Gender and Kids: Fitting In Versus Getting Sucked In
Monday, March 12, 2012 The pink, the Barbies, the "Daddy's little" princess, the new LEGO Friends, the shopaholic, the American Girl dolls, the beauty queen and the the very pink happy homemaker. Each time someone raises an objection about the toys, the stereotypes, and the clothing that is marketed to our girls from birth forward, others brush their concern aside.
It isn't a big deal.
It is just make-believe.
She just likes pink. What is wrong with pink?
She's just trying to be like her mommy.
She just wants to feel special. Doesn't everybody want to feel special?
It is just one toy. She plays with cars too.
No one item is THE one tool of oppression that is going to alter the path of our girls forever. Not the colour pink, a Barbie doll, a princess onesie, or a bright pink plastic kitchen. One toy, one clothing item, one choice isn't the issue. It is the complete onslaught that begins at birth.
The Pink Aisle
By now, you've probably seen the video of Riley, the little girl ranting about stores wanting girls to buy princesses and boys to buy super heroes when really girls and boys can both like both of those things. She's livid and maybe some other girls are too. However, it seems as though most girls simply accept it. They observe what is happening around them, take in the marketing messages that are being sent to them, bow to the peer pressure that is being imposed on them, and they make choices about what they like and don't like, consciously or subconsciously, based on what society tells them they should like.
Then there is the video of the two little girls that Ellen sent on a shopping spree at Toys R' Us. Unlike Riley, these girls do not seem to have any problem with the pinkification of their lives. They show up at the store dressed like pink princesses, freak out over all the pink stuff in the store, ignore the non-pink aisles of the store and leave with shopping carts full of pink, pink, and more pink.
Gender Divide
Over time, the gender divide appears to be widening. On their websites, in catalogs, and even in the store, retailers divide toys into "boy toys" and "girl toys". The number of toys that companies would classify as unisex is decreasing. This is happening for two reasons. Manufacturers of toys are increasingly shying away from the creation of toys that could be enjoyed equally by both boys and girls, instead seeking to further exploit gender stereotypes by making more and more toys that cater to the extremes. More toys for boys that involve fights and battles. More toys for girls that focus on beauty and everything fancy. What happened to boys and girls playing side-by-side with neutral coloured building blocks, nature puzzles, or using a basic LEGO set to build a house or a castle? Or passing a nice red bike down from big sister to little brother. No, with the gender divide, parents who have boys and girls will need to buy at least two of everything.
The author of the blog Feminist Frequency looked into this, focusing in particular on the history of the marketing of LEGO to children. Take a look: One quote stood out to me in this video while discussing the new LEGO Friends line, which is marketed specifically to girls:
While the entire concept and marketing of the Friends theme is deeply problematic, it’s not without some small merits. The emphasis on sharing, cooperation and nurturing are values that I would love to see infused in toys for children of all genders. Even the title of Friends draws attention to the importance of relationship building, however, these values are almost exclusively found in media and toys for girls and are wrapped up in harmful gender stereotypes, meanwhile these positive values are almost entirely absent in toys aimed at boys. The repercussions of this can be grave, relegating the responsibility for fostering healthy relationships and communications on women and simultaneously reinforcing to boys and men that using violence is a practical options for solving conflicts, even interpersonal ones.
I know I've often been annoyed at the newer LEGO toys because it seems like kids put them together once and then never do anything with them again. I much prefer the older LEGO sets where you can build something new every day. But this video gave me even more reasons to dislike the way that LEGO is marketed and sold these days.
Girls Do X, Boys Do Y
What all of this leads to is societal expectations about what girls should do and what boys should do. Girls, to some extent, are allowed to venture into what is considered "boy" territory, and are even applauded for it. As my friend Alexandria wrote, her daughter Story's love of "boy" things was celebrated:
As a toddler, my daughter adored trains and cars; Lightning McQueen in particular. We bought her boys' underwear because the girls' ones had kitties and crowns, when what Story wanted were puppies and automobiles. Nobody thought it was at all strange for her to like these things. They championed her cause: There is no such thing as a "boy toy"! Girl power!
