Beyond the Blue and Pink Toy Divide | Elizabeth Sweet | TEDxUCDavisSalon

Summary

The speaker discusses the gendered marketing of children's toys, noting that toys today are more segregated by gender than at any point in the 20th century. They share personal experiences and research indicating that this division can limit children's interests and contribute to gender inequality. The talk calls for a return to more gender-neutral toy marketing to allow children to explore diverse interests without societal constraints.

Takeaways

• 🛍️ Gender segregation in toy stores is common, with toys often separated into pink and blue aisles based on traditional gender roles.
• 🎉 Target's decision to move towards gender-neutral toy presentation in 2015 sparked both excitement and controversy, with some fearing it would lead to confusion for children.
• 📸 The speaker documented the changes in Target's toy aisles, showing a reduction in gender-specific color coding but still noticeable differences in toy themes and colors.
• 👧 The speaker's personal experience with her daughter highlights the impact of gendered toys on children's choices and self-doubt, even when options seem more gender-neutral.
• 🔍 Historical research by the speaker shows that toys were less gendered in the past, with advertisements from the 20th century reflecting a broader range of toys for all children.
• 📊 The speaker's analysis of over 7,000 Sears catalog toy advertisements indicates that toys today are more gendered than at any point in the 20th century.
• 👦🏼👧🏼 The impact of gendered toys extends beyond individual children, potentially contributing to societal gender inequalities such as occupational segregation and the wage gap.
• 🦄 The story of Michael Morones, a child who attempted suicide due to bullying over his interest in My Little Pony, illustrates the severe social consequences of gendered toy marketing.
• 🤔 The speaker encourages a thought experiment about a child named Olivia to emphasize how gendered toy aisles can limit children's interests and aspirations.
• 🌈 The idea that de-gendering toys leads to beige uniformity is a misconception; historically, toys were colorful and diverse without being gender-specific.
• 💬 To truly move beyond the pink and blue divide, deeper societal conversations about gender equality, consumer culture, and the role of corporations in children's lives are necessary.

Q & A

What change did Target announce in August regarding their toy sections?

Target announced that they would stop using gender-specific pink and blue backdrops and signs, moving towards a more gender-neutral presentation of toys.

What was the speaker's personal observation of the toy aisles in the past compared to the present?

The speaker noticed that toys were not as gender-segregated in the past as they are today, with toys like Lincoln Logs, Tinker Toys, and Legos being considered just toys for kids, not specifically for boys.

What was the outcome of the speaker's research on Sears catalog toy advertisements over the 20th century?

The research showed that toys are more gendered today than at any point in the 20th century, with a significant increase in gender-specific marketing and a decrease in toys that were not defined by gender.

Why did the speaker's daughter initially hesitate to choose a dinosaur-themed lunchbox?

The daughter hesitated because the lunchbox was labeled as a 'boy's lunchbox,' which made her doubt whether it was appropriate for her to have, reflecting the impact of gender stereotypes on children's choices.

What incident involving Michael Morones highlights the social cost of gendered toys?

Michael Morones, a fan of My Little Pony, was bullied for his interest in the show, which is designed for girls, leading him to attempt suicide at the age of 11.

How do gender stereotypes in toys potentially impact societal gender inequalities?

Gender stereotypes in toys can contribute to processes that create and sustain gender inequality, such as occupational segregation and the wage gap, by shaping children's aspirations and reinforcing traditional gender roles.

What thought experiment was proposed to understand the implications of gendered toy aisles for children like Olivia?

The thought experiment involved imagining a little girl named Olivia with diverse interests and considering how gendered toy aisles might limit her choices and influence her perception of what is appropriate for her gender.

What misconceptions about de-gendering toys does the speaker address?

The speaker addresses misconceptions that de-gendering toys would lead to a uniform, beige selection or that girls would be forced to play with traditionally masculine toys and vice versa.

What historical evidence does the speaker provide to counter the misconceptions about de-gendering toys?

