Lets See How Gender Neutrality Goes

I began creating this blog to be about the socialization of children by toy advertisement. However as I viewed and learned more information on children’s toys, I realized that the advertising of children’s toys is not the main problem with how children are being socialized into traditional gender role believing individuals. Toy advertisement is a factor of this socialization yet it is the actual genderized toys that influence children to become aware of gender roles and manipulate them to follow these sexist roles. Thus I changed my blog to be about children’s genderized toys and how the toys, along with their advertisements, affect children’s everyday perspectives. 

Children may notice physical differences among boys and girls but they should not be influenced by toys to assume genders have to be different in all aspects. Some people may not realize how a simple toy could affect a child’s current view on their gender identity, so they allow children to play with the manipulating toys. Those affects, although may seem like regular playing games, would then leave children to grow into traditional gender roles as adults and prevent a gender equality society. How would we obtain gender equality if young generations do not learn about gender identities and equal roles as children? We must educate ourselves on this topic of children’s genderized toys, such as from the sources I have read and mentioned on this blog, to understand how impacted children are when it comes to toy influence. 

All the web sources and research articles have furthered my interest to finding out what makes toys genderized, how are they gendered through advertising, and how children react to these toys. Once I learned what and how toys are gendered, I focused on trying to find sources that were on children’s perspectives about gendered toys. I have mentioned how there are many children who are taught from birth about appropriate genderization and others that have no knowledge of this concept. I enjoyed sources that focused on the children who did not yet know about genderization because I think they are the individuals who we should learn from and be like. These children only view the toys' purpose to entertain them. 

This perspective children have of not acknowledging genderized characteristics of objects is a concept that can help the world reflect on the views of gender equality. Such as in Judith Warner's article on Time's website about Sam’s experience, a five year old boy who chose his pink shoes for his first day of preschool, has given the social media this concept of banishing genderization for the benefits of equality. Sam was excited about his new shoes but his mother was criticized for allowing her son to wear the shoes by arguing that they would “turn him gay,” (Warner). Although the shoes were pink, the actual reason Sam wanted the shoes were because they were zebra print and that was his favorite animal. Children like Sam, should be commended for overlooking the genderized characteristics of objects to be able to enjoy the overall object’s purpose – in Sam’s case, they are just shoes made of an animal.

The Lesson of the Boy in the Pink Ballet Flats

Although in Sam’s case it was not on toys, it still reflects on how genderized objects can influence people’s perspectives on one’s gender identity and roles. Without any objects being gender labeled, we would be better off since it would free us from judgment, criticism, and limitation of opportunities. If we want this change in our adulthood, we must realize the necessity for this change in childhood. Therefore these insights on children’s genderized toys would benefit the worlds view to accept gender neutrality and obtain gender equality for all ages.

References:
Warner, Judith. "The Lesson of the Boy in the Pink Ballet Flats." Times. Times.com, 14 Dec. 2012. Web. 07 Dec. 2014.

Different Information on Genderized Toys

It may seem as though there is not a big controversy on this topic of children's genderized toys; however, there are many other sources to view different points and further one's interest on the topic. The sources I have used so far are few examples of where one can obtain more information.

• Sweden 'Trying To Banish Gender' Through Toy Advertising And Language: Web source that is on changes made by Sweden to create more gender neutral advertisement in children's toys.
• The Gender Marketing of Toys: An Analysis of Color and Type of Toy on the Disney Store Website: A research article on a study that identifies what characteristics make toys genderized.
• The Effects of Commercials on Children’s Perceptions of Gender Appropriate Toy Use: Another research article is on a study of how advertising toys in a genderized way affects children's perspectives on the toy.
• School bans 9-year-old boy's My Little Pony backpack: Web source that shows the negative effects of a child who goes against the unspoken rule about children having to play with traditional genderized toys.

In reading, viewing, and understand different sources on genderized children's toys we can realize how important this topic is and create a movement or strategy that can change the concept of toys.

Toy Ads and Learning Gender

• Videos such as from YouTube, Feminist Frequency's Toy Ads and Learning Gender are on the effects of toy advertising on children. When I viewed this video, I learned a new concept in the differences in boy and girl toys that present perspectives they may pass unnoticed to some individuals. Anita Sarkeesian, the creator and host of the YouTube channel, mentions how concepts, such as "making and constructing", are characteristics needed for successful adults and these characteristics are only seen in boy toys. This limits young girls from learning these characteristics and can affect their adulthood. Sarkeesian gives her view on children's toys and advertising that provide us to reflect on how the effects on toys will influence the future of children.