A few years later, however, people's reaction to her son's interests was somewhat different. After showing pictures of him in princess and fairy dress-up clothes that he likes, she wrote:
When we take Story to the grocery store in these outfits, people fawn over her. But when people see my son wearing the same things, we get a lot of funny looks and sideways glances. Some "tsk-ing" as we walk by. Why is this? Why can my toddler son not embrace whatever makes his sweet little heart happy? Why do people embrace my daughter enjoying tools and the mechanics of cars yet still shy away from a little boy who wants to twirl and sparkle? Most of all: what's it of anyone's concern? Are they intimidated by his affinity for things we've labelled "girly"? Do they think we're doing him an injustice?
Girls liking boy things is accepted by society, to some extent. They can go after the power job, grab the (pink) power tools, play hockey, and break glass ceilings. But, as some feminist scholars have underlined, there is a hidden inconsistency in many of the "We Girls Can Do Anything" messages (like the ones Barbie puts out in its "Barbie I Can Be" campaign). As I wrote on Care2, when reporting on research by Nathalie Elaine Meza Garcia:
Women are able to enter into new spaces and break glass ceilings, but they still have to be beautiful, nurturing mothers, good homemakers, and doting wives. Essentially, women have demanded the right to do anything that men can do, but they have not shed any of their old roles, duties or subjugation in doing so.
That is not to say that women shouldn't be beautiful, be nurturing mothers, be homemakers, and so on. The point is that if a woman has a partner and a career, there shouldn't be an assumption or expectation that she will also be the one cleaning the toilets at home, that she will always have hot legs and great make-up, that she'll be the one to miss work to pick up a sick kid from school, and that she'll spice up the bedroom every single night. When women take on new roles, men need to do so too. There needs to be a re-balancing of the workload and of expectations.
Fitting In Versus Getting Sucked In
What bothers me about pink, isn't pink. What bothers me about Barbie, isn't Barbie. What bothers me about little princess onesies, isn't the little princess onesies. What bothers me is the expectation and pressure for girls to like all of those things. And the expectation and pressure for boys to abhor them.
I remember Julian's first Halloween at school. When he came home and we asked him what costumes the other kids in his class had, the answer for every single girl in the class was "princess". Yes, they were ALL princesses. I remember too the day he told me his favourite colours were brown and blue, because "boys like boring colours and girls like pretty colours". He was expressing his preference based on what society thinks he should like, while also expressing how he felt about that.
Day in and day out, I see the peer pressure and the marketing pressure telling my children what they should like and who they should be. I see increased pressure for more homogeneity within a gender and a greater gap between genders. Are they just giving girls and boys what they want? Or is there more to it than that?
In the New York Times, Peggy Orenstein explains that there are some difference between boys and girls play preferences, but they are exacerbated and exploited by the toy industry:
At issue, then, is not nature or nurture but how nurture becomes nature: the environment in which children play and grow can encourage a range of aptitudes or foreclose them. So blithely indulging — let alone exploiting — stereotypically gendered play patterns may have a more negative long-term impact on kids’ potential than parents imagine. And promoting, without forcing, cross-sex friendships as well as a breadth of play styles may be more beneficial. There is even evidence that children who have opposite-sex friendships during their early years have healthier romantic relationships as teenagers.
As a parent, I am torn. I want my children to see the full range of possibilities that is open to them, for play, for friendships, for relationships, for interests, and for eventual career options (no, Princess is not a potential career option for more than a small handful of girls). But at the same time, I also want my children to fit in and, because I had so much trouble fitting in as a child, I understand them making choices in order to fit in. So when Emma asks for the latest pink plastic stereotype and bad body image reinforcing toy for her birthday, I struggle with the decision about whether to buy it for her. Are her preferences and her choices truly coming from inside her or are they coming societal pressure?
Ultimately, we seek a balance. There is exploding pink princess stuff in our home, but there are also other toys and games and activities that encourage diverse interests. I do worry, however, that the balance we strive for in our home will never survive the pink tsunami.
This is the first in a series of four posts looking critically at the way society, corporations and media influence the role girls and women are expected to play in society. The posts are written by me (Annie @ PhD in Parenting) and are generously sponsored by Pigtail Pals.
Reader Comments (78)
The thing is, most of the "neutral" stuff is red and blue - "boy" colours, we just think it is gender neutral because it isn't *all* blue. Boys get access to the whole rainbow - girls get pink and purple.