The speaker cites her own childhood experience and advertisements from the 1970s Sears catalog, which show a variety of toys that were not heavily gendered and allowed for diverse play patterns.

What role did the organization 'Let Toys Be Toys' play in the context of the speaker's discussion?

The organization 'Let Toys Be Toys' is mentioned as an example of groups that have successfully used social media to pressure toy companies and retailers to stop gender-specific marketing.

What deeper conversations does the speaker believe are necessary to move beyond the pink and blue divide?

The speaker believes that we need to re-engage in conversations about gender equality and the role of consumer culture in children's lives, which were more prevalent in the 1970s, to ensure that children's interests are not dictated by corporate profit.

Outlines

00:00

🛍️ Gender Segregation in Toy Marketing

The speaker discusses the current state of children's toys, highlighting the gender segregation prevalent in stores and online. Toys are often separated by gender, with boys' toys typically associated with action and aggression, while girls' toys focus on beauty, nurturing, and domesticity. The speaker shares personal experiences and research, noting that Target's decision to move towards gender-neutral marketing was met with both support and backlash. The change, however, was not as drastic as some had feared, with toys still subtly gender-coded through color and themes.

05:01

🧒 Impact of Gendered Toys on Children

This paragraph delves into the personal impact of gendered toy marketing on children. The speaker recounts an incident involving her daughter's struggle with choosing a 'boy's lunchbox' despite her interest in it, illustrating how gender labeling can cause children to doubt their preferences and suppress their interests. The narrative extends to broader societal implications, linking gender stereotypes in toys to perpetuation of gender inequality in adult life, such as occupational segregation and wage gaps.

10:02

🚀 Challenging Gender Stereotypes in Toys

The speaker uses a thought experiment involving a young girl named Olivia to emphasize how gendered toy marketing can limit children's interests and aspirations. She argues that by not challenging these stereotypes, society inadvertently influences children's career choices and perpetuates gender inequality in fields like STEM and caregiving professions. The speaker advocates for a return to less gendered marketing practices observed in the past, allowing children to explore a wider range of interests without societal constraints.

15:03

🌈 Beyond the Pink and Blue Divide

In the final paragraph, the speaker calls for a societal shift away from gendered toy marketing. She suggests that the move towards gender-neutral marketing by companies like Target is a step in the right direction but emphasizes the need for deeper conversations about gender equality and the role of consumer culture in children's lives. The speaker argues that children's interests should not be dictated by market needs or corporate profit, but rather reflect deeper societal values and interests in the well-being of children.

Keywords

💡Gender Segregation

Gender segregation refers to the practice of dividing items, in this case toys, based on traditional gender roles. In the video, the speaker discusses how toys are often separated into 'pink aisles' for girls and 'blue aisles' for boys, reflecting societal expectations of gender-specific interests. This concept is central to the video's theme, illustrating how such practices can limit children's choices and reinforce stereotypes.

💡Gender-Neutral Presentation

A gender-neutral presentation is an approach that avoids assigning gender-specific characteristics to products or marketing. The speaker mentions Target's decision to move away from gender-specific signage and color coding, aiming for a more inclusive shopping experience. This change is significant as it challenges the traditional gender segregation in toy marketing and is part of the broader societal movement towards recognizing and respecting diverse identities.

💡Color Coding

Color coding is a marketing strategy that uses specific colors to appeal to or differentiate between genders. In the context of the video, the speaker describes how pink and blue colors are used to designate toy aisles for girls and boys, respectively. This practice is critiqued for its role in reinforcing gender stereotypes and limiting children's imagination and choices.

💡Gender Stereotypes

Gender stereotypes are widely held but often oversimplified beliefs about the characteristics, behaviors, and interests that are expected of individuals based on their gender. The video discusses how toys for girls often revolve around beauty, nurturing, and domesticity, while toys for boys emphasize action, aggression, and excitement. These stereotypes are shown to have a profound impact on children's development and self-perception.

