posted
I just saw a commercial for something called "Fit and Fun" Care Bears. They apparently move to a rhythm mimicking exercising in an effort to get little girls to work out. Really, I don't think there's anything wrong with teaching kids about physical fitness, but something about this just struck me as wrong.
Maybe it's the fact that the Care Bears are singing "Physical" by Olivia Newton-John.
This reminded me of the Click-Its things made by Lego, just for girls. Because, you know, girls would never play with regular Legos. *cough* The commercials disgust me. It has little girls that are probably eight or so, wearing "cool" clothes, make-up, and dancing. The screen is stretched way out to make the girls look very tall, almost like teenagers. I have to wonder what the benefit of that would be. What possible use could one have for girls that look like teenagers, but with skinny, under-developed bodies?
Then there are the Bratz. "Style and fashion wherever we go" is part of their theme song. Last Halloween there was actually a Bratz costume pattern in the Simplicity catalog. The models for the costumes were five- or six-year-old girls wearing miniskirts, feather boas, and glittery mid-drift tops. They had lipstick applied far beyond the borders of their lips, in an attempt to mimic that full and pouty look that the Bratz have. The lipstick literally went all the way to their noses. They had giant fake eyelashes. What does this make you think of?
And don't even get me started on Barbie.
To be fair, I haven't analyzed boy toys to this degree, but they don't seem nearly as...iffy. It's no wonder I put my TV in the closet and don't let my kids watch it anymore.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Probably why I liked boys toys better when I was a kid. Plus they were not that sickening nauseating pink and orange colour they think all girls like. i can't understand why they think all girls like fashion and things like that.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:This reminded me of the Click-Its things made by Lego, just for girls. Because, you know, girls would never play with regular Legos
I actually longed as a child to have a girl set of legos. Something in pink and white with which you could build a house with flower beds and trim, because that's what I was always trying to make with my brother's legos.
I think, despite all the talk to the contrary, gendered toys are really important for children. I used to spend all of my time at the toy store in the "pink aisle," longing for the dolls and the clothes and the fake plastic food.
On the other hand, I think you have really valid concerns about what we're saying with these toys. My little sisters love Bratz, and have posters on their walls of these incredibly thin, slutty teenage cartoons that they think they're going to grow up to look like.
I think when I have children, I'm only going to let them shop at those independent toy stores that have educational toys rather than corporate ones. I'll let the little girls have baby dolls and dress up clothes and plastic food, and the boys can have building sets and Playmobil knights and pirates and such, but no Bratz and no techno-monsters.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well. maybe I should rephrase. It isn't the fact that we have toys for girls that disturbs me. It's the specific toys we are making for girls today. I can understand wanting some pink legos...I was also limited by the color choices as a child.
I had plenty of "girly" and "neutral" toys as a child, but nothing that was marketed the way these are. I mean, I had "Sweet Secrets" and "My Little Pony" which didn't really have any particular value set attached. The worst thing might be that they offered "Sweet Secrets" that turned into make-up, but I can't remember. None of mine did that.
Oh, and Click-Its aren't girly Legos. They are nothing like Legos. They are hair clips and things. The idea seems to be that most Legos are marketed to boys (ie Space stations, knights, etc) and they have this alternative for girls, because I'm guessing they are trying to hit a different group of consumers to make a bigger profit. So they made Lego "jewelry".
Lucky for me, I grew up with a twin brother. I was able to play with all his toys too. When he got legos, he sold them to me. We tried to make boats with my Barbie houses.
What annoys me is that it is still not appropriate for girls to play will boys toys. It is still not socially exceptable. You cannot buy a girl legos or toy cars for her birthday.
There are also still fields that are controlled by men, such as engineering and math. I think that if more girls were able to play with "boy toys", there would be more woman in those fields.
posted
How about this, Tom? It's important to have them so that kids can choose to play with them if they want?
I don't know about it not being acceptable...my parents got me Legos every year for Christmas. Yay for parents who get kids what they actually want to play with.
posted
I think they are important, and those roles are too. I don't think the roles are restrictive in and of themselves. They are a motivating factor for specific behaviors.
Now, I had a doll when I was a kid. That's right, a doll. Not an action figure, a real baby doll named Daisy. My grandma bought it for me, and eventually my sister inherited it.
My mom said that she always thought it was sort of sad that most guys were uncomfortable back then when first holding their newborn babies, and that most men (back then) had no clue how to hold them, and felt very uncomfortable doing so. She thought it was because they never played with dolls, so for a lot of them the first time they ever tried to hold a baby was a real one, and they felt awkward because they had no practice at it.
