Toys Will Be Toys: Barbie vs. LEGO
Blue or Pink, It’s All an Art Form
Nowadays, toys are a scapegoat for unimaginative adults to use while attempting to validate their own political agendas. According to these adults, toy manufacturers affirm outdated gender stereotypes via oppressive marketing labels. Despite implications that most boys and girls have natural inclinations for toys typical of their sex, Elizabeth Sweet argues that this position “does not fundamentally challenge gender stereotypes; it merely repackages them to make them more palatable in a ‘post-feminist’ era.”
This may be the case, but what do children think? While bickering parents determine the fate of tyrannical blue and pink labels, children continue to play without caring about the cultural hysteria surrounding their toys.
Children fully appreciate the amazing art of the toy–an art that has long been forgotten. And labels seem problematic when applied to art. Categorizing a piece of art shouldn’t limit the meaning of that artwork, nor should a label limit the significance of a toy. Blue and pink signs can still exist without inducing an abstract fear of gender oppression.
As a matter of fact, contrary to popular opinion, a defense for the use of blue and pink labels arises from studies of evolutionary psychology. In a 2008 article, Psychology Today draws distinctions between the male and female brain. The male brain is marked by a pattern of “systemizing tendencies.” It is essentially a “drive to analyze, explore, and construct a system…[determining] how things work, or extract[ing] the underlying rules that govern the behavior of a system.” That might explain why many boys play with building blocks more than dolls.
Girls, on the other hand, predominately exhibit “empathizing tendencies.” They are more likely to “identify another person’s emotions and thoughts, and to respond to them with an appropriate emotion…[in order] to understand another person, to predict his or her behavior, and to connect or resonate with him or her emotionally.” Perhaps this explains the popularity of dolls among most girls.
In fact, this study welcomes the idea that boys and girls prefer certain toys based on how their brains function—thereby challenging a wide-held belief that boys and girls are the victims of gender-stereotyping product placement.
While there are certainly boys and girls who psychologically operate in a fashion unique to the majority of their sex, most boys and girls prefer the toys assigned to their “label.” A recent study at the City University in London confirms this. Based on the study, which analyzed 101 girls and boys ages 9 to 32 months, Dr. Brenda Todd suggests that: “although there was variability between individual children, we found that, in general, boys played with male-typed toys more than female-typed toys and girls played with female-typed toys more than male-typed toys.”
Further evidence suggests there is a hormonal basis for toy preference, found in both primates and humans. Experiments that used male and female monkeys suggest that the “level of exposure to the hormone androgen during gestation …correlate[s] with their visual interest in male-typical toys.” These studies, conducted between 2002 and 2008, show that boy toddlers preferred playing with balls and trucks more than playing with dolls. Experts claim that this preference is based on the male tendency to “develop spatial navigation abilities” or what psychologist Kim Wallen describes as “taking an object and rotating it in the mind.”
Girls, on the other hand, “have evolved to perceive social stimuli, such as people, as very important.” This trait, which is said to be weaker in boys, validates the claim that most girls prefer female-typical toys (dolls, in particular). Again, observations confirm the “systemizing” and “empathizing” tendencies of boys and girls, suggesting that the blue and pink labels are simply guides to indicate what toys children are more likely to prefer, based on their gender.
Granted, the previously mentioned research is circumstantial evidence. These studies are fairly recent, and will continue to be challenged and further examined. That being said, people who fight for gender-neutral toys should take this evidence into consideration. It is possible that, based on their psychological makeup( during the “pre-socialization stage of their cognitive development”), most boys prefer boy toys and most girls prefer girl toys.
And that’s not a terrible thing! It simply means that there are better causes to fight for (debates over gender-assigned colors and toys seem frivolous outside of Western civilization). Many children won’t follow the same behavioral patterns as their peers, and those children should be encouraged to “shop around,” so to speak. So relax helicopter parents, your offspring will be fine if you allow them some freedom of toy choice; be it blue, pink, or anything in between.
In the meantime, let’s appreciate the art of toys…
A 2014 Time magazine article lists LEGOs and Barbie as the top two most influential toys of all time. While these two toys are vastly different from each other, they represent the various ways in which a child’s mind develops. Barbie defines the development of persona, while LEGOs exemplify the miraculous process of innovative design.
It is a dichotomy seen through the likes of the male and female brain; the Apollonian and Dionysian mind; the “systemizing” and “empathizing” tendencies of the male and female psyche. Whether gender stereotypical or not, Barbie and LEGOs teach children of the ability to self-create (develop a personality, understand social conventions, etc.) and the ability to externally create, all while developing a greater sense of self-awareness–they have stood the test of time and will continue to do so.