💡Dinosaur Lunchbox Incident

The 'Dinosaur Lunchbox Incident' is a personal anecdote from the speaker's experience as a parent, where her daughter was initially discouraged from choosing a lunchbox because it was labeled as 'for boys.' This incident highlights the immediate and emotional impact of gender labeling on children and serves as a powerful example of the video's argument against gendered marketing.

💡Teasing and Bullying

Teasing and bullying are forms of aggression that can result from children not conforming to gender norms. The video cites the case of Michael Morones, who was bullied for his interest in 'My Little Pony,' illustrating the real-world consequences of gender-stereotyped toys. This keyword underscores the social pressures children face when their interests do not align with societal expectations.

💡Gender Equality

Gender equality is the state of equal rights, opportunities, and treatment for individuals, regardless of their gender. The video implies that gender equality conversations from the 1970s have faded, and there is a need to re-engage in these discussions to challenge the gendered marketing of toys. The speaker suggests that children's interests should not be dictated by corporate profit but should reflect deeper societal values.

💡Consumer Culture

Consumer culture refers to the values and priorities that are influenced by the consumption of goods and services. The video discusses how the toy industry's shift towards gender segmentation in the 1990s was driven by consumer culture, prioritizing market needs and corporate profitability over children's interests and well-being.

💡Occupational Segregation

Occupational segregation is the phenomenon where certain jobs or professions are disproportionately filled by one gender. The video suggests that gendered toys may contribute to this issue by shaping children's aspirations and interests from a young age, leading to an underrepresentation of women in STEM fields and men in caring professions.

💡Let Toys Be Toys

Let Toys Be Toys is a UK organization mentioned in the video that advocates for gender-neutral toy marketing. The organization's efforts, along with similar initiatives, have successfully pressured toy companies and retailers to reconsider their marketing strategies, indicating a societal demand for change and a move towards a more inclusive approach to children's toys.

💡Corporate Profitability

Corporate profitability refers to the financial success and profit-making ability of a corporation. The video argues that the current gendered marketing of toys is driven by corporate profitability rather than the best interests of children. It challenges the notion that children's interests should be shaped by market demands and corporate needs.

Highlights

Shopping for children's toys reveals a gender-segregated market, with toys categorized by color and signage.

Target's announcement to move towards gender-neutral toy presentation sparked mixed reactions, including concerns about a 'gender apocalypse'.

The change at Target resulted in a less pink girls' aisle but still maintained some gender markings through toy themes.

Toys for girls tend to focus on beauty, nurturing, and domesticity, while toys for boys emphasize action, aggression, and excitement.

The speaker's personal experience with her daughter highlights the impact of gendered toys on children's choices and self-doubt.

Historical analysis of Sears catalog ads shows that toys were less gendered in the past, with more gender-neutral options available.

The current level of gendering in toys is unprecedented, with modern toys being more gendered than at any point in the 20th century.

Gender stereotypes in toys can contribute to the perpetuation of gender inequality in the adult world, affecting aspirations and performance.

Children who resist gender norms face social costs, including bullying and teasing, as exemplified by the story of Michael Morones, a My Little Pony fan.

The thought experiment with Olivia illustrates how gendered toy aisles can limit children's interests and reinforce gender stereotypes.

De-gendering toys does not lead to uniformity but rather expands the range of colors, themes, and possibilities for all children.

Historical evidence and personal experiences contradict the misconception that de-gendering toys would result in a loss of options or forced gender roles.

Organizations like Let Toys Be Toys are advocating for gender-balanced marketing and products, challenging the status quo.

The need to re-engage in conversations about gender equality and the role of consumer culture in children's lives to move beyond the pink and blue divide.

Children's interests should not be dictated by market needs or corporate profit, but should reflect deeper societal values and interests in their well-being.

