lines. American boys are more likely to mow the lawn, shovel snow, take our the garbage, and do the yard work, whereas girls tended to clean the house, wash dishes, cook, and baby-sit the younger children” (Newman 133). Girls also like to play “house” fostering wife and motherly qualities such as taking care of the family. These toys help with socialization making children believe and understand that these are the norms of our society. So in conclusion to toys, “Sex-specific toys foster different traits and skills in children and thereby serve to further segregate the two sexes into different patterns of social development. “Boys’ toys” encourage invention, exploration,

This article details the different ways that gender is socialized through children’s toys and how drastically this mechanism has changed throughout time. This doesn’t stop at toys but goes as far as sexualized Halloween and dress up costumes. Girl’s costumes more often portray sexualized appearances while boy’s costumes often resemble “masculine” characters. These toys and costumes can influence what direction a child’s life will take with regards to college major, occupation and societal roles. It doesn’t stop there; children are even being drawn away from talents and interests and towards stereotyped gender related activities. These different mechanism of gender socialization didn’t exist until recently, though. In the 1970’s, only 2% of

Gender socialization often begins early once parents are shown the sex of their child; from then on, baby showers are planned according to gender “appropriate” colors, which are often pink for girls and blue for boys. Even differences in how children are spoke to can be picked up easily in Western cultures. Girls are called pretty and sweet, whereas boys are handsome and strong. Ultimately, the way children learn to identify with their gender culture is in part due to not only family and friends, media, schools, and religion, but also from the toys that may inexplicitly advertise gender expectations. Gender-typed toys may be bought for children as a way for parents to encourage and reinforce gender-appropriate behaviors. However, recent debates have engulfed toy manufacturers and major retailers, which has brought about changes in toy design and marketing in an effort to make reflect more realistic and gender neutral options.

The argument here for people that feel it is best and biological for children to play with gender-typed toys is that these toy penchants manifest themselves prior to an infant’s ability too be socialized via learning. It is also concluded that sex-specific preferences occur in the same manner across time periods in history and different cultural settings. So because of this, it is said that it would be a huge coincidence for cultures across the world to use the same sex-specific toys to engrain gender stereotypes so therefore it is inherent.

and the activities they encourage. In one study parents were asked to sort toys into masculine,