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.