Transcripts

get started how many of you have been

shopping for children's toys lately

either in the stores our online show of

hands okay a fair number of you well for

those of you that haven't let me give

you a sense of what things look like in

the world of children's toys today so in

most stores and this is true online and

in brick-and-mortar toys are segregated

according to gender they're sold in

different aisles sometimes this is

achieved through signs as you see here

boys activity toys and girls building

sets but more often it's achieved

through more implicit mechanisms like

colour coding as you see here we have a

very pink aisle and a very blue aisle

now these images are actually pictures I

shot myself in our local Target store

back in April and some of you may have

heard that target announced in August

that they were going to stop using these

kinds of pink and blue backdrops and

those signs that they were going to move

towards a more gender-neutral

presentation and in the wake of this

announcement there was a lot of people

like me who are very excited to hear it

but there were also a lot of people who

thought that this was a very bad thing

and a flooded targets Facebook page with

comments and some of those comments even

went so far as to suggest that this

would lead to a gender apocalypse where

boys and girls would be lost in the

store unsure of what toy to select so to

give you a sense of what this actually

looked like this change actually looked

like on the ground this is the same

exact toy aisle one image that I shot in

April this one here and the other that I

shot a week after the target toy

announcement and so what you can see is

that yes indeed that pink aisle has

become significantly less pink and

that's a good thing but it's still

pretty pink right you can still see the

markings of gender because it's not just

the segregation of toys it's also the

very ideas about gender that are

embedded in the toys themselves so toys

for girls Center heavily on the ideas of

beauty nurturing

and domesticity while toys for boys are

much more about action aggression and

excitement so I first began to really

notice this pink and blue divide when my

daughter was born in 2002 this is she

and I shopping for toys right around at

the time of her first Christmas and what

struck me when I went into the toy house

was how very different it looked from

the toys that I remember from my own

childhood so I was born in the early

1970s and here's some of the toys that I

played with as a child I had Lincoln

Logs and tinker toys and Legos and I

never remember thinking these were boys

toys that I was playing with they were

just toys for kids and my favorite toys

were these fisher-price little people

sets we had this castle the castle was

super fun because it had a trapdoor on

the top and you could drop the figures

down and they would fall dramatically

into a dungeon and again I don't

remember thinking this toy had anything

to do with my gender in fact if you look

at this advertisement it was marketed

broadly to children and the child in

there looks to me a bit like a boy so um

I don't remember things being the way

that they were when my daughter was born

but I'm a sample size of one I teach

statistics so we know that sample size

of one is not enough to make a

generalization and so I decided that I

wanted to study this topic empirical II

and in my dissertation research and now

post doctoral research here at UC Davis

I analyzed over 7,000 Sears catalog toy

advertisements from various time points

over the 20th century to try to

understand

um how the gender marketing of

children's toys had changed over time

and why now there's a ton of things I

could tell you about this research I

could talk to you all day about it but I

actually want to talk to you about one

of the very most basic points that

emerges from this research and that is

this toys are far more gendered today

than they were at any point over the

20th century toys are more gendered than

they have ever been before

now that's not to say that gender played

no role in the toys of the past it

certainly did as you can see in these

two advertisements behind me one a 1922

erector set ad which says boys today men

tomorrow

and this 1964 look magazine ad which

shows a girl surrounded by domestic toys

certainly gender did play a role but it

is to say that even went in the periods

over the 20th century when toys were the

most gendered there was still far more

toys that weren't defined by gender

roughly half of toys that weren't

defined by gender and that's a lot more

than we see today toys like these dolls

from 1915 series catalog which are which

are advertised as being just fine for

small children so again there's lots of

things I could tell you about my

research but today I want to focus

really on what this means for children

that we've gone from this to those pink

and blue aisles that we see today what

does that mean for kids so bracketing my

role is a researcher I can tell you what

it's meant for me as a parent and for my

own child and perhaps the best example I

can give you this actually has nothing

to do with a toy it has to do with a

