Gendered Toys

[JunebuginDecember]

So on another thread, that has thankfully been deleted, regarding teens that identify as trans somebody made a comment about gendered toys being 'left in the seventies'. Am I alone in thinking that this is not the case at all?

I think parents have certainly gotten better at educating kids that toys have no gender but I'm still seeing toy aisles that are certainly separated by gender as well as tv advertisements that always have little girls playing with the barbies, my little ponies etc and the little boys playing with the hot wheels etc

I was curious about others' thoughts on this. Do you think we have made much progress there?

You may not, but too many do.

Thing is, gender ideology of the "gender as identity" variety requires gendered toys, clothes, hairstyles, etc. of the "gender as culturally-determined, often harmfully misogynist, stereotypes" sort.

Why? Because there actually is nothing to gender identity other than association with such stereotypes. Nor could there be. (Consider: if so, what?)

My daughters grew up playing with trains as well as dolls, with carpentry as well as cooking, with short hair as well as long, trousers as well as skirts. (Though we drew the line at heels.) - Oh, and physics as well as poetry, quite important that ... and maths as well as music. For them there was literally nothing that counted as "behaving like a boy" or "living as a boy", "identifying as a boy".

For them the whole idea of 'transgender' could not have made sense; what would it have been to identify as a boy, to feel like a boy? - To falsely claim to be able to pee against a tree? Or what?

Now, forty or so years later, a girl who plays with trains, wears her hair short and so on, can easily be told these are "boy things", which then can facilitate the foolish mistaken ideology of gender identity.

Of course we grown-ups - some of us, anyway - can see the incoherence in trying to base so-called "identity" on culturally-determined stereotypes in this way. Children, though ... well, are children.

This all emphasises the insidious nature of this - essentially reactionary, patriarchal - ideology of "gender-as-identity". Also, it points up how the fight against this ideology can be informed and advanced by battling gender stereotypes in children's toys and elsewhere.

I wrote to Lego in around 2005 as had just taken my daughter to Legoland for her birthday and as a treat planned for her to choose something from the shop there as a present.

Not sure who was more disappointed - me or her. In a large shop of aisles of toys, just one tiny shelf and wall had toys which weren't overly aggressive and scary looking. It was before Lego friends and the only toys they had designed which weren't overtly marketed for boys were 'clickits' which were jewel pieces to click onto bracelets or necklaces - no 3d construction involved! Even the dinosaur model had an image on the box which emphasised the dinosaur was a killing machine.

I loved dinosaurs when I was younger and my daughter loved her stegosaurus cuddly toy but the Lego dinosaur box was a turn off for most girls. Obviously the marketing teams do their focus groups and know what sells and lots of boys like death and war toys.

A few years later they bought out some fairytale themed sets which both my girls loved. I don't mind the themes around the friends toys of vets and ponies but just wish the dolls were traditional mini figures instead to make them a bit more neutral.

Relieved that 16 years later maybe finally Lego can be more neutral again.

FannyCann - yes, I should have said empty tin (others also available, such as that black treacle tin in the back of the cupboard which it is recommended not try to open because of the built up pressure inside - I intend to make the hole in that). The diagram suggested the use of a lab tripod and a bunsen burner - a bit limiting.

Lego tried Girls themes with standard mini figures Paradisa which didn't sell well. So they took it off the market, then they tried Belville which had bigger figured before Friends.
Paradisa was probably in the 90s.

You can still buy all those toys.

Hobbycraft is good for standard craft kits.

www.hobbycraft.co.uk/giant-box-of-craft-1000-pieces/6099201000.html?bvstate=pg:25/ct:r

Fair enough picture is of two girls

www.smythstoys.com/uk/en-gb/toys/arts-crafts-and-music/art-sets/mega-craft-jar-assortment/p/166618

But one with a boy

www.smythstoys.com/uk/en-gb/toys/educational-toys/jumbo-art-box/p/173946

Even on the cheaper end Poundland have lots of Crayola kits so just green and yellow branding.

www.poundland.co.uk/catalogsearch/result/?q=Crayola

I never had trouble finding mine (2G 1B) toys they all played together, the Playmobil pool and the marble run being the most notable.

