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.  

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.

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.

Why are Children's Toys Important?

Children spend their time having fun and enjoying toys that are given to them without much thought behind it. It's all fun and games until toy you realize the toys they are playing with influence children to unknowingly portray traditional roles of males and females. Toys such as dolls for girls and trucks for boys limit their views on society by shaping it to seem that women are only girly beauticians, house workers, and mothers while men seem to be strict construction workers, tough bosses, and sometimes crazy vigilantes. How are children suppose to grow up and become independent with positive thoughts on equality for all if the toys they play with show them how to conform with the mainstream gender roles?

It is important to realize that the toys children play with can influence their views on gender roles and gender equality. And toys make this influence with their characteristics (color/toy type), advertising, and other features of the toys that children acknowledge when they are playing. So we should realize how we can change these toy characteristics and features so we can teach children that they do not need to follow traditional gender roles.

Children usually do not realize they are being influenced and they continue to grow up into the traditional beliefs of gender roles. As for me, I was able to play with both "girl toys" and "boy toys" so I never seemed to notice how gender roles were shown in toys. Now, I became interested in this topic because many toys show traditional gender roles to children and appeal to them. I feel that this approach lacks the right of equality since it restricts children from learning about the good differences in people. Such as how there are really good men hairstylists and professional women CEOs. Children should decide for themselves what toys they want so they can influence themselves and learn about equality at a young age do they grow up accepting the concept to make a change.