Sexism in the toy industry

[stargatedalek]

Continued from:
http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=4688.new#new

Decades ago sure gender marketing toys was working, but now it only takes a quick glance down the "girls section" in a toy store to realize the "girls section" is mostly just an extension of the toddler section. The majority of "girl oriented products" are just preschooler aged products in fluorescent colours. This only further enforces cultural stereotypes (both of girls who look at the toys in and out of said section) and so furthers its own downward spiral. "Girls toys" are getting worse and worse in quality whereas "boys toys" are (in general) getting better, presumably to try and appeal to collectors as a secondary market.

[Flaffy]

At my local toy store, it's divided into two sides, one side is dull blue in colour which is the "boys" section and the other is an eye catching pink which is the "girls" section. The "boys" section has a wide variety of models, action figures, cars, superhero costumes, legos etc. The girls section is limited to dolls, role play and soft toys, with the occasional "for girls" lego sets and the weird toys/accessories that no one in the right mind would buy (we all know that weird corner of our toy shops).
It wasn't as bad in the past... I feel that it is unfair to females as the quality of toys in the "girls" section is getting worse and less diverse, while the "boys" section has a wider variety of toys to choose from (not saying that the quality of affordale children's toys there are getting any better". 
That's the case for my local toy store, what about yours? 

[Silvanusaurus]

There is no gender specificity inherent within the form or function of any 'toy'. If people want to find things faster, then have the toys sorted into categories of things like 'animals', 'dolls', 'action figures', 'vehicles', 'construction', 'plush toys' etc. It's not even a difficult or radical change, too much inequality, oppression and division has been left unadressed because it's easier to leave things as they are, than to have to rethink something that would eventually become mundane anyway. If changes like this were put in place it would set a much more healthy example for children and no-body reasonable would be hurt or offended by it, yet many would experience it as a positive and freeing adjustment.

[stargatedalek]

At my local TRU you can't even tell if there's a boy or girl section or a older kids and younger kids section. It's essentially they have a section for expressly gender neutral items (Geoworld, Animal Planet, HexBug, and Playmobil namely),  a section for boy oriented toddler items, a "girls section" which is just girl oriented toddler items, a Lego section, a video game/high-end figures section, and a "everything else" section which is clearly supposed to the older boy oriented toys but is essentially just an add-on of the gender neutral toys.

Any child older than 6-7 is probably going to go exclusively to the "boys section" or gender neutral section because that's where everything of quality is.

And then the specialty and discount (ie: Winners) toy stores/sections tend to just leave everything a jumbled mess.

[stargatedalek]

There is no gender specificity inherent within the form or function of any 'toy'. If people want to find things faster, then have the toys sorted into categories of things like 'animals', 'dolls', 'action figures', 'vehicles', 'construction', 'plush toys' etc. It's not even a difficult or radical change, too much inequality, oppression and division has been left unadressed because it's easier to leave things as they are, than to have to rethink something that would eventually become mundane anyway. If changes like this were put in place it would set a much more healthy example for children and no-body reasonable would be hurt or offended by it, yet many would experience it as a positive and freeing adjustment.

I think gender divisions create themselves, and companies have just went of the deep end with color coding, but they are learning things like, girls like nerf guns too. Girls, for example have nurturing tendencies, therefore, babydolls. Which came first, people told girls to take care of babies, or they were told that's what they're supposed to do? Obviously it's a natural and enjoyable instinct, and exceptions to the rule are only exceptions.

It is important to recognize men and women are different, and companies goal is to sell effectively. our sexuality for example is different, men are more visual with a higher sex drive. Women need an emotional connection. That's not to say women don't need handsome men, and men don't need emotion. All male creatures impregnate females for the species to continue, this is why males and females are specialized; sexual dimorphism. Now I DO NOT think of humans as just animals, human gender is even more unique, and we value each other way more than passing on our genes. But if to say we are the exception and don't have obvious biological gender differences, would be the opposite of true. Human Gender is very pronounced.

