Last week saw a small triumph in the removal of awkwardly gendered names for face paint on a website where it appeared both alien and obsolete. The particular website in question is not the first to pioneer this idea; there has been progress in stores across the country where the likes of Toys R Us are removing gendered signage in order to refrain from dictating what children should and shouldn't be allowed to play with, once based on the flimsy societal construction of 'pink for girls' and 'blue for boys.' Indeed, when this was first introduced by Target, it was considered to be a 'bold move,' demonstrating how intrinsic it seems to be to allocate certain toys to each gender. Of course, entwined within this is the notion that there are only two genders which, in itself, is archaic and broken (and, unfortunately, not something I have time to talk about here).
Although this slight semantic elision is a positive step, I cannot proclaim to be optimistic that it is going to revolutionise toy sales. To undermine the social conditioning which has long-prescribed the way in which toys are perceived decidedly and exclusively for girls or boys may be beyond my lifetime; it is no secret that we learn to associate more passively-figured toys, such as electronic stoves and other domestic items, with feminine play whilst the boisterous power tools, vehicles, and likewise were awarded to boys. These, in turn, serve to encourage the preservation of distinct gender roles - forcing fragile children into categories which supposedly determine the way in which humans should act according to the genitalia they were assigned at birth. When we reduce our presupposition of gender into mere biological sex, it becomes apparent how absurd these "stylised repetition of acts" we perform daily, intended to formulate our genders, really are (Judith Butler). In playtime then, toys should offer fluidity between masculinity and femininity because humans are fundamentally more than their gender.
As much as the removal of gender-bias in the naming of products is a little victory, it can be plausibly argued that toys in the 21st century have taken two steps back. It is at this point that I would like to offer Lego as an example. When Lego was first innovated, it came in a variety of colours (mainly primary) to entice a target market of young children. The building blocks themselves endorse creativity and learning as children engage hand eye co-ordination to design villages to animals and anything in between. This freedom of play eliminated the notion of gender until Lego brought out a range of "Lego for Girls" in (seemingly) girl colours - namely hues of pink and purple. In attempting to widen their demographic, Lego actually implemented a further divide between masculine and feminine play by insinuating that girls are invited to join in only now that it is available in gender-specific colours. Moreover, the 'customary' pinks and purples are tertiary and secondary colours respectively - further indicating that women and girls are considered to be secondary to the construction of heteronormative masculinity.
Despite a decrease in signage, stores are still inevitably ordering their products by colour, and colours play a small part in the hugely problematic categorisation which forces boys and girls into opposing boxes to account for their behaviour - where men are expected to be strong and women are anticipated as the weaker, more emotional sex. Let us open our minds to the choices that children make themselves, rather than making decisions based on old, failing gender roles.
Despite a decrease in signage, stores are still inevitably ordering their products by colour, and colours play a small part in the hugely problematic categorisation which forces boys and girls into opposing boxes to account for their behaviour - where men are expected to be strong and women are anticipated as the weaker, more emotional sex. Let us open our minds to the choices that children make themselves, rather than making decisions based on old, failing gender roles.
0 comments