What the Research Says: Gender-Typed Toys

• The studies I mentioned are in great detail of their research. Interviews of researchers and their studies also give considerable input on concepts of genderized toys. The National Association for the Education of Young Children's (NAEYC) website has their interview, What the Research Says: Gender-Typed Toys, refers to a study done on classifying toys for boys, girls, or neither through the toys' functions (aggression, beauty, etc). The interview also asked the researchers, based on their study, what type of messages would teachers and parents learn about toys. This gives the viewpoints from professors about which toys are more prominent to be educational, encouraging in positive behavior to children, and other aspects that affect a child's characteristics. I think this short interview is an important quick read as it provides a concept of what types of affects are children given by genderized toys and how adults can become involved with influencing children to play with positive influential toys.

Children's Gender-Based Reasoning about Toys

• For those who prefer the actual studies to obtain the details, Carol Lynn Martin, Lisa Eisenbud, and Hilary Rose's research article Children's Gender-Based Reasoning about Toys is on children's perspectives of genderized toys. Three studies of children are made to see how labeled and non-labeled toys affect their perspective of the toys. The first two studies the children are given toys without girl or boy labels (gender neutral toys) and are asked how they would like the toys, how girls would, and how boys would also. In the last study, the toys they were given were labeled girl or boy (traditional gendered toys) and were asked the same questions. This study identifies how simple labels of gender can easily influence children. By reading this study, we can conclude that toy companies should advertise their products in a gender neutral way so children will not fall into a tradition gender role society.

 Today Tonight – Gender Toys

• Going back to videos, it is great to have news reports on topics about helping children. On YouTube, Channel Seven Perth's video Today Tonight – Gender Toys has a reporter visit and question the family on children's toys. Four year old Eve plays with Legos and is upset when the reporter states that people place Legos to be just for boys. The video also asked other children what they thought about toys and they considered toys to be gender neutral. Although many children are influenced to obtain traditional gender roles as they grow up, there are still some children who just play with any toys without considering its gender label. By viewing this video we can try to relate to children and see that labeling genders on objects is pointless if we want to obtain a gender equality lifestyle.

The "Gendering" of Our Kids' Toys, and What We Can Do About It

• Viewing an actual parent's perspective on the topic of children's toys would allows us to understand how adults should worry on the ways children are being influenced. Elizabeth Sweet's article, The "Gendering" of Our Kids' Toys, and What We Can Do About It, is on her views of children's toys and how toys have increasingly became genderized throughout the 20th century. She closes off her article in stating how we should teach children about gender equality so they become more aware of toys' genderized influences. Throughout the years, the characteristics of toys have changed (everything is pink for girls even if they actually would not be like kitchens) and it is mainly for the benefit of companies to sell more products. By Sweet relating her childhood toy experiences with today's toys, we can also see how the major differences influence children today.

We should inform ourselves to understand "In light of the significant advances toward gender equality that we see in the occupational realm, in the realm of home and family, and in education, why do children’s toys seem to be moving in the opposite direction?" (Sweet). If we want to have a gender equality driven society, it is necessary to understand what elements influence us to be genderized and more importantly what effects future generations so we can prevent a gender dominated society.

References for the last Five Sources:

• Martin, Carol L., Lisa Eisenbud, and Hilary Rose. "Children's Gender-Based Reasoning about Toys." Child Development 66.5 (1995): 1453. People.uncw.edu. Web. 07 Dec. 2014.
• Sarkeesian, Anita. "Toy Ads and Learning Gender." YouTube. YouTube, 16 Nov. 2010. Web. 06 Dec. 2014. 
• Sweet, Elizabeth. "The "Gendering" of Our Kids' Toys, and What We Can Do About It." The Center for a New American Dream More of What Matters. New Dream Blog, 07 Oct. 2011. Web. 07 Dec. 2014. 
• "Today Tonight - Gender Toys." YouTube. YouTube, 29 July 2014. Web. 07 Dec. 2014.
• "What the Research Says: Gender-Typed Toys." NAEYC. NAEYC, n.d. Web. 06 Dec. 2014.  

Produce Gender Neutral Toys

Once we have recognize this corruption of genderized children's toys, we can follow these steps for a change to make toys more gender neutral to provide better perspectives for children about gender equality.