This article aims to prove that Barbie and LEGOs are objets d’art, containing a rich history, while inspiring awe and originality. They represent the miracle of the male and female brain, and should be used and admired by boys and girls of all ages. Barbie and LEGOs, being so much more than blue or pink purchases, are magnificent symbols of our daunting yet beautiful consumer culture.
Barbie: Vapid Bitch or Feminist?
Despite debates over her size zero waist (recent efforts have been made to create more realistic body proportions) and Mattel’s representation of cultural diversity (often viewed as outright stereotyping), Barbie signals a shift in femininity. Arguably, she may be a figure of feminist progression, as she continues to transcend the definitional limitations of femininity.
Barbie is fashionable, career driven, and equally attuned to a sense of maternity and domesticity. She is both above and within the patriarchy—an idea which some feminists may scoff at, but femininity does not always validate feministic or misogynistic definitions and misinterpretations. Barbie’s clichéd prettiness continues to spark up fiery debates. She is frequently suspect of imposing impossible beauty standards upon a younger audience. On the other hand, many people are quite fond of her larger-than-life glamour—just look at the recent hoopla over casting Amy Schumer as Barbie in the upcoming Mattel film.
Upon her release in 1959, Barbie—though nowadays perceived as an antiquated and artificial “It” girl—signified a cultural shift; an indicator of the progression of femininity. Despite seeming campy (in both dress and disposition) while taking on various occupations, Barbie dismantled the housewife archetype—not by belittling housewives, but rather by displaying alternative possibilities for womankind.
As a figure of fashion and philosophy, Barbie still maintains her status as a worldly beauty queen. While many abhor the social hierarchy she supposedly embodies, Barbie is not just a bimbo with an unrealistic waist and inflated bosoms. Mainstream and sub-cultural perspectives of femininity are seen throughout both Barbie’s cultural advancements and the advancements of her proceeding foils.
Why Build a Bear When You Can Build a City?
LEGOs are a starter kit for the younger audience who are drawn to the phenomenon of construction. One block marks the beginning of a multi-colored, multi-layered universe. While this amazing toy suits the “systemizing tendencies” of the male brain, LEGOs appear to be loved equally by both girls and boys.
That is because creation is inspiring. Learning how to build at an early age activates a child’s artistic eye. They begin to understand how houses, buildings, and cities function—how the human mind has built society through something as simple as a block or a cube.
LEGOs are a testament to the genius of architecture. Children and adults alike can observe this while visiting LEGOLAND, or a handful of other LEGO exhibits across the country. Gargantuan monsters, colossal towers, and life-size superheroes are frequently recreated by innovators who maintain their child-like astonishment and youthful imagination.
True to its name (in Danish “leg godt” meaning “play well”), LEGOs are always put to good use. That is to say, children always play well when they are playing with LEGOs. As a builder, the user has full power over their creation—it’s as if the blocks speak to the children saying, “here are the keys to LEGOLAND: imagine all you want, build all you can.” It’s a Choose Your Own Adventure scenario in its finest form. The adventure is reality.
A New Hope
In the previously mentioned Time article, author Tim Walsh anecdotally suggests that in comparison to Barbie, LEGOs have a stronger impact on career choice, “I hear more stories about people who have become architects and engineers because they had a love for building with LEGOs than I have heard people say, ‘I became a lawyer because I had a lawyer Barbie.’” Such results are highly plausible, but consider the effects of each toy.
Barbie, as stated before, indicates the concept of social design, while LEGOs signify the art of design through physical construction. Both serve a purpose in the development of a child’s understanding of social and physical complexities. So while lawyer Barbie may not seem to inspire lawyers in real life, the vast portrayals of Barbie dolls inform both boys and girls of the varied forms of socialization and careerism in our society.The appeal of Barbie and LEGOs indicates the ways in which early minds develop, and the ways in which many children mentally mature by using both blue and pink labelled toys.
While many may argue that these toys aren’t gender specific, advocates for gender-neutral toys should acknowledge the possibility that most boys and girls prefer toys that are based on their gender. In doing so, this debate may finally be put to rest.
Despite the defense for gender-preferred toys and colored labels based on predominate preferences, some still find the labels to be unnecessary and, above all else, harmful. Such is the case in an interview with professor Christia Spears Brown in The Guardian. Brown makes the tentative claim that: “all toys are gender neutral…what is not neutral is the way toys are marketed.” Many researchers disagree with her, but that’s beside the point. Even if Brown’s claim were undoubtedly true, the solution should not be to remove the label, but rather to let the child choose their own toy.