The problem with statements like that is that exceptions are not as rare as people used to/want to think. And the gap between gender divides only continues to grow smaller (in the developed world). Studies have proven direct links between sexism and homophobia/transphobia, so it only makes sense that both of those are decreasing together. This growing distaste for gender and sexuality based archetypes has created a new generation of parents who aren't pressuring their children to conform. We're seeing a lot of people being a lot more accepting and respectful towards other people who are different (regardless of why or how far differing). With all this progress going on it's ever so painfully obvious that the toy section needs to catch up.

If it were true that there were biological tendencies drawing girls towards fluorescent cheaply produced drivel, and drawing boys towards multi-million dollar movie licenses, detailed and articulated action figures, and animals that actually look like real animals and not pink blobs with mohawks, than why do girls venture into the "boys section" as they age and start to make their own choices as budding consumers, but boys are never compelled to do the equivalent? Without (as much of) the cultural stigma those outlying girls who played with GI Joes are no longer outliers. Did you know 40% of adult gamers in Canada are women? It's simply that "girls toys" are just toddler toys, and "boys toys" are just older oriented toys. The only reason that the consumerism doesn't speak for itself in this case is that most consumers just turn a blind eye to it and write it off as the store being too lazy to make better sections.

I am in Canada though so I can't speak for other parts of the world being so accepting in their ways of thinking. For all I know the stores aren't to blame and this is a policy of the large toy manufacturers trying to appease certain regions who still suffer under a lot of cultural stigma from those in power (especially given what certain divisions of our southern neighboring countries state governments have tried to force certain groups of people to do regarding washrooms as of lately [my heart goes out to you]).

[irimali]

I've seen a lot of articles recently on this topic.  Mainly inspired by some recent movie merchandising. The last Star Wars movie had a female hero, who's action figure was only sold separately and was conspicuously absent from a boxed set including all other major characters.  There was a similar issue with one of the Avengers movies.  Some motorcycle that Scarlet Johansen rode in the movie was sold with a different male character.  And it looks like toy companies do this out of fear that boys won't buy a vehicle or a set of figures if it comes with a female character, because that would make it a girl's toy.

There've been other stories recently too.  Some parent made a big stink about McDonald's referring to their happy meal toys as boy toys or girl toys.  Because her son is a brony and wanted the my little pony toys, but asking for a girl toy threatened his masculinity or something.  Has anyone here seen the documentary on bronies?  It's just a bunch of boys repeatedly stressing the fact that liking a girls show doesn't make them gay. 

Here in the U.S.A., i think stores have gotten some blame because the way they shelve toys and label the sections at least implies that all the pink packaged fashion doll toys are the only ones for girls, and anything else(even toy animals and basic lego sets) are all boy toys. 

I had as many girls as friends growing up as boys, and we built with legos together and played with toy dinosaurs together.  There's  something weird about toy stores directing girls to just this one section.  When girls want to look in other aisles, we just expect them to be secure enough in their identity do so.  It's like boys need 90% of the store to be kept safe for them.  No girl figures in my action figure set.  A separate section for any and all girl toys with clear boundaries and color coding.       

[stargatedalek]

Interesting indeed! Always feels great to have discussions like these branch into more serious conversations.

I hadn't actually meant to imply the designation of toys by gender has a direct link to transphobia per-se, but rather that as society in general becomes a lot more open to things like homosexuality and transsexualism gender barriers are becoming less important. Of course in industries like fashion and beauty that use sex to sell it will always play a key role, but it no longer holds the place in terms of child rearing and social development that it once did. It's more-so just perplexing that gender assigning toys is becoming less and less necessary, but is still equally prominent, rather than that it's an objectively negative thing in itself. As I said the majority of consumers have no problem with simply looking the other way, and it definitely makes it easier for stores that aren't toy oriented to arrange their toy sections quickly and with minimal confusion on their end.

To answer your question, a boy being interested in things typically oriented towards girls (and vice versa) does not indicate anything about their sexual or gender identity, it just means they like what they like and are willing to ignore marketing to get it. We live in a world were a man can wear pink if he wants to and still be confident in his masculinity, but the same isn't (yet) true for a cardboard box or an advertisement.

[antorbitalfenestrae]

OP of the original post that started all this here and i'd like to poke my head in and say that I am transgender + non-binary, and gender is certainly not "biological" in any way, shape, or form. so also a little upsetting to see all the gender essentialism and sexism get pulled out on a post that was just meant to share a photo i thought people would find funny but whatever, i guess you can't really trust any group to be completely free of bigoted people.