Whereas women had been practicing for it their whole lives.
And you know, it worked. I LOVE kids, and am not shy about holding even newborns. I got to hole my cousin when he was 4 days old, and I held my niece the very first day anyone was allowed to do so( ). I babysat as a young boy(9-12 years old), and when I became a teen I was really hurt when the parents who I had been babysitting for decided that they didn't want a young teenage boy babysitting their kids. I understood what they were uncomfortable about, but it really hurt all the same.
To this day nothing makes me smile faster than 2 things....babies and dogs.
I think gender roles are very important, as long as they aren't carved in stone. They are tools to teach specific behaviors, and very useful ones at that.
posted
"It's important to have them so that kids can choose to play with them if they want?"
Sure. Although I'm not sure that I'd define "important" that loosely; it's like saying that strawberry milk is "important" because some people like to drink it. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I loved the toys we made for ourselves. OTOH, we didn't have much money at all, so when we did get commercial toys, they were usually second-hand and missing some parts here and there.
But making your own paddle wheel, origami, cooking blancmange just like in Little Women, science experiments with baking soda and vinegar ... cool stuff.
[Edit: admittedly, it was a lifestyle made possible by having two stay-at-home parents. My father couldn't walk or feed himself after his stroke at 68 yrs old, so mom quit her RN job to nurse him and we lived on the meager pension, duct tape, spit and promises. ]
[ September 11, 2004, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kwea: I bought my son a doll when I was expecting my daughter. It's a little boy named Baby Jay. Jesse doesn't play with it much, but he does every once in a while. He tucks it in and sings it a song and tells it a story. He likes to do a sort of roleplaying thing where he's the parent and the baby is himself.
Of course, most of the time he's threatening his little sister with a plastic sword.
posted
Why are we so sure that gender roles are culturally-induced? I mean, I'm not going to argue that they're totally inherent, either, but why can't we accept that most likely, nature and nurture are contributing?
I say this as the oldest of six children. My youngest brother is 5, and lives in a household with 4 females. He's allowed to be a boy as much as is possible, but frankly, when your playmates are two little girls and your parent figure a mother, you're going to get a lot of girl culturing. In his case, it doesn't make the least amount of difference. He is most definitely a little boy and he'll play with his sisters' Barbie car, making it race and crash all over the room while they and their dolls practice social pleasantries in the background.
We had a friend of the family who decided to have only gender-neutral toys for her children (a boy and a girl) to be exposed to. She was explaining her rationale for this to us one evening in the living room when her little boy ran in, picked up a stuffed rabbit, held it with one ear extended like a machine gun and yelled "bam bam bam bam bam!" She paused and reflected, and said, "and apparently, my ideas only apply to a certain extent."
(edit: having some serious spelling issues this morning)
posted
I don't think it's culturally induced at all. I think boys are innately little boys and girls are innately little girls. I say this not as a degreed psychologist or anything but as a mother of boy/girl twins.
My kids were treated exactly the same during the first year. they had to be, it was the only way to survive. They ate at the same time, dressed in neutral clothing (I only bought stuff that both could wear, seemed silly to have two sets of clothing. So they dressed in overalls and t-shirts, in sleepers that were white or yellow or green) They shared the same toys.
ONe glaring example is when my brother gave Daniel a baby baseball set with a big plastic bat and all. Abigail picked up the bat and pretended to be brushing her hair with it. When she put it down, Daniel picked it up and started whacking things with it.
Now, they are old enough to articulate their wants, and choose things, and they choose total opposites. In the library, Daniel looks for books with Spiderman, Bob the Builder, and space stuff. Abigail looks for stories about babies and ponies and kittens.
What's wrong with letting our boys be boys and our girls be girls? Let's face it - they ARE different.
As to the disgust with many toys offered for girsl - I agree. Not a fan of barbie or Bratz.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is, all the evidence people use to point to gender differences being genetically based is inconclusive to me, because our definitions of gender are so pervasive they are inescapable. Did your kids ever watch TV? Did they ever socialize with other kids?
I lean against the thought that the differences we see between the genders are intrinsic, because I am an exception to so many of those generalizations, as is Cor. Yet, despite my hatred for Barbie, and my refusal to ever pay for anything with her name on it, I have been unable to keep her out of my house. And my kids refer to other dolls, dolls not made by Mattell, as "Barbies," which shows, I think, how far her reach is. If she is so influential as to be synonymous with "doll" for my kids, how could her definition of womanhood not be imprinted on them, despite my best efforts?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think what I find disturbing is that most "girl" toys recently have taken more and more focus on "being beautiful"
Sara and I were at Toys 'R Us and there were girl and boy toy kits. The boys were doctors and tools, the girls were salon kits. I don't mind pink and blue toys, or girl and boy-oriented toys like dolls and action figures, and I love the idea of dress up for both boys and girls, but there are definitely some that disgust me. I think we'll stick to more gender-neutral toys.