I will teach my son and if I have a daughter how to use guns. I was already eyeing the bee bee guns at the store and i thought about how much fun we'll have shooting cans and camping. i will also teach them how to defend themselves. I expect males to defend their mates. I also don't care what other people do as long as they're not hurting anybody. Since when does being kind, thoughtful etc preclude being adept at using a side arm?
Who is going to protect the lesbians?
Personally, I plan to teach my children about the http://www.vpc.org/press/0905gundeath.htm" rel="nofollow">statistics on gun ownership, i.e. that the higher the gun ownership rate, the higher the gun death rate. Regular people do not need to be carrying guns around.
This. My 5 year old is obsessed with cats and recently someone made a comment about stuffed animals and marketing toward girls. Which is ridiculous, she likes cats not because she is a girl, but because *I* work for a vet, she come to work with me and sees surgery and all the other stuff we do. What's wrong with liking "girly" stuff if that's what she chooses?
I did dress my daughter in pink as a baby. I love pink, always have, and her coloring made it a really cute color to put on her.
Great blog essay, once again. I don't have a daughter. My littlest boy likes "dolls", however. For Christmas some relatives got the boys a Gnome Home from Magic Cabin. The first thing my husband said when he opened the package was "omg, a dollhouse?!" Then he teased our eldest (who is 5) about "liking girly dolls" (to his credit, ds1 cried "they're not *dolls*, they're *gnomes*!). ds2 is 3 and *loves* the gnomes (also, his kitchen set--why the heck were two girls on the package? can't boys play chef too?). They both like sparkles, fairies and rainbows along with swords, dragons and mayhem. Just yesterday they took a super sparkly bubble bath with a rainbow bubble bath bomb from Lush. I am not against pink for girls or blue for boys necessarily, but I agree with you on the idea that the divide should not be so *pronounced*--for example "here is the girl's aisle, here is the boy's aisle--in the toy store. That's why I like science toys, musical toys, and plain ol' imagination--a stick and a bedsheet.
I feel very torn about gender-based toys, especially LEGO Friends. My daughter received some for her birthday, and really likes them. She enjoys playing with them. I like playing with them with her. I far prefer them to, say, Barbies or make-up kits for 7-year-olds or Disney Princess licensed gear. They carry a stereotype, but on the whole it's a far less damaging stereotype than many gender-targeted toys. Plus, LEGO has become so boy-focused that I think a little bit of balance is in order, although I agree that the first place to start would be with the neutral primary colours of my own childhood, not by creating a division.
I also think that the corollary to the "boys shouldn't be girly" thing is that we're often a whole lot less upset about "boy" toys than "girl" toys. I feel this way, anyhow, and I suspect it's because of my own experiences with female subjugation. When they start slapping Star Wars licensing on LEGO, most people don't get up in arms. But when they make "girl" LEGO, we're upset. Ditto for, say, Spiderman sneakers vs. Disney Princess sneakers. That double standard is also unfair.
I think the best toys are open-ended, provide room for imagination, and let kids imitate life. We love our play kitchen, our play silks, our musical instruments and our building blocks. These are all gender neutral as well. That's what I most prefer. But failing that, I think we need to do our best to treat both sides equally. That means it's OK for both boys and girls to cross arbitrary gender lines - but it's also OK for both boys and girls to NOT cross those lines. We need to respect our children's preferences and identities wherever that falls along the gender spectrum.
[quote]Girls liking boy things is accepted by society, to some extent. They can go after the power job, grab the (pink) power tools, play hockey, and break glass ceilings. But, as some feminist scholars have underlined, there is a hidden inconsistency in many of the "We Girls Can Do Anything" messages (like the ones Barbie puts out in its "Barbie I Can Be" campaign). As I wrote on Care2, when reporting on research by Nathalie Elaine Meza Garcia:
Women are able to enter into new spaces and break glass ceilings, but they still have to be beautiful, nurturing mothers, good homemakers, and doting wives. Essentially, women have demanded the right to do anything that men can do, but they have not shed any of their old roles, duties or subjugation in doing so.[/quote]
It is actually felt a bit of the opposite to me and from what I have observed. I have felt that as a woman I am free to be be "masculine" as long as I completely take on the "traditional" male role and free myself from caretaking responsibilities.