1. To make this change we would need to acquire the understanding of many studies about children's toys, such as the sources I have mentioned, so we can figure out specifically what changes to make toys gender neutral.

• Many of the studies I have mentioned establish that the characteristics of toys are what make them the most gender appealing to children and adults. The studies also stated how advertising toys in commercials affects children's perspectives on what toys are for which gender. Therefore many features that affect children's perspectives through these characetistics are incorporated in toys to be very influential.

2. Knowing the features and aspects that make and influence genderized toys will help us begin changing these features. I think it would benefit this change to first make the appearance of the toys more gender neutral. With more toys appearing as gender neutral children will learn to not depend on physical features to define and separate genders.

• By the appearance of toys I mean the characteristics I have mentioned: color and toy type. Color is the biggest influential characteristic because most children are taught that pink is for girls and blue is for boys. Thus many of the girl toys are pink while boy toys are blue.
• If companies make the color of toys more gender neutral, then children will not be influenced by choosing toys based on the color "appropriate" to their gender. 
• As for the toy types, companies can produce more toys for both genders of all types of purposees. For instance they can make more toys for boys that involve housework, glamour and girl toys involving construction, action. Or companies can simply make toys that are for both genders without any physical gender segregating characteristics. Like how Legos has superhero toys for boys and the Friends brand Legos for girls, instead Legos can repruduce all their toys gender label free.

3.  Since the toys would then appear gender neutral, companies can then advertise their products with gender neutral actions.

• Toy commercials can feature both boys and girls playing with every type of toy. Children and adults would recognize how both genders are having fun playing with the same toy. This would influence them to purchase the toy without noticing if it is a girl or boy toy.

4. Lastly, we should begin encouraging children to play with these toys.

•  With all of these changes made to have gender neutral toys, there would be no point if children continued to want genderized toys. We should teach children about gender equality and influence them to reflect on their learning to purchase gender neutral toys.

By acknowledging and creating toys that are gender neutral, children will begin to play with any type of toys they find entertaining. These steps are potentially more beneficial to solve the problem with genderized toys influencing stereotypical gender roles to children than simply allowing children to play with opposite gender toys. Allowing children to play with different gendered toys does help them learn that toys should not be segregated by gender and they can do and become whatever they like. However, it lacks the encouragement that gender neutral toys have. As I mentioned that many children have already learned which characteristics are for boys and girl, like genderizing colors, by neutralizing these characteristics, children would more likely be willing to play with gender neutral toys that do not portray traditional gender role concepts. Children would not mind playing with toys whose function are usually for the opposite gender if they do not display genderized colors such as the picture below.

These steps will benefit children to understand that gender should not separate individuals. We are all people and we should all have equal rights to play with whatever we like as children and as adults to get fair chance to obtain any career and opportunities.

Children Will Continue Learning Gender Roles

Throughout my blog I have been explaining how genderized toys negatively affect children and in the past two posts how it reflects on other aspects in life. Therefore I have been trying to reach out to identify that these affects result in continuous problems for children and adults that do not recognize the toys influential gender role characteristics. When children are born they are just little body vessels that are assigned genders and are expected to grow into those traditional roles of their gender. Then parents buy their children the genderized toys that are "appropriate" for the child's assigned gender. But that is when the problem begins with gender toys, children seem forced to play a role that may or may not be suited for them and will have to figure out their true indentity as they grow into a world that is based on these gender roles.

Like this above picture shows, children are all born as similar little babies and gender roles are what forces them into the stereotypical charateristics as they grow. Wouldn't it be better to allow children to explore other characteristics so they grow up understanding that they do not have to follow these traditional roles? Such as my example in a previous blog post with the boy Dean who wanted to play with his "girly" FurReal Friend toy dog. By playing with a toy that came with pink accessories, he was able to enjoy different gender characteristics, being caring and nurturing, that boys usually do not experience with most genderized boy toys.

Going into this project I realized that it is not only the toys that influence children into traditional gender roles. Toy companies have to relate to their audience to sell more products. The easiest way to do this is with genderizing toys for specific consumers. Even with new technology, new toys are still produced for specific genders such as colorized nintendo DS's, iPad cases, and genderized app games for kids. Children are becoming exposed to newer technical toys as generations go by but they will still receive these gender role characteristics. The problem with gendered toys will continue unless we recognize that gender neutral toys are beneficial and just as fun for children. Children need us to encourage them and teach them about gender equality. Once we realize children's genderized toys are a problem for their growing minds, we can make a change to gender equality acceptance and gender neutrality.