lunchbox so it was about a week before

my daughter's first day of kindergarten

and we were doing some school shopping

and we're standing in front of the wall

of lunchboxes and she was never a fan of

the pink aisle and so she pretty quickly

rejected all the pink princess sparkles

um but she also wasn't really a fan of

superheroes so she rejected the red and

blue and black superhero themes which

left very little in the middle but

eventually she sees this pale green

lunchbox and it's really cool it's a

dinosaur themed lunchbox that had a tail

that velcroed open and so when you did

it made the shape of a dinosaur and when

she sees that that's the one that's one

she wants yeah that's great but she

could already read at this point okay so

as she's taking the lunchbox off the

shelf she happens to see this the tag on

the lunchbox which says plain is de

boy's lunchbox

pen just like that I could see the doubt

cloud her eyes she began to say I don't

think

want that lunchbox I'm not supposed to

have that lunchbox

okay now you better believe that she and

I had a long heart-to-heart in that

store that day about how ridiculous this

idea that this dinosaur lunchbox is for

boys only as if only boys can play with

Dinosaurs as if half of dinosaurs

weren't female right this is ridiculous

that this is an arbitrary decision that

somebody has made that does not reflect

reality and yeah she got that and she

did go ahead and get that lunchbox but

you know what she carried those seeds of

doubt outside of the store with her that

day and she carried them into the

kindergarten classroom the next week in

fact we had to continue to have this

conversation over and over about how it

was okay for her to like that lunchbox

this experience with the lunchbox was

really emblematic of her later

experiences with toys with shoes with

clothing where over and over she would

feel like she had to kind of hide or

sometimes abandon things she really

liked simply because they were coded as

being for boys either because she was

afraid she might be teased for liking

them or increasingly in later years

because she actually was being teased

for liking them and this is my daughter

is not alone all kids kind of have to

abandon or deny some parts of themselves

in order to fit neatly into those pink

and blue narrow boxes and for those kids

that do resist that do refuse to do that

the social cost can be incredibly high

in 2014

Michael morones was 11 years old and he

was an avid fan of My Little Pony now my

little pony is a product line and show

designed for little girls although it

has a much larger fan base and Michael

loved my little pony

but he was bullied relentlessly for his

interest in this product and show and

eventually he could endure that bullying

no longer and he attempted to take his

own life

11 years old now Michael's not alone

there are far too many children who

everyday have to endure harassment

teasing and

it's physical violence simply because

they like something that's been

arbitrarily coded for the other gender

it is needless and it is senseless and

beyond the unnecessary pain and

suffering that gender coded products

create for individual children which by

the way should be more than enough

reason for us to challenge it but beyond

that they may have profound societal

implications we know from a wealth of

social science research that the very

same stereotypes that are the core

defining feature of children's toys

today those gender stereotypes lay at

the root of many of the processes that

create and sustain gender inequality in

the adult world so gender inequalities

like occupational segregation the wage

gap we know for example that gender

stereotypes can negatively impact tack

task performance when they're seen as

relevant they can shape people's

aspirations how competent they believe

themselves to be and what they aspire to

do and this is true whether or not that

person actually endorses the gender

stereotype themselves all it's necessary

is for them to know it's out there and

to know that other people believe it

great to have a strong effect and gender

stereotypes can impact how competent

others evaluate us to be and so for all

these reasons the fact that gender

stereotypes are the core defining

feature of children's toys today should

give us all pause it should cause

concern now I want you to do a little

thought experiment with me and hopefully

this will make it a little clearer as

well so I want you to imagine a little

girl her name is Olivia she's 4 years

old and Olivia likes a lot of different

things but among those things she likes

to go to the park with her mom and look

at bugs

she likes to collect bugs she likes to

dress up in sparkly fabrics she likes to

go to the train yard in the afternoon

and watch the train shunt back and forth

and she likes to make pretend food for

her stuffed animals ok what does it say

to Olivia when the toy aisles look like

this or even a muted version of this

what does it tell her about what her

interest should be which of her

interests are deemed are available in

the aisles deemed appropriate for her

gender and which are set off limits