I think once you get out of the baby / toddler / young child stage and no longer have the likes of Vtech, ELC and Leapfrog it is easier to find less gender specific toys (as well as those that are)

Susie Green maybe does.

Is there a part of you that still thinks, despite knowing it's going to be shiiiiiit - that wants a Mr Frosty? Because for me there's still that part that says "IT LOOKS BRILLIANT."

See also Sea Monkeys.

Amazon's current ad has a gender neutral STEM related unpink gift for a girl, linked to imaginative play. I do think Auntie might try for something that costs a little more, but at least it's a gateway to science.

My 3YO nephew asked me for a “street sweeper” Lego kit last Christmas but because his speech isn’t great I struggled to understand… I pulled up the Argos website and scrolled through. The amount of stuff he proclaimed “no not that one, that’s for girls”. And some of it was basic lego stuff which had no obvious “gender” to me. SIL seemed to think it was funny when I told her.

@TheClogLady if you are looking back fondly at sticklebricks then I assume one regresses the pain of standing on one? Damn things are worse than Lego.

Name changed for this, but please do check out Let Toys Be Toys on social media, as others were saying. twitter.com/LetToysBeToys
They've tweeted a podcast from last week that gives a good recap on their history and the history of gendered toys, and toy aisles - probably a good place to start @JunebuginDecember
They are also on instagram, and have specifically done research on TV ads recently www.lettoysbetoys.org.uk/tvads2021/

@JunebuginDecember sorry meant to also say, yes gendered toys started the most in the 1990s. If you're only 22 then you were surrounded by them growing up, but hopefully the efforts of Let Toys Be Toys made some difference in last 10 years, but by then you probably weren't playing with toys!

This ad came into my head straight away as well. Love it, it's backwards we're going

Growing up in the 70s: yes, toys were just toys, and Lego was Lego. No gendered catalogue pages and aisles. Heck even the clothes were the same for boys and girls, with lots of orange.
And 5 years back my then 10 year old niece told me without a hint of irony that there are toys for boys and toys for girls - as evidenced in the pink and blue catalogue sections.
It has gotten sooo much worse compared to the 70‘s!!!

Just had a look at the 'Pink Stinks' twitter, I found this (I believe Paw Patrol is popular with today's young 'uns):

‘Kindness’

!!!!!

ODFOD to that bag o shite.

Those names need switching to counteract the nonsense that kids are exposed to!

Its not just toys though. I was once stood in Greggs and a little boy asked for a pink donut. His mam said they were just for girls and refused him one. Crazy!
Has anyone told Homer Simpson?

lots of Easter eggs are now pink or blue/otherwise explicitly aimed at one sex or the other. that's certainly a new one on me.

It's easy to go down a hole with this stuff.

I mean, if Lego Friends are gendered because they are thematically pink or purple, is that not us making assumptions about pink and purple?

Of course that is partly from the culture. But I don't think the best response is to avoid the toys, which carries it's own message. Or to try and police kids whatever they want to play, or not play, with.

It's more a matter of saying, look, anyone can play with this stuff, maybe more girls/boys like it, that's fine, play with what you want.

Most kids will go through more conformist stages, that's normal. They do it about all kinds of rules, it's part of how they come to understand rules that are mainly arbitrary, and those that aren't.

There also isn't anything necessarily wrong with having some customary social signals around sex, like clothing colours. Adults and even kids can understand that there is an arbitrary element to these. But most people are also interested in sexual dimorphism to some extent. It's a very human response and not something that goes away when you try and suppress it either, it just comes out differently.

It's not like anyone has some innate necessity to wear a skirt to express their authentic inner self. I think that is where some of this idea of removing gendered items has gone wrong, some people get the sense if their kid wants to wear something conventionally associated with the other sex, they are having their authentic self squashed. No, that's an over-statement. Eddie Izzard might like dresses, but if was unlucky enough to be born 10,000 years ago, he would have had to get along with a loincloth like the rest of us and he'd have been fine. And for that matter he can wear one now, and it's fine, but it's also fine that we all see it as being a little counter-cultural. Which may in fact be the appeal for many people. Someone who does not want to be counter-cultural will have to decided to wear something else which is also not harmful.

None of that relates to people who want to be really seen as the opposite sex, which is not really about what clothing you like or what you want to play with. It's a totally different thing.