[Kovu]

Hasn't Target taken steps to remove the gendered backing of their toy department? I remember reading that somewhere a while ago.

As far as defending against bears. I hope, male or female, if your significant other is being attacked by a large ursid and requires your help, you would do so because you don't want your husband/wife/boyfriend/girlfriend/etc. eaten by Baloo.

[Simon]

Since this is one of the threads that are dominating the "recent" posts tonight, I'll just repeat what I said in the other thread - I am somewhat mystified as to how political and ideological discussions have crept into a forum about dinosaur toys.  Seems to be, shall we say, slightly off-topic ...

[Silvanusaurus]

Men are physically stronger than women. In your sarcastic scenario, you should protect your wife from a bear, that's a good idea. And guess who should nurse the children? The one with mammary glands perhaps? Men and Women have different roles in a family. If you think the most productive thing a wife can do outside of a paycheck is sewing, then you have The Sexism of low expectations. And if you think raising children is the least a woman can do, then you don't know the amazing world shaping thing it is.

Secondly,  Sarcasm only works if it reveals a flaw in someone else's real argument, otherwise it's a strawman, and you can't simply say it was just a joke when someone knocks it down. 

TQ has respectively given the argument that Men and Woman are physically different, what's so wrong with that? That's why the military lowers entry standards for women. That's why there are separate men's and women's sports, what happens when a professional Transwoman goes in the ring with the other women? The Trans person wins because he/she was born with upper body strength.

Why do you think Women have to be exactly as strong as men to be equall in value? Ironically... Seems a bit Sexist.

I'd just like to say that both you and TQ seem to have completely misunderstood the substance of what I was saying before I gave up trying to make a serious point, for that very reason. At no point have I disputed the physical or biological differences between a man and a woman, because such differences are irrelevant to the points I was making, which were about attitudes and conventions and oppressive viewpoints within modern culture, which have for many thousands of years been defined by forces much more mercurial and adjustable than anything inherent within our biology.

You seem to want to argue against me, using 'FACTS' that have no impact upon what I've said or the opinions I've stated, but are simply being used to 'get one over' on me and make me appear ignorant, which is an incredibly frustrating manner of argument, because it means you dont have to actually think about what I'm saying or read anything into it beyond what you need to in order to try and make a fool of me. Then you act as if you've 'won' something because you haven't illicited a genuine response to something that doesn't require one.

The reason my ridiculous sarcastic scenario that I described worked, and actually made blatantly clear the flaws in the argument against me, is that it exaggerated upon the idea being proposed that somehow the biology of men and women, and the way they've evolved naturally, is what is defining our society today and the divisions and social 'rules' that strip many people of their freedom, so we should just accept things like sexism, bigotry, racism, homophobia, forced stereotypes, exploitation and any number of things, because that's what's in our biology. And I apologise if this undermines you're reliance on biological 'FACTS', but I think that is wrong, because we have moved far beyond those 'FACTS' or any system set in place by evolution, and to deny that is incredibly ignorant and frankly, cold hearted.

Moreover, it displays a lack of understanding and empathy for people living in a society that has no need to restrict them or define their lives through simple biology. I wasn't making any arguments about anything scientific that can be proven or disproven, I was making an argument about people, specifically modern, self aware, individual people whose psychological and social freedoms do not need to be shaped or controlled by evolutionary traits that have become irrelevant, and especially not by historical inequality designed simply for specific areas of society to hold power and control over another.

If you had experienced some form of oppression, subjugation or psychological manipulation caused by these archaic and deep rooted conventions, been deeply emotionally affected and had your life horribly restricted by them, then I'm pretty sure you wouldn't care in the slightest about biology or evolution.

Now, can you please stop completely missing the point? If you want to have an argument about scientifically defined traits within the human species, feel free, but I have no interest in it, and I'm not going to stand for being ridiculed by people who evidently are not willing to understand what I'm actually saying. You're coming across as inconsiderate and intolerable, and I'm sure you don't want to do that, and I don't want to feel goaded into arguments that are unnecessary. 

