As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Christmas Shopping Gender role stereotype realizations
Bloods End
Blade of TyshallePunch dimensionRegistered User regular
Blade of TyshallePunch dimensionRegistered User regular
I'm not sure that this is entirely the right place for this, but I can't think of a better place.
I went out for some last minute Christmas shopping and was looking for stuff specifically for my little sister and little cousins. Almost every single toy they had for girls were some variation of ponies or princess or dolls where you make them and yourself as pretty as possible. There weren't very many toys that seemed proactive or something that would be enjoyable to play with. They didn't do anything but you could do things to them. Compared with the "boy"s section are things that lit up, that moved, that could do something. They were far more interesting. It got me to thinking about the whole idea of enforcing stereotypical gender roles on kids. Boys play with trucks and girls with dolls, that sorta thing. But why do "trucks" (and other "male" toys) just seem more interesting and fun to play? Is it saying something about toy companies just assuming that all girls want is to change their clothes and feed a fake baby or is it something I just don't get because I'm a guy?
Additionally, I'm pretty sure the person who came up with the idea for Bratz toys should be taken out and shot. I believe that that toy line is based around the idea of making little girls into snooty whores.
I went out for some last minute Christmas shopping and was looking for stuff specifically for my little sister and little cousins. Almost every single toy they had for girls were some variation of ponies or princess or dolls where you make them and yourself as pretty as possible. There weren't very many toys that seemed proactive or something that would be enjoyable to play with. They didn't do anything but you could do things to them. Compared with the "boy"s section are things that lit up, that moved, that could do something. They were far more interesting. It got me to thinking about the whole idea of enforcing stereotypical gender roles on kids. Boys play with trucks and girls with dolls, that sorta thing. But why do "trucks" (and other "male" toys) just seem more interesting and fun to play? Is it saying something about toy companies just assuming that all girls want is to change their clothes and feed a fake baby or is it something I just don't get because I'm a guy?
Additionally, I'm pretty sure the person who came up with the idea for Bratz toys should be taken out and shot. I believe that that toy line is based around the idea of making little girls into snooty whores.
Bloods End on
0
Posts
2) Gender dichotomies make life easier for marketers.
In a different world, you might be questioning why everyone is forced to play with trucks, as dolls are much more awesome and you can dress them up awesome ways.
I talked about this in the previous thread; they did research on newly-babies. They showed them pictures crowded with objects and people. They found out that the male babies eyes tend to focus on objects and they try to touch those objects, whereas female babies tend to focus on people and they try to touch those people (particularly the facial area).
Also, male babies from a very early age are obsessed with assembling things, destroying things, using things as weapons, etc. They tend to claim ownership to objects more than female babies. Female babies, when given a bunch of toys of different types, tend to go for ones that resemble people. Dolls, teddy bears, etc. They also tend to share their toys more than male babies do.
So the more interesting question to ask is, do gender roles exist as a result of some sort of social conspiracy, or as a result of our genetic, gender-based tendencies towards particular activities and the objects related to those activites?
I think it's both.
But it is wrong to use genetics as justification for how things should be. The reasonable thing to do is to give both genders, from an early age, equal exposure to and opportunity to get to like both options (i.e. cars, trucks, swords vs. dolls). Buy two dolls and two trucks for your kid and see which ones he/she likes to play with.
Also, what jewcar said about marketers.
Look up the turner's syndrome studies to find that flaw.
:P
I can't remember exactly. I don't have my book with me.
I want that!
Also, dollies are just avatars for imaginative storytelling and plot creation. You enact things with them, you don't just change their clothing and have them sit on a ledge somewhere. What sorts of adventures can a truck have, in comparison to a person? None that nearly as good as a truck that transforms into a person, that's what.
Why?
Their mothers were forcing them into it, screwing up the objectivity.
Basically, someone took little Billy's doll and replaced it with a monster truck and praised him for it.
And so on.
Which is yet another easy-to-Freud thing.
Oh, I see what you're saying.
The part about newly-born babies, yeah they had minimal if any parental modeling as far as gender roles go. So it sounded like a pretty solid study to me.
I don't know about the other study.