The s&*t hits the fan when I would prefer to be *both* a caretaker *and* a participant in the public sphere.
I read awhile back an interesting commentary on the fact that our two newest female Supreme Court Judges had never had children (and I believe maybe had not been married?) and how the commentator was observing that this seemed to actually be more a requirement now than when Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O'Connor (both of whome were wives and mothers) were cutting there teeth in the world of employment and the public sphere.
I really hate the pink and what it stands for. So for our two girls we had a strict 'no pink' clothing rule for the first year. My criteria for clothes for them was 'would a boy wear this?' and if the answer was no, then we didn't buy it or accept it as a hand me down. We've gotten some flack for this, but I would rather dress my girls in 4 outfits if that's all we have than in lots of clothes that I don't agree with. So, my girls have often been mistaken for boys, I don't mind. As they've gotten older, some pink has gotten into their wardrobes, and we've relaxed the clothing rules but we treat it as another colour in the spectrum, not as 'the' colour (so no pink snowsuits, boots, shoes, etc.). I still vet all their clothing - and I don't allow any branded clothing (we're not paid to advertise!), no princesses, low on the girly twirly things. So they do wear dresses and skirts and the such, but we do focus on keeping it simple.
It became more interesting when our third kid showed up and ta da! a boy! Now, I really had to think - how do I apply the no pink rule to a boy? It took me a while to figure it out but basically, I started asking 'would a girl wear this?' and if no, then out it goes. Also, no shirts with sports logos, trucks, or otherwise stereotypical 'boy' things. So he's worn pants with pink stripes, and lots of things his sisters wore, also gets confused for a girl - I don't mind.
To me, the clothing in our society is not just covering, it's part of making a statement, and I strongly believes it influences our mood and perception of our selves and of each other. For example, for years I avoided wearing black tops because I felt that it made my mood gloomy. I don't want my girls to grow up with a princess outfit staring back at them from their bodies and thinking this is all they can identify with. I don't want my boy to grow up with a sports shirt staring back at him and thinking this is all he can identify with.
I think these seemingly small choices are very important. Same with toys and books and other things that pass on messages about what we expect of them.
What ultimately frustrates me about gender stereotypes is that most of us don't think critically about them, let alone having industries think critically about them. A friend of mine recently gave birth to her third child. I regularly heard people saying "Go team pink!" or "Go team blue!" for those who wanted her to have a girl or a boy. (I don't get how/why people especially care what sex their friends' children are.) It really bothered me, foremost because it was a thoughtless stereotype, but also because...you know, can we allow the kid to be born before we start using stereotypes? Sigh.
"Day in and day out, I see the peer pressure and the marketing pressure telling my children what they should like and who they should be. I see increased pressure for more homogeneity within a gender and a greater gap between genders."
I absolutely see this in toy marketing, where Lego, high chairs and exersaucers come in pink or blue instead of neutral.
But in the peer pressure and media, I don't see this at all. I see primetime network television shows featuring flamboyantly gay men proudly wearing clothing or accessories traditionally reserved for women. I see men wearing nail polish and man bags, outspoken lesbians hosting nationally acclaimed talk shows in jeans, blazers and sneakers.
Were these around tweny years ago and I just didn't see it? My mother's best friend has been a guidance counseller in high schools for 25 years - she says she thinks there is a far better representation of the possibilities for both genders in the media these days.
I am trying to raise my three daughters to be critical of the world around them and follow their gut when it comes to understanding what toys, clothing, music or lovers might appeal to them, now and later in life. Because if they can be confident in liking what they like, no matter what popular media or marketing firms tell them what they should like, they'll be far happier individuals. I refuse to apologize for loving stockings and short skirts because they're "girly". I also refuse to apologize for wearing them when I knock the crap out of a competitor when I play roller derby and being "manly".