[stargatedalek]

Men are physically stronger than women. In your sarcastic scenario, you should protect your wife from a bear, that's a good idea. And guess who should nurse the children? The one with mammary glands perhaps? Men and Women have different roles in a family. If you think the most productive thing a wife can do outside of a paycheck is sewing, then you have The Sexism of low expectations. And if you think raising children is the least a woman can do, then you don't know the amazing world shaping thing it is.

Secondly,  Sarcasm only works if it reveals a flaw in someone else's real argument, otherwise it's a strawman, and you can't simply say it was just a joke when someone knocks it down. 

TQ has respectively given the argument that Men and Woman are physically different, what's so wrong with that? That's why the military lowers entry standards for women. That's why there are separate men's and women's sports, what happens when a professional Transwoman goes in the ring with the other women? The Trans person wins because he/she was born with upper body strength.

Why do you think Women have to be exactly as strong as men to be equall in value? Ironically... Seems a bit Sexist.

Men are on average stronger than women, that doesn't even mean most men are stronger than most women, it just means that the male genes are more likely to produce a stronger upper body. There is nothing in our genes to says a man can't naturally/innately be weaker than a women, excluding potential health or physical training variance between them, it just happens less often. Plus a bulky upper body can actually be a disadvantage, it makes women (again, on average) have a lower and more secure center of gravity than men do. It also decreases upper body mobility to be "excessively buff", and can even lead to uncomfortable conditions requiring physical therapy (mostly in athletes). Of course the issue of strength is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but more on that later.

So wait, because a genetic female has larger breasts (on average) she is the one who's meant to raise the children? First of all there is nothing wrong with formula feeding, secondly milk production in humans is triggered either by hormones or physical stimulants. Most mothers begin producing said hormones during pregnancy, but sometimes it doesn't happen and they need to take them medically. Alternately milk can be produced by psychical stimulation over a prolonged period of time (typically several months). Both hormones and physical stimulation will work for both men and women (not gonna judge). A man can nurture a child in every way a woman can, and a woman can nurture a child in every way a man can.

Silvanusaurus didn't say at any point that it was offensive to point out that there are general physical trends between males and females, but rather that the idea that "men are stronger" and "women are weaker" was being used to support the claim that girls toys being pink and frilly and clearly designed for a younger demographic while boys toys are more "professional" and are better quality (reflecting the older demographic) is ok, is offensive. And I agree with Silvanusaurus in full. TQ originally pointing out that men are stronger than women was clearly only brought up to support the general idea of differing development in male vs female, and is both proven false and bordering dangerously on very offensive tropes.

OP of the original post that started all this here and i'd like to poke my head in and say that I am transgender + non-binary, and gender is certainly not "biological" in any way, shape, or form. so also a little upsetting to see all the gender essentialism and sexism get pulled out on a post that was just meant to share a photo i thought people would find funny but whatever, i guess you can't really trust any group to be completely free of bigoted people.

It's very important for people to separate "gender" (a purely psychological state of being) and "sex/birth gender" (what organs someone was born with). Despite the overlap of terminology these two elements are entirely separate aspects of a person. While I also found certain comments in this overall discussion to be somewhat essentialistic and grating, I think it was more out of desperation to find a supporting argument than out of deliberate bigotry.

Since this is one of the threads that are dominating the "recent" posts tonight, I'll just repeat what I said in the other thread - I am somewhat mystified as to how political and ideological discussions have crept into a forum about dinosaur toys.  Seems to be, shall we say, slightly off-topic ...

That's why I made a new thread for it (and why I put it in the "other toys" section).

[stargatedalek]

OP of the original post that started all this here and i'd like to poke my head in and say that I am transgender + non-binary, and gender is certainly not "biological" in any way, shape, or form. so also a little upsetting to see all the gender essentialism and sexism get pulled out on a post that was just meant to share a photo i thought people would find funny but whatever, i guess you can't really trust any group to be completely free of bigoted people.

I take it back you're completely justified in the terms you chose to use.

[DinoToyForum]

Topic locked. Some posts also deleted. Also, as a final word and to outline my own position on this matter as the forum admin... Everyone is welcome and deserves respect, no matter where we fall on the spectra of gender, sex, orientation, and expression, and no matter what the combination. I find this diagram helpful. Peace.