Actually, I have been really impressed by the educational toy market. Although, sadly, the smaller stores tend to be driven out by the larger box stores and the prices tend to be a bit high. We visited a store called Giggles in Stoughton yesterday and really loved the selection -- kitchen science kits, archaeology digs, fun new polymer balls that are easier to catch, puppets, dress-up gear etc. Very neat.
posted
My other argument for intrinsic gender is the nearly universal nature of the most basic gender roles. Yes, there are matrarchal societies, but they are the minority. In nearly every human culture, women are responsible for domestic work and their cultural "interests" tend to lie in cooking and sewing and children. How can it be artificial when it's ubiquitous?
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: What's wrong with letting our boys be boys and our girls be girls? Let's face it - they ARE different.
"Let's face it" implies that those of arguing against the intrinsic nature of gender identity actually know your position to be true, and are arguing a different position for some dishonest reason.
I'm not convinced that they are so different.
But regardless, why not amend that statement to:
What's wrong with letting our boys and our girls be whatever they want?
Nobody's trying to prevent girls from being girly or boys from being boyish. We're just trying to make sure their traits reflect their preferences, not what culture and TV told them they should be. So that a boy who wants to play with dolls doesn't develop some shameful belief that he is "gay" or less of a boy.
quote: My other argument for intrinsic gender is the nearly universal nature of the most basic gender roles. Yes, there are matrarchal societies, but they are the minority. In nearly every human culture, women are responsible for domestic work and their cultural "interests" tend to lie in cooking and sewing and children. How can it be artificial when it's ubiquitous?
There are other choices between artificual and genetic. Maybe there was a historical time when certain roles just made more sense, based on what the world was like and what was needed for survival, and we have held onto these definitions as a cultural relic, when they no longer have any survival benefit.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Remember when Barbie had doctors and teachers? Now she's "Cali Girl" and shopping and and all that. She always liked shopping but she had other interests too. Not anymore.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And my kids refer to other dolls, dolls not made by Mattell, as "Barbies," which shows, I think, how far her reach is. If she is so influential as to be synonymous with "doll" for my kids, how could her definition of womanhood not be imprinted on them, despite my best efforts?
Yeah. It's a shame.
quote: I think what I find disturbing is that most "girl" toys recently have taken more and more focus on "being beautiful"
Sara and I were at Toys 'R Us and there were girl and boy toy kits. The boys were doctors and tools, the girls were salon kits.
I remember that. Boy, was I ever ticked that the doctor kits were specifically labelled "for boys" in contrast to their kits "for girls."
quote:But regardless, why not ammend that statement to:
What's wrong with letting our boys and our girls be whatever they want?
Absolutely, with the general caveats about safety and responsibility, of course.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not all toys for girls suck. The Easy Bake Oven rocked, and the pre-Barbie doll houses were cool, too.
Posts: 2292 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are other choices between artificual and genetic. Maybe there was a historical time when certain roles just made more sense, based on what the world was like and what was needed for survival, and we have held onto these definitions as a cultural relic, when they no longer have any survival benefit.
Yes. And it's also possible that the balance of nature/nurture differs amongst children; that is, some of them may bring more nature to the table than others do.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because men, for the most part, have been the physically stronger sex, and as such has done the hunter role....which doesn't leave a lot of time of energy for domestic duties.
So in many (but not all) societies the roles developed that way.
Also, women, are "physically equipted", so to speak, to care for children. Men can't breast feed, so women took over the role of childcare.
And men don't always stick around, or survive the hunts.
quote:Not all toys for girls suck. The Easy Bake Oven rocked, and the pre-Barbie doll houses were cool, too.
Absolutely. Boys should be able to play with them too.
For me, the nauseating toys are specifically Barbie and Bratz. ESPECIALLY Bratz. My blood pressure goes up just thinking about these four-inch-tall hoochie mamas, and, again, how relentlessly they are marketed at my girls despite my strongest wish to keep them away.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes. And it's also possible that the balance of nature/nurture differs amongst children; that is, some of them may bring more nature to the table than others do.
Look, I got the acorns and the two rodents, would you stop pestering me about billy? I don't care if he brought mother nature herself! How ar you going to eat her anyways?
posted
Actually, it would make more sense for a matriarchial society as the women stayed at home and lived long enough (in theory) to develop wisdom and learning, whereas the men did the dangerous stuff and probably had a pretty respectable mortality rate.