My 22-month-old son is starting to show signs of loving "pretty" things. He likes to "dress up" in my lilac, flowery bra (wears it like a scarf and prances around the room!), he pulls my red maryjanes out to wear, and when we went shoe shopping, he pulled pink, glittery sneakers from the displays. I've made a point to avoid heavily gendered clothes and toys for boys, but it honestly never occurred to me that he'd be attracted to stereotypically "girly" things (maybe because neither his dad nor I like them at all). I don't have a problem with him playing with or wearing these things! But I do hesitate, worrying that my strong dislike of extremely girly things--a sentiment that I've held since I was about 6 or 7 and rejected all things pink, although I'm fine with skirts and more useful expressions of femininity--might be coloring the choices I make for him until he's old enough to make them himself. Example: he got brown, gender-neutral sneakers that day when he played with the pink sparkly ones. And I feel guilty about that, even though he likes his new sneakers just fine, too. Trying to figure out how to take my feelings (as a feminist, as somebody who almost instinctively avoids super "girly" stuff, and as someone who wants my son to embrace the positive elements of what we label as "feminine") out of the equation and truly support my son's choices. I suppose that will be easier when he's better able to verbally articulate what he really wants. Although then, I worry that the role of his peers may become a stronger influence, and he won't truly express his preferences because of that. Ah, parental worry...
My son is 14 months old and I am thinking a lot about how to deal with the brainwashing he will get at school. His 11 year old half brother already says the word "girl" with the most snide, sniggering tone of voice - it's the ultimate insult he can level at his male friends. If my son picks crap like that up at school, I'm going to the teacher and head teacher to ask why a climate of sexism is accepted at the school. I expect them to stamp out anything like this - although I will also talk with him like Lisa does, I do think it is the responsibility of the school to prohibit sexism, the same way I expect them to prohibit racism.
Oh Mary I wish they did 'get access to the whole rainbow'. They get blue and brown. The boys' section of a childrens' clothing shop always depresses the life out of me - it all looks like dirty work clothes. I want to dress my son in rainbows, in purple, and red.
Even worse are the racks of military clothes - camoflage outfits for six month old babies. It's incomprehensible to me.
Great article! As a developmental psychologist, I am horrified to see in the photo that there is a shades-of-pink Rock-a-Stack, not only because of the absurdity of gender-typing toys by color alone, but also because it cripples the educational potential of the toy: the reduced contrast between the colors makes the rings harder to tell apart, and the use of only three colors (bottom ring is purple, center pole is yellow) reduces opportunities for basic color learning.
My son is in first grade. The steel lunch kit we got him at the beginning of kindergarten has magnets that decorate the outside; if you want a new look, you can buy a new $4 set of magnets instead of a whole new lunchbox. He originally chose the rainbow unicorn magnets, as he likes rainbows--he prefers bright colors and variety of colors. Last week he decided he wanted new magnets "because kids are teasing me about having pony magnets. They say those are for girls." I said, "PONIES are only for girls?!" He said, "Well, I know, that's silly. But I see what they mean about these magnets having like a girly style." So we looked at http://www.planetbox.com/magnets.html" rel="nofollow">the array of available magnets, and I listened without comment as he articulated which designs he thought would be seen as girlish, boyish, or in between. He chose the trains, "because I really like trains. But why does everybody think trains are for boys? Girls could like trains too...." He seems puzzled by the whole thing.
[...] The gendering of children. [...]
Really? Phd in parenting and it all started off so backward with the doll analogy. Get your tuition money back!
It does get a bit easier. Like you, I instinctively avoid "gendered" items, be they clothes or toys. Luckily for me so does my daughter. However my son has an affinity for the sparkle and twirl. We support his choices as much as possible. But if I wouldn't buy that tutu skirt for myself or my daughter, he's not getting it either! As he has gotten a bit older, he knows where and with whom it is "safe" or okay to be himself. He has a few really good girl friends and one boy friend who "get it" and that helps. He had one girl friend stick up for him at his 6th bday party: He likes Littlest Pet Shop, and when he opened a LPS toy, a boy said "those are for girls!" (insert my inner gasp here). His friend immediately retorted "no they're not! they're just toys!" Yay! Keep on letting him know his preferences matter and are valid, and he won't be afraid to express them to you. Even if it is just so you can agree with him and then find something mutually acceptable (ie, no tutu skirt, but this twirly one is okay!).
[...] I said in my post on the pinkification of girlhood, it isn't one image, one toy, or one experience that is the problem. As AJ and Veronica [...]