Toys Influence Sexism

The thing about children is that they eventually effect many outcomes in the future. They are the little kids who will grow up and decide on the important movements – like gender equality. And like the issue of children's genderized toys, this topic is also important on the issue of sexism. As I mentioned children's toys are mostly genderized by their characteristics of color, toy type (portrays expected roles), and their advertising influences to the "appropriate" gender. These characteristics can then also be found in adult products like clothes, objects, and matured advertising. It seems like we do not grow out of our desired products. So these characteristics that go on throughout our lives are connected to issues on sexism because they are what people use to assume our sexual identities.

As children who do not yet acknowledge gender issues, the toys they play with are the products that become part of their identity and that part of their identity is what some adults use to assume their sexuality. Children who play with any toys they like, no matter what characteristics they have, experience sexism at a very young age. The most common sexist remark children face are usually boys who play or have pink girly products are judged on being or eventually becoming gay. While girls have more of a flexibility that allows them to play with boy toys without being judged.

How awful is it to see children who just want to be themselves enjoying what they like, being picked on without really understand what they have done wrong. It is not only as children, this issue of sexist bullying is usually more harmful in adult years as some people can become more rude and violent about sexism. The issue of children's toys being genderized is what leads to sexism and if we begin to prevent it with gender neutrality at a young age, we can develop a generation that will acknowledge feminism and gender equality. Children would not have to worry or face sexist bullying and would grow up understanding equality to form movements and change.

Schools Should Support Gender Neutrality

School bans 9-year-old boy's My Little Pony backpack

Knowing how to characterize toys is what helps companies be profitable by selling to the specific gender they are trying to appeal to. What if the products begin to expand their audience? Such as the brand My Little Pony, which is a television show now but it is expanding its values of the program and it is beginning to appeal to not only girls but boys as well. These boys who enjoy the show are known as "Bronies" and they purchase the pony products, toys, clothing, and all as any other boy gender product they like. The thing is how would this affect not only the young boys but also any social institutions they come across? Well Grayson Bruce, a 9 year old boy, figured out how loving a "girly" pony show would affect him and the concerns of the school he attended.

Grayson just wanted to wear his My Little Pony backpack to school (it's not a toy but it is still a genderized product). He was bullied so harshly that his mother had to pull him out of school and confront the principal. The principal just told her to leave the backpack at home, so pretty much banning boys from having My Little Pony products at school. As this story became more recognized, other Bronies supported Grayson on the social media. Eventually Grayson's mother spoke to the superintendent and was supported to prevent this bullying. The school now allows Grayson to wear his pony bookbag.

It is dreadful to see how an adult who is suppose to support and help children against bullying seemed to be against the victim. The principal's response to Grayson's situation was ignorant because it he was not supporting Grayson and was instead supporting the idea of bullying nontraditional gender roles to be allowed. School systems should be concerned with the values of teaching gender equality and reversed gender acceptance. This can be done with allowing children to play with any toys they want and any gender type of products. If children become more aware of gender role issues, then school systems should support the issues and have children understand the positive outcomes of playing with different gender toys. By children acknowledging gender roles in toys and then having someone teach children that they do not have to follow the traditional roles, allows for generations to continue the movement of equality and feminism.

References:
Grisham, Lori. "School Bans 9-year-old Boy's My Little Pony Backpack." USA Today. Gannett, 18 Mar. 2014. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.

What's Wrong With My Toy?

It is difficult to generalize children's thoughts, experiences, and actions. But lets try to imagine a young boy, Dean, at the age of 5 years old living as an only child with his upper-middle class parents who are not home so much. This child can pretty much get any toy he wants from his parents by just asking. When Dean is home he spends most of his time watching Nickelodeon in his blue onesie pajamas. He notices that he has every toy from the commercials that interests him – every toy that boys like him are playing with. He usually does not pay attention to girls in commercials until he notices that one of the toys they are playing with is a dog. A FurReal Friend! Dean has seen commercials for FurReal Friends with girls playing with cats and tiny puppies, yet this one seemed better. So he asked his parents for Cookie, the FurReal Friend toy dog from the commercial. His parents did see anything wrong with it so they eventually got him the toy dog. Dean was really excited to have Cookie because his parents never let him have a real pet that could ruin the carpet.

