From: Indigo
Playing with toys are a large part of one’s childhood. From dolls to building blocks, children play till their imaginations dwindle, and the days end. Yet, these toys are seemingly divided against one another, through advertisement and packaging. Toys have become gendered, with boys seen building and destroying whilst girls dwell on their appearances and on their fake maternal instincts. Toy advertisement, and toys in general, are gendered in such a way that children are divided and harmed in the process.
Using my photo, I conveyed the difference between the two aspects of gendered childhood via toy advertisement. When walking through the toy aisles of the store, I walked into the “boys” aisles first. They were flooded with superhero and building toys. The aisles are colored dark blues and black. Meanwhile, a few aisles over is the “girl” toy department looked remarkable different. There are aisles of princess’ and baby dolls flood the space. The two photos shown compare the aspects of childhood. Both show dolls, yet they’re portrayed differently. One section of dolls are seen as more masculine “heroes”, while the other aisle is speaking of princess’ and more feminine dolls. The two are both playing with dolls, yet on opposite ends of the spectrum, on two sides of the photo.
Toys used to be ungendered, and instead were just played by whomever and produced with no intended gender. Until the 1940s, when toys took a turn. Toys became gendered in order for companies to make copious amounts of money from more wealthier families. The companies at hand thought that if they advertised their toys, and toy sets, to wealthy parents, they’d end up buying them all for their children (Maas). These companies depended on families buying into the binary and forcing their children to conform their playtime to it. Toy companies paid to advertise to these families, knowing their pockets would be filled from parents forcing their children to conform.
Companies conform to binary centric ideas through their products, and the packaging surrounding them. LEGO is a brand that notoriously submitted to this conundrum, especially when it came to young girls. For decades, LEGO was advertised and sold to young boys, who could build and destroy their creations. Then in 2013, they established sets of pink LEGOs intended for girls. They made them domesticated, and made it seem that girls should just be baking and hanging with one another (Abadi). They faced backlash, from this, since they were perpetuating harmful stereotypes around girls and girlhood. This showed how harmful the advertisement was deeply rooted in their company, since they couldn’t even create an adequate toy for girls, or just simply stop gendering their previous products. Companies have no clue how to advertise their products without some sort of binary in place.
Toy companies have perpetuated the binary using advertisements since the 1940s. they force boys and girls into it, by making boys builders and girls beauty obsessed and domestic. These companies have harmed children with their copious amount of ads, to the point that I, a consumer, can walk into a store and realize the vast difference between the select aisles. They keep children apart, rather than let them create stories of their own, and live without these stereotypes surrounding them.
Works Cited
Abadi, Ponta. “Kids Toys: More Gendered Than Ever.” Ms. Magazine, 05 June 2013. https://msmagazine.com/2013/06/05/kids-toys-more-gendered-than-ever/
Maas, Megan. “How toys became gendered – and why it’ll take more than a gender-neutral doll to change how boys perceive femininity.” The Conversation, 05 December 2019. https://theconversation.com/how-toys-became-gendered-and-why-itll-take-more-than-a-gender-neutral-doll-to-change-how-boys-perceive-femininity-124386.
No comments:
Post a Comment