She backs this up with a study by Vanessa Lobue and Judy DeLoache in which children age seven months to five years were asked to choose between a pink or blue object and it wasn’t until around two and a half that girls preference for pink became obvious. Robb then includes many quotes from Megan Fulcher, associate professor of psychology at Washington and Lee University. She uses Fulcher’s idea that gender-specific toys marketing leads to hindered learn, such as in motor skills. This article fits into my research paper because it shows that stores should rid of gender-specific marketing because it harms children and it shows that business were able to do it in the
1. Three political issues that are most evident for women during the 1960’s and 1970’s Chicana/o Movement are oppression, machismo, and control over their bodies. Chicana’s encountered oppression from La Raza because they focused on getting equal rights for the men and completely put the women’s needs aside. Women were not accepted by the leaders in the Chicano Movement or the Anglo establishment (Vidal 22).
Girls and boys toys have created a huge impact in america with the colors, and types of things they use to aim a specific item towards a single gender. In stores such as target the aisles are separated by so called boy colors and girl colors. Also toys are named different things just for an appeal to genders such as dolls and action figures, when they are really all the same thing. This affects our world because it shows that boys and girls have to get or buy certain things aimed
This is because gender is so deeply ingrained in society that additional measures are necessary to control all variables that could influence X’s gender identity. The scientists carefully created an Official Instruction Manual for Baby X’s parents, which guides them to “[b]uy plenty of everything”, both girls’ and boys’ clothes and toys (2). In this way, gender is commodified for profit, with targeted marketing aiming to convince parents to purchase different toys and clothing for their children based on gender (BBC Newsround). Gould further shows how society’s perception of gender is linked with capitalist interests with the symbol of X’s and the other children’s clothing. With X’s influence, “Susie [...] suddenly refused to wear pink dresses to school any more.
Why Boys Don’t Play With Dolls According to Katha Pollitt, girls still prefer dolls while boys love trucks, just like the olden days. She argues that these preferences are hormonal and have no external influence. From their time of birth until they become adults, girls and boys orientate themselves differently on their own. Pollitt claims that although feminist organizations in America have helped women, they have never been able to change their sexual orientation.
In such a way that, Barbie has displayed multiple career paths, offered in various ethnicities but always displayed in the same way and with the use of Logos and Ethos. Although the whole idea behind the Barbie doll was to encourage young girls to be able to dress Barbie how they wanted to with the various wardrobes, it was not until quite recently that Barbie was able to hold more “leadership like” rolls in society. With advertisement of the Barbie doll, gender equity closely intertwined with the portrayal of the doll. “Consistent with other commercial advertising formats, males were found in the leadership and authority roles, while females were generally portrayed in more passive roles. When women were the only individuals in the advertisement, the ad copy usually reflected a biased message toward the abilities and function of the women in their roles as professionals.”
Equal but different: gender-neutral toys and gender differences in childhood In her article “You can give a boy a doll, but you can't make him play with it” that appeared in The Atlantic on December 6th 2012, author Christina Hoff Sommers focuses on presenting the views of the Swedish community whose members feel strongly for obliterating sexual stereotypes and making toys gender-neutral, as well as the logistical and ethical problems that come with it. Sommers, a feminist herself, is a strong supporter of equality, something she has made obvious throughout her article as well as her life’s work, but criticizes the extreme cases of “equality” supporters and feminists who completely reject any gender differences, drifting away from the actual
In 2011, Peggy Orenstein published Cinderella Ate My Daughter to examine how princess culture impacted girlhood. “What Makes Girls Girls?” is a chapter in this book that delves into the implications of sexual difference and whether or not it is rooted in biology. By studying various research projects conducted by professionals, Orenstein discovers that, ultimately, a child’s environment plays a key role in behavior. To pose the question of whether the concept of gender is inherent, Orenstein references several examples that have sparked a considerable amount of discussion about how a child’s gender expression is molded by upbringing.
In this study children were asked to identify the gender of a doll. The author states, “Only 17 percent of the children identified the dolls on the basis of their primary or secondary sex characteristics.” Later on in the article the author quotes Jon K. Meyer and John E. Hoopes. They claim that femininity, “would result in warm and continued relationships with men, a sense of maternity, interest in caring for children, and the capacity to work productively and continuously in female occupations.” Lastly, Devor supports his claim by quoting Erving Goffman.
How Internalized Misogyny Affects Women in the 21st Century Internalized misogyny is the phrase that describes the phenomenon which occurs due to the institutional pervasiveness of sexism towards women in society. Misogyny within society leads to the internalization of misogyny where women are then affected by it and direct it towards themselves and other women (Bearman et al.). In the 21st century, internalized misogyny affects women in multiple ways, including seeing other women as competition, women demeaning themselves and their achievements, and the further objectification of women. Internalized oppression is a result of cultural violence because it contributes to “the subordination of oppressed groups.”
As parents walk inside Toys R’ Us or the toy section in a major department store, they are mainly dazed by the expression on their child’s face than the price tag on the toy their child desires. Several people avoid taking into account the layout of the store or the store’s toy section and the blueprint of the packages that those toys are in. The wallpaper used or the terms printed on the box are simple elements that can tell enough regarding the mode our society distinguishes boys and girls personalities. These general statements are proceeding the brutal pattern of quality grasped by fathers and mothers of a family. Target’s toy section is divided into boys and girls sections in a simple style.
Even in modern society, sexism exists in children’s books, women are under-represented and men in the books appear more often compare to women. Children’s books should be educative to children, but instead women are under-represented in books. Girls do not have characters to who they can imitate. “Stereotyped portrayals of the sexes and under- representation of female characters contribute negatively to children’s development, limit their career aspirations, frame their attitudes about their future roles as parents, and even influence their personality characteristics.” (Hamilton, Anderson, Broaddus &Young, 2006, p. 757) Male characters still appear in books more often compare to female.
As gender stereotypes in toys impact a child’s interest, this also influences their career choices. Through playing with toys, kids develop interests (Steinmatz). When kids are only offered half of the toys available, they don’t get the chance to gain interest in the toys declared for the opposite sex. Gender stereotypes limit the variety of toys that kids will form interests and skills upon (Clayton). The skills and interests kids develop during childhood shape what academic and career choices they make as adults (“Toys”).
Their boy toys required a lot more outdoor space. This reinforces Thorne’s (1986) findings that show that boys use ten times the space that girls do at recess. The array of Puzzles, LEGO buildings, and even advent Calendars, encourage creativity, and structure to build their toys, they even have to put the advent calendars together before they can use it. This is reinforcing the act like a man box, because it stresses that boys should show their masculinity by being be able to work with their hands and physically build things themselves as a part of the fun (Kivel, 1984). The toys even encouraged future professions one LEGO Mindcraft game inspires jobs such as, architecture, landscape design, and even farming.
If stores market toys for a specific gender they will prevent children from having this. 6th grader at Plainview Old Bethpage middle school Carly Barca says that “when kids see a toy they want but it’s labeled for just a girl or for just a boy it can make them feel down because if they want a toy and it’s labeled for a specific gender it can make them think that they cannot do what they want and they have to follow the “tradition” of what is considered for boys or for girls”. When toys are marketed for a specific gender they suggest what children should like to do and who they should aspire to be before they’ve had an opportunity to figure that out on their own. Children’s view of the world can be shaped based on what they do and what they play