On his next play date with some of his kindergarten friends (boys), Dean was happy to show off Cookie. His friends though made fun of him teasing him saying it was a girl toy. He ask them, "How is it girly if it's just a dog?" They just laughed and said, "It has pink collar! Didn't you see only girls playing with it?"

From Dean's position as an only child, he never realized what things are girly. How could a child know the stereotypical gender roles if his parents do not show him, if he does not have any girls as friends, and if all he watches are cartoon shows. In this imagined situation, I would say the social problem is not among Dean but his friends. They could have younger or older sisters that wear pink, are girly, and maybe even have that same FurReal Friend as Dean. Or the boys' parents can be forceful in encouraging the boys to be manly. With any of these influences it is easy to connect with the way they teased Dean. Their positionality would be from tiny masculine boys who just respond to their influences.

If the boys grew up like Dean they would probably overlook the fact that Cookie is a girl toy dog. They would just see a regular toy dog. I personally like Dean's view on the toy since he is a child that most likely views things in a gender neutral way. It is beneficial to view objects for their purpose, like toy are for entertainment, and not focus on their genderized influences. With this perspective people can look past traditional gender roles and move forward with gender equality.

Short Reversed Roles Create Great Impacts

I decided to read another article in Sex Roles journal, Jennifer J. Pike and Nancy A. Jennings' "The Effects of Commercials on Children's Perceptions of Gender Appropriate Toy Use". It is another study that focuses on the effects of gendered toy commercials on children's toy preference and their gender labeling on toys.

For the study, 62 children in 1st and 2nd grade elementary school (28 boys and 34 girls) participated and were randomly assigned to be in three groups. One group would watch two toy commercials of boys playing with boy genderized toys (traditional condition), the second group would watch the same commercial but the boys would be replaced by girls (nontraditional condition), the third group would watch a non-toy commercial [SunnyD commercial] with both girls and boys (control condition). Pike and Jennings hypothesized that (1) the children in the nontraditional condition would more likely label the toys for both boys and girls and that (2) girls in the nontraditional condition would more likely respond differently saying that the target audience of the commercial were both boys and girls.

After the children watched the commercials, they were asked individually to categorized the toys from the commercials, two other similar toys, one toy truck, and one doll for either "boys", "girls", or "both boys and girls". The study proved that hypothesis (1) was supported with children in the nontraditional condition group were more likely to label the toys as both for boys and girls. The children in this group labeled one of the toys in the commercials 36.9% more to be for both genders.

On the other hand, Pike and Jennings' hypothesis (2) was not supported as they thought more girls than boys would label the toys as for both genders. It actually came out that more boys labeled the toys for both genders in the nontraditional group. In the nontraditional group 91% of the boys labeled one of the toys from the commercial for both genders while in the traditional group only 33% of the girls labeled the same toy for both genders.

The article concludes with the limitations of the study such as the editing in replacing the boys in the commercials with girls, and also time was limited for watching the commercials and interacting with the children afterwards. The short toy advertising commercials greatly impacts children and their views on gender that lead to their views on gender equality.

The Effects of Commercials on Children's Perceptions of Gender Appropriate Toy Use

Pike and Jennings' research article is a great source to place under my blog's topic since it specifically touches on the effects of genderized commercials and toys. I agree with the method they use to show the children the toy commercials and it helped to use a non-toy commercial as a control group to see children's perspectives without any recent influence. I also thought that both of the hypotheses, especially that girls would be more willingly to label toys for both genders, so I was surprised when it was actually boys that placed toys for both genders. It is a great finding since young boys are usually the ones who are discouraged to relate to girly toys so it is great to see a larger change in their gender toy role perspectives.

This article has made its valid research but this article is some years older than the first Sex Roles article I read, they may not wanted to spend as much time analyzing the limitations of the experiment. Such as I realized they could have mentioned with more participants they could have had more accurate results. I am sure there are other limitations such as the uneven ratio of boys and girls in the study.

Besides the lack of mentioning some limitations, why would the study focus on boy toy commercials instead of girl commercials and replace the girls with boys?

• As I mentioned how young boys are discouraged to relate with girly toys, this would most likely be why the study focused on boys' toy commercials. Girls have more of a flexibility to play with both boy and girl toys, whereas boys are influenced to only play with manly boy toys. Therefore as most girl toys are pink and more obvious to be girly, the boys in this study would have less of an impact to change their perspectives on girly toys being for both genders.