now of course Olivia can venture into

the blue aisle to find a bug collecting

kit or a train set as my daughter had to

do but as my daughter's experience what

the lunchbox demonstrates having to do

so plants those seeds of doubt and when

you think about those seeds of doubt and

when you recognize the fact that almost

all science kits and building sets are

found exclusively in the blue aisle in

the boy aisle maybe it's not so

surprising that women remain

underrepresented in many science

technology engineering and math fields

because girls are told from the very

earliest of Ages that those interests

are for boys and not for them

and similarly maybe it's not so

surprising that men remain

underrepresented in nursing in many of

the caring professions because again

boys are told from a very earliest of

Ages that those nurturing and caring

characteristics are for girls and not

for them okay now let's go back to

Olivia and imagine that instead of these

pink and blue tiles instead of choosing

to gender segment the market in order to

increase profit as toy industry began to

do in the 1990s imagine that instead

they had deepened their commitment to

creating products and marketing that was

gender balanced and that was aimed at

defying instead of reinforcing gender

stereotypes as was the case in these and

many others of the advertisements I

observed in the 1975 Sears catalog what

would that mean for Olivia or kids like

my daughter Michael morones well instead

of having to fit themselves into those

narrow pink and blue boxes abandoning or

denying parts of themselves they would

be free to follow whatever interests

they have their diversity of interests

because ultimately all kids have diverse

interests now at this point many people

want to argue ok

if you D gender toys that means

limitation D gendering toys means that

all you'll be left with is a sea of

beige uniformity right well anyone who

lived through the 70s and played with

the toys or looks at an old toy catalog

can tell you the toys were far from

monochromatic in fact they had a much

greater color diversity than we see

today people also want to argue that D

gendering toys will mean that girls will

no longer be allowed to play with pink

dolls and boys can no longer play with

blue trucks or even more extreme that

girls will be forced to play with blue

trucks only and boys will be forced to

play with pink dolls only but again this

just does not square with the historical

evidence and it certainly doesn't square

with my own lived experience of growing

up in a time when toys were far less

gendered because when I was a girl I did

have Barbie Barbie is a very feminine

stereotypically feminine toy and I love

Barbie but I also had a Lone Ranger

action figure and I had a really cool

t-top Tonka blazer that they could both

fit in and so I put Barbie in the

driver's seat of course and the Lone

Ranger would ride shotgun and they would

go off on all kinds of adventures

camping and four-wheeling and none of it

was off-limits to me because of my

gender

I love this image from the UK

organization let toys be toys because

it's so true that losing the pink and

blue divide it doesn't need beige

doesn't mean uniformity it doesn't mean

limitations it means opening up the full

spectrum of colors of themes and of

possibilities for all children and

ultimately is that not what we want for

our children don't we want them to have

more options and not fewer options now

this organization let B toys be toys and

other similar organizations like plan

limited and Australia have done some

amazing work and taking toy companies

and retailers to social media and using

social media to pressure them to stop

doing this sort of marketing and that

their success suggests that there is a

call for something different the fact

that target has made this announcement

and hopefully other retailers are to

follow means that there is a call for

something different but I want to argue

to you today that if we truly want to

move beyond this pink and blue divide

we're going to have to re-engage in some

much deeper conversations that we were

having in the 1970s because those toy

advertisements I showed you they did not

happen in a vacuum they happen during a

period of time when we were having

really deep conversations about gender

equality and how to create it when we

were having really deep conversations

about the role of consumer culture in

children's lives and whether and how

corporations should be regulated to

protect children's interests in the

decades since we've moved away from

those conversations and now the

conversation almost always centers on

the needs of corporations the needs of

the market corporate profitability or

the responsibilities of individual

parents so if we really want to get

beyond this pink and blue divide we're

going to have to re-engage in those old

conversations because ultimately our

children's interests should never be

dictated by the needs of the market by

the needs of corporate profit rather the

things that our children play with that

are they're exposed to should reflect

our deeper values

they should reflect our interest for

them thank you