Rather than engaging in silly arguments about gender conformity, and its potential impact on a child, let the kid be a kid and have fun. Show a girl to the boy’s toy aisle. Introduce a boy to the girl’s toy section. If they like something, buy it. If not, then so be it. Let them explore and learn.
Who cares what the label is!
People are as obligated to follow these labels as they are obligated to follow a specific recipe while cooking. Maybe it is true that, for the most part, boys will be boys and girls will be girls. Of course, there’s variation and that’s a wonderful thing as well. In fact, children who don’t “conform” to these standards should be encouraged to think for themselves—rather than be tossed into the hullabaloo of the gender war debate, in an attempt to problematize something that could simply be based on a child’s innocent whim.
Toys are a magnificent art form, serving as a wonderful guide to the development of a child’s mind. It is a symbol of the mind’s expansive capacity to imagine and create. A child’s first toy is their first step towards understanding the true beauty of art and culture. Toymaking is an art form, as is the child’s interaction with that toy. The toy transcends reality by representing limitless possibilities.
Consider the Barbie doll who can be anything based on a child’s (boy or girl) interpretation of what she represents—not just a plastic body, but a metaphor; an idea; something far beyond her alleged cuteness. LEGOs can be the building blocks of a basilica, or a skyscraper—anything that the child wants it to be.
Toys must be celebrated!
Sure, they are evidence of consumerism, but toys are also so much more than that. They represent the virtues of both the creator and the consumer. Toymakers and children truly breathe life into the toy.
Carr, Mark. “How Lego supports Child Development.” welovebricks.com. We Love Bricks, 3 May 2015. Web. 1 Dec. 2016.
Himka, Cristina. “Culture Fail: Barbies of the World—Just Racism?” corvallisadvocate.com. Corvallis Advocate, 29 August 2012. Web. 30 Nov. 2016.
Hunt, Elle. “Amy Schumer says trolls’ backlash over Barbie casting shows she’s right for the role.” theguardian.com. Guardian News and Media Limited, 6 December 2016. Web. 6 Dec. 2016.
Kanazawa, Satoshi. “Male Brain vs. Female Brain I.” psychologytoday.com. Sussex Publishing, LLC., 17 March 2008. Web. 1 Dec. 2016.
Mortensen, Tine Froberg. “The LEGO Group History.” lego.com. the Lego Group, 9 January 2015. Web. 20 December 2016.
Oksman, Olga. “Are Gendered Toys Harming Childhood Development?” theguardian.com. Guardian News and Media Limited, 28 May 2016. Web. 30 Nov. 2016.
Saad, Gad, Ph. D. “Sex-Specific Toy Preferences: Learned or Innate? The biological bases of toy preferences.” psychologytoday.com. Sussex Publishing, LLC., 18 Dec. 2012. Web. 3 Feb. 2016.
Sweet, Elizabeth. “Toys Are More Divided by Gender Now Than They Were 50 Years Ago.” theatlantic.com. The Atlantic Monthly Group, 9 December 2014. Web. 30 Nov. 2016.
Thompson, Michael, Ph. D. “Understanding and Raising Boys:What We Can Do.” PBS. Public Broadcasting Service, n.d. Web. 07 Jan. 2017. <http://www.pbs.org/parents/raisingboys/aggression04.html>.
An interview with Michael Thompson based on his research found in: “Raising Cain: Protecting the Emotional Life of Boys” by Dan Kindlon, Ph.D. and Michael Thompson, PhD. Copyright 1999, 2000 by Dan Kindlon, Ph.D. and Michael Thompson, Ph.D. Reprinted by arrangement with Ballantine Books, an imprint of the Random House Publishing Group, a division of Random House, Inc.
Todd, Brenda K., John A. Barry, and Sara A. O. Thommessen. “Infants Prefer Toys Typed to Their Gender, Says Study.” scientificdaily.com. ScienceDaily, 15 July 2016. Web. 01 Dec. 2016.
Waxman, Olivia B. “The 13 Most Influential Toys of All Time.” time.com. Time Inc., 29 Oct. 2014. Web. 1 Dec. 2016.
Wolchover, Natalie. “Gender & Toys: Monkey Study Suggests Hormonal Basis For Children’s Toy Preferences.” Huffingtonpost.com. TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc., 24 August 2012. Web. 3 February 2017.
What do you think? Leave a comment.