Why did they only present the children with one girl toy, the doll, because depending on the dolls appearance, wouldn't it be obvious for children to label it as a girl toy?

• It is weird that the 5 other toys were for boys and the one doll for girls. Other types of girl toys could have given different results. For instance Lego Friends, the Lego toy produced to appeal to girls, can have boys relate them to both genders since many Lego toys are for boys yet this specific one is for girls.
• The study probably just wanted to see if children knowing that dolls are for girls  would change their views and decide that boys can also play with dolls after seeing the nontraditional commercial.

All three of the articles I have posted are connected with different approaches on my topic of genderized toys. I would say my first website source is on changes made from realizing gender based toy commercials are negative, the second source is on what characteristics make toys genderized, and this source is on how these genderized toys effect children's gender identity perspectives. I enjoyed this article more because it explains that there is a positive impact on children and their socialization with toys if we change the way we advertise to the children. Thus by advertising to children in a gender neutral way, with both genders playing with any type of toy, it would benefit children's experience and learning with gender equality and sharing gender roles so there will not be anymore gender stereotypes.

References:
Pike, Jennifer J., and Nancy A. Jennings. "The Effects of Commercials on Children?s Perceptions of Gender Appropriate Toy Use." Sex Roles 52.1-2 (2005): 83-91. Deepblue.lib.umich.edu. Web. 12 Nov. 2014.

Toy Characteristics Make Gender Identity

In Sex Roles journal, Carol J. Auster and Claire S. Mansbach wrote an article, “The Gender Marketing of Toys: An Analysis of Color and Type of Toy on the Disney Store Website," that focuses on the way the Disney Store website organizes its toys to appeal to it’s buyers, both parents and children. They have studied the website to observe how the toys are organized by color, type, and gender neutrality. Auster and Mansbach mainly focus on the research on characteristics of toys are gender labels.

Their researchers hypothesized that (1) toys with stereotypical gendered colors/toy types will be labeled as for the “appropriate” gender and that (2) toys labeled gender neutral will more likely resemble toys that are labeled “boys only”.  They focused on the Disney Store website’s toys only. The researchers also coded the toys by color and toy type.

So the codes (shade of color/toy type) were the independent variable and the Disney Store website labels “boys only” and “girls only” were the dependent variables. The researchers would then select 1 of the codes at a time and decide how many of those toys were labeled “boys only”, “girls only”, or “both boys and girls”. The outcomes supported their hypothesis (1) of stereotypical gendered colors/toy type will be labeled reflecting the “appropriate” gender that should play with the toy. [So the dark colors for boys, dolls for girls, etc…] Overall, out of 527 toys: 319 were “boys only”, 117 “girls only”, and 91 “both boys and girls” toys.

As the researchers categorized what colors and toy types were “boys only” and “girls only” they were able to conduct the study for the hypothesis (2). Based on color, most of the gender neutral toys were more like the “boys only” toys. Yet based on toy type, more “girls only” toys were also “both boys and girls” toy. The hypothesis (2) was partially correct since it had support from 1 code (color) of the toys but no support from the toy type code.

The article wraps up by stating its limitations: U.S. Disney Store, summer toys, and code toys by age. With these limitations future research can benefit from it. There can be studies done on other companies and websites. The articles conclusion suggested that there are few ways to change characteristics of toys to become gender neutral. The best way to improve a child’s influence of gender neutrality is to provide them with different types of toys (educational,musical instruments, artistic supplies) so they can accept gender equality. 

The Gender Marketing of Toys: An Analysis of Color and Type of Toy on the Disney Store Website  (This is a current Disney Store Website Image)

I think the article, “The Gender Marketing of Toys: An Analysis of Color and Type of Toy on the Disney Store Website” studied the Disney Store’s website well enough to obtain how genderized the toys they sell are. I agree with all of the hypothesis the researchers made because society influences children to like gender stereotypical toys and colors. Gender based toys make it difficult for children to learn gender equality and studies like this one can help toy companies create and advertise more gender neutral toys.

The research also seems well done as they provided limitations that can influence future studies to improve their findings. I do not strongly disagree with anything in this article or research. Auster and Mansbach mention how the characteristics of toys relate to advertisement and marketing. The research they have written provides details of genderized toy characteristics and they mention how companies can change them to supply gender neutral and equal toys.

How were the codes/characteristics assigned fairly to be either "boys only" or "girls only"?