However, rule tends to come through force. People who are in charge are usually capable of wielding force. Which, typically, is a male attribute. Mao said all political power comes from the barrel of a gun.
Gender-neutral toys are fine, but keep in mind that kids will develop habits from their environment every bit as much as the toys they have to play with. Their toys are only one aspect of their environment.
I never saw that as a toy for girls, despite the commercials. I knew boys that used them. who doesn't like brownies cooked by a lightbulb?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always felt open-minded when I used it because it was pink and girls were in the commercials. But now you're telling me it was a universally-appealing toy, which means my first attempt at being free-thinking was in vain.
quote:Because men, for the most part, have been the physically stronger sex, and as such has done the hunter role....which doesn't leave a lot of time of energy for domestic duties.
So in many (but not all) societies the roles developed that way.
Also, women, are "physically equipted", so to speak, to care for children. Men can't breast feed, so women took over the role of childcare.
And men don't always stick around, or survive the hunts.
Is this not, then, a good example of the biological factors in gender roles? Are not women still "physically equipped" to be child-rearers? Little girls will pick up a corn husk and pretend it's a baby - you have to acknowledge the biological factors there.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, that's not the point. The point is that we made up a whole bunch of non-inherent tendencies, attitudes, whatever, because they went hand in hand with a division of labor that was once natural.
Women are physically equipped to be child-bearers, as well as infant-feeders. I do not agree that they are inherently better equipped to be child-rearers, and it's that specific stereotype that most gets my dander up when it comes to gender-role debates.
Once upon a time being the child-bearer, and the one who was temporarily incapacitated from the hunt, and the one who was physically less suited for the hunt anyway, led to women being the natural child-rearers. But there's not a lot of hunting going on nowadays anyway, so there's no inherent need for men to be trained to be aggressive while women are trained to be domestic and child-centered.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I went to a Baptist after school care program in elementary school, we were not allowed to bring or play with toy guns. So we held pencils in our fists and made gun noises while we played cops and robbers. Does this prove something? Well, yes, but given that the girls did this as well as the boys, what it seems to prove is simply that the best wishes of our elders and authority figures were unable to prevent cultural norms from impressing themselves upon us.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Well, for me, the simple fact that the majority of girls would do such a thing whereas the majority of boys would not is an indication that it must be inherent in the gender of the child. The fact that foreign cultures seem to have roughly the same results would reinforce that for me.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have never known somebody that has raised both a boy and a girl who has doubted that there are intrinsic differences between the genders that follow the traditional gender roles (for example, aggression for boys and nurturing for girls).
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would agree with that if you put things like "can be" and "often" and "sometimes" in it. It isn't that black and white - it simply. It doesn't take into account the variations in people and humanity.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm. What would happen if we took children and put them in an isolated environment? Where all environmental factors are controlled and any background input is monitored for the information.
I'm sure it would be a fascinating experiment.
And I'm sorry I didn't read Kwea's post a tad more thoroughly - I re-posted the same ideas he mentioned previously.
posted
My argument to that, Porter, is simply that the imprinting our culture does is so subtle that parents are virtually powerless to prevent it.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, the imprinting of genetics could be as subtle as cultural imprinting, and the two could reinforce each other.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
So what it comes down to is we all have our individual beliefs, based on our anecdotal experiences, and we won't know until we kidnap some third-world kids and raise them in a lab somewhere.
So, um . . . Look! Nazis!
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Once upon a time being the child-bearer, and the one who was temporarily incapacitated from the hunt, and the one who was physically less suited for the hunt anyway, led to women being the natural child-rearers.
I wonder why one would say women are less suited for the hunt. We may be smaller, but that doesn't stop lionesses. We may be weaker, but that's not something we're born with...we are born with the ability to train ourselves to be strong, lithe, and fast. Why are men the natural hunters for humans, but not for lions? Physically speaking?
posted
Because they (women) are more valuable and important for what men can't do - we can't become pregnant and we can't nurse.
Women are inherently more valuable to the survival of the tribe, so it is paramount we keep them (women) safe and protected while they continue to replenish the tribe.
Men, by comparison, are only really needed for the five minutes of actual coupling and contrary to popular belief, flowers and expensive dinners are not a required part of producing offspring.
Which in turn means the man is more expendable, but the woman is more valuable in terms of survival because they can do the one thing we (men) can't. So women might be effective and proficient hunters, but the tribe cannot afford to lose even one source of children, given the mortality rate of infants and women during childbirth.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
Goat.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