FEAR OF CASTRATION
I cannot lime this hard enough. Lego is the best shit ever.
First, I've said that it is not an excuse. I'm explaining behavior, not prescribing it.
'
Second, yes, I agree that washing machine toys are retarded. That just screams "get in the kitchen" to me.
As for GI Joe toys, they are popular among boys because their image is that of fighting and kicking ass. A kid who doesn't know what GI Joe is (hasn't seen the cartoons for example) would not be interested in a GI Joe toy that is not wielding some sort of gun.
If the toy was marketed without its context of aggression and heroism, I would not be surprised if GI Joe toys suddenly became more popular among girls than boys.
Everyone played house, everyone played with puzzles, everyone played pretend, and I don't think a single kid spent more than a year there before trying on those high heels they had lying around (I had such good balance).
But they're dolls. Clearly, girls must like them more than boys. Its inevitable and compulsory according to your above post.
If your post was remotely true, the context would not be relevant. Also, you should really read up on the studies about parental differential treatment of children by gender. It starts long before you can carry out those research projects, given that you can't perform them until children are several months old and their eyes are capable of focusing properly.
Cars are for boys.
Why do girls hate scooters? Why aren't boys into music? Why do they like airplanes? Why the computer for the girls? Why a tea set for the girls?
I'm sure genetics knows all about that.
The problem is marketing it as "for girls only." Everyone should know about laundry! And pretty much all little kids like to mimic what they see their parents doing, so I don't have an issue with having pretend-appliances. They should be marketed equally, and hopefully have a picture of a boy and a girl on the box, and such, but I don't think the actual existence of toy appliances is a bad thing.
And ege, even week-old babies have had a large amount of reinforcement of gendered roles. I also remember a study where very, very young infants were dressed in clothes that conveyed an assumption of gender without actually corresponding to the gender of the baby. When adults came and interacted with the babies, they behaved entirely differently when reacting to what they thought was a girl baby as opposed to with what they thought was a boy baby. Since babies are ridiculously sponge-like, especially during their first few weeks, the amount of gender reinforcement is not insignificant.
To be fair, those lists kinda jive with what ege02 said with the study on newborns:
The Boys list is mostly "things", vehicles, etc.. No actual "people" or pets, unless you count Megatron as a people.
The girls list has more people and pets then the boys list does.
Even so, in order to consider the evo-psych bullshit valid someone needs to make the connection that genetics have implanted in us the secret eternal knowledge of what dinosaurs are, of what scooters and airplanes and computers are; what dolls are for, what the imagination is, and why kids like me who played house with Z-Bots and dinosaurs just aren't real.
I'd rather put 'em to work for real and then let them spend their playtime on actual fun, though. Housework isn't something to aspire to, its not particularly creative or skillful (cooking excepted). Its just a default expectation that one should know how to take care of one's stuff. Children's available playtime should emphasise exactly the things pretend-cleaning doesn't, in my mind.
Agreed, but I felt it necessary to comment at those specific lists.
That being said I had those wax WWE Wrestlers when I was little. I guess I played with dolls because that's pretty much what they were. Man, I had some great matches back then.
You can't stop me, mom and dad! ... In a... non-tangential sense. ...
Toys have gotten cool? Buy your kids Legos. And yourself.
The world would be a more breathable place.
That and they aren't making the toys, or marketing them. There's no logical reason why everything explicitly for girls must must must be pink besides unimaginative marketing.
It's just a color for fuck's sake.
I have a problem with toy washing machines being marketed to girls exclusively.
I don't have a problem with those toy washing machines being pink.
Or was, this is just what I remember from 24 Christmases so far.
A valid argument, if a little exaggerated.
Hostile environment? Please. I can see a boy getting mocked by his friends for wearing pink, but that it no different than him getting mocked for wearing a skirt.
Would you say skirts vs. pants creates an "us versus them" context too?
is this some kind of trick question? Shit man, women used to get arrested and sometimes killed for wearing boy clothes. And can we get a mention of the murder rate affecting MtF crossdressers and trans people of varying stripe? Playground shit is just where it starts.
But none superior.
Well maybe if you guys hadn't hid your flag so well...