It's an odd divide for me to see. I walk into the boys' clothing departments, and it's all drab and dark. But I walk into the girls' toy aisles, and the sameness of bright pink everywhere assaults my eyes. I can't imagine buying every toy pink for any girl I might have, just as I refuse to buy only gray, navy, and black clothes for my boys. I do get some guff for choosing bright stripes or purple shirts for them, but they have years ahead of them to wear the boring colors.
This is an issue that drives me crazy! I hate how everything for girls is pink pink pink, and girls' toys are all fluffy tiaras, fairy wands and make up. It also makes me angry how it's ok for girls to play with boys toys but not ok for boys to play with girls toys. Does that mean that girls toys are inferior somehow?
My son is 8 months old. We did not find out the gender of our baby, but I was determined that no matter which gender our child was, we would be completely gender neutral. That means not labelling colours as gender identifiers and providing our child with a wide array of toys; dolls to trucks, amongst other things. I always give my son two cloth nappy covers to choose from and he does the same thing with his clothes. Guess what? He loves pink. But sometimes he'll choose blue, or orange, yellow or green. Doesn't matter to me, he looks gorgeous in every colour! As a sociologist, it is very important to me to create a home environment where our children are not chastised for using their imagination and establishing confidence in decision making by being included in relatively small, yet still pertinent decision-making from a young age. Surprisingly, this method of parenting has been easier than I had guessed it would be. My fiance is a military man, you see. Raised by tough as nails Dutch parents, one of whom was a member of the Dutch army. Yet, my fiance is gentle and loving. He kisses and cuddles our son and tells him he loves him. He dresses him all in pink sometimes, because "the baby picked the clothes out". My fiance has the confidence to do this, even though his father always said "that'll turn him into a 'poof'". Colours, toys and behaviour do not denote or defy gender or personality. Raise your children to be individual people, not gender stereotypes.
I am not sure that is something the school needs to be dealing with unless it turns into a bullying case. It sounds like that 11year old has not learned to respect and honor women. My 10 year old boy and his friends don't talk like that. He is respectful to me and stands up for his sisters and his friends. The school is not responsible for his negative term for "girl" however he and his friends are.
[...] that you can have your marketing folks sit down and watch / read: This should be required reading: http://www.phdinparenting.com/2012/03/12/gender-and-kids-fitting-in-versus-getting-sucked-in/ This is a take on the Lego issue in the news: [...]
[...] that you can have your marketing folks sit down and watch / read: This should be required reading: http://www.phdinparenting.com/2012/03/12/gender-and-kids-fitting-in-versus-getting-sucked-in/ This is a take on the Lego issue in the news: [...]
[...] Gender and Kids: Fitting In Versus Getting Sucked In [...]
Great series! Many commenters have said things along the lines that girls have more leeway in being allowed to play with or dress in boy stuff, but the world comes down if a boy crosses over to the pink stuff. Our society has come to accept that for most girls being a "tomboy" is a phase, and will not affect her much in the future. So it's Ok for a girl to like cars, dinosaurs, have short hair, and other "boy" stuff.
But why hasn't anybody mentioned what it boils down to?
When you allow your sons to wear pink, or play with "girl" toys, and someone says it's "girly", the deep-down fear behind that message is that "it will make him GAY!" First off, I do not believe this *at all* - but besides the marketing brainwashing, that is a (real or subconscious) fear behind many people's choices for children's (particularly boys) clothing and toys.
I have two sons, and personally I'd take a pink baby doll over a toy gun any day!
Mainly in response to the comment at the top about the pink tape and hockey stick.
If you feel your son would be uncomfortable defending his choice of colour maybe you should be concentrating on his self asteem rather than defending your insecurities in regards to sexuality as I am guessing that's what you think people are going to say?
Also you only have to go back a century to where the colour pink was put on boys to show their graduation to teenagedom and then they would wear red once the became a man.
Your insecurities should not be forced onto your children. Let them discover what they like.
Yes, I do propose they have all the clothes in one section. Little boys and little girls are shaped the same. We can have a shirt section, a pants section, a dresses section, and so on. There's no need to divide them by gender.
And what about other things that are unnecessarily sex-segregated? Yes, we should divide toys by type instead of by gender and/or color. The doll section, the ball section, the bike section and so on. Books the same way, and Halloween costumes, and whatever else.