• It was finalized by having 2 researchers assign codes, one code at a time (color then toy type), as toys for boys or girls. Then a third researcher categorize the ambiguous choices, choices where the the previous researchers picked opposite genders, by alternating from the first gender to the second one so it would be random. 

Why would they only focus on the Disney Store's toys if there are other brands that are just as popular like Hasbro or Fisher Price? 

• I think they focused on the Disney Store website and toys because Disney has its own popular television channel with kid shows of all ages. These shows are represented in a lot of their toys so children are being advertised to like their toys without even knowing. Therefore, its a popular toy brand to study.

Both of the sources I have covered approach the topic differently as my previous website source mentions that Sweden has noticed that toys are genderized so they want to become more gender neutral. While this academic article is a study to see how many toys are more genderized. Compared to the website source, this academic article is more focused on the gender influenced characteristics of toys that appeal to children and parent consumers. I think the academic article contributes to the genderized toy topic since it explains that the characteristics that were studied influence which toys are more popular to produce and sell. It is important to identify gender based characteristics of toys in order for us to understand what needs to be changed to encourage gender neutrality so children can understand and appreciate feminist equality.

 References:
Auster, Carol J., and Claire A. West. "[PDF] Springer – The Gender Marketing of Toys: An Analysis of Color and Type of Toy on the Disney Store Website, 2012 - West." West Welfare Society Territory. West-Info.eu, 17 Dec. 2012. Web. 12 Nov. 2014.

Be Neutral Be Equal

            The Huffington Post article by Emma Mustich, Sweden ‘Trying To Banish Gender’ Through Toy Advertising And Language, presented how in 2012 Sweden began to denounce gender segregated toy advertisement. Leklust, a Swedish toy company, has made their catalogs to be against gender stereotypes with a boy dressed as Spiderman pushing a pink baby carriage and a girl riding a toy lawnmower. Their catalog became popular around social media and gained support for gender equality. Sweden’s model is not only for gender equality but mainly to raise children with gender-neutral views. These views also led them to introduce a neutral gendered pronoun “hen” instead of “han” (he) and “hon’ (she). The article concluded with the questioning if it is ethical to raise children as “gender-free” and with some audiences that disagree because children “don’t give a fig if the toy they want to play with is meant for a girl or a boy,” (Mustich).

Sweden’s view on toy advertising is uniquely productive since they see the corrupt views in other advertising with gender segregation and traditional gender roles. I agree with their model of gender free toys and self-identification. If children are not pressured by advertising to play with gender based toys, then they are able to choose whichever they like. Then without playing with gender based toys, children will not be socialized to stereotypical gender roles and can use the pronoun “hen”, or any other that is not gender specific, to comfortably describe themselves.

I support Sweden’s model and other views for gender equality or gender neutrality and so I disagree with those, such as Jacqueline Burt in the article, who do not care for the views. We need to realize that although there are children who enjoy any toy to play with, there are others who are influenced by genderized toys and advertising. Toy commercials, toy catalogs, and other methods of advertising influence children to play with the toys that are labeled for their gender. There will always be those kids who will say “Oh no, that toy is for girls/boys!” To prevent this type of negative gender segregation, we must begin to follow in Sweden’s model to show children it is not shameful to play with the opposite gender’s toys.

Sweden 'Trying To Banish Gender' Through Toy Advertising And Language

Anyway, why should anyone think it is shameful for a child to play with the opposite gender’s toy?

• The gap between genders is slowly closing with more gender equality rights than pass years. Since there are more woman in the work force and other male dominant roles, children should learn as they grow that opposite genders are the same in many aspects. Therefore, it would not be shameful to begin to play with different toys as a child.

Others could question why is there still a significant amount of pink in girl toys and blue in boy toys?

• Even in the Lekjust toy catalog most of the girl toys are all pink while the boy toys vary in dark colors. This specifically targets the toy company than the advertising itself; however, it also contributes to why the catalog separates these toys from the other non-pink and non-“girly” toys.
• I would assume it is because Sweden is slowly making this neutral gendered model and I respect that. I am sure over time pink toys will diminish because in reality there are no all pink ovens, vacuums, or castles, or anything really. 

Toys and toy advertising will hopefully become gender neutral in all aspects so children will begin to understand gender equality as they grow.

References:
Mustich, Emma. "Sweden 'Trying To Banish Gender' Through Toy Advertising And Language." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 12 Apr. 2012. Web. 31 Oct. 2014.