Tag Archives: toys

April 24, 2012 · 8:00 pm

Blue for the Union, Grey for the Confederacy, Pink for the Girls

I forgot about this picture I snapped from that weekend in Springfield, until this afternoon when the super awesome Peggy Orenstein (author of Cinderella Ate My Daughter) retweeted it.

This is in the extensively stocked gift shop of the Lincoln Museum (which was altogether fabulous, by the way). Among the mugs, aprons, puzzles, keychains, rock candy (?) and magnets are various period costumes for kids. Awesome kids, by the way, because awesome kids like to dress up as historical figures.*

And then, amidst the bonnets and wooden rifles and whatnot, sit the soldier caps. Blue for the Union, grey for the Confederacy. And pink, of course, for the girls.

My beef is not with the color pink. I happen to be wearing pink nail polish as I type this. I like pink a whole lot. My beef is with the “othering” of products for girls. Legos (generic) are for boys, Lego Friends (the special pink version) are for girls. Jenga is the generic, pink Girl Talk Jenga is for girls.

Image via Sociological Images

It’s like we think that women are some minority, instead of half of the population. It’s bad enough that we feel the need to divide products and label them so exclusively, but must we pretend that the default is male and the weird little offshoot product is female?

Regarding historical costumes specifically, we can’t retroactively change the color of the uniforms in the Civil War to suit our narrow gender assumptions. If you want to buy your daughter a cap, buy her a blue or grey cap, and if she’s the kind of girl that wants Civil War soldier garb, she’ll get over it.

*1997, Abraham Lincoln. 2011, Rosie the Riveter. 

Related Post: Why do girls need special Legos?

Related Post: I’m too pretty to do math.

 

3 Comments

Filed under Education, Gender, Media

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

January 5, 2012 · 5:52 pm

What’s so masculine about colored plastic blocks?

Can someone explain to me why we need special LEGOs for girls? They are still just colored plastic building blocks, right? Have they changed in some dramatic way since I was a child? Oh yes, I guess they have:

1981

Images from Sociological Images

In the fine print: “LEGO Universal Building Sets will help your children discover something very special: themselves.”

2011

Here’s a full list of the available LEGO Friends sets, but a sampling includes a treehouse, a design studio, a cafe, a “cool” convertible, a beauty shop, a vet’s office, bakery, pool, stage. Does it sound a little Kardashian to anyone else?

LEGOs, Lincoln Logs, k’nex… these toys are awesome because they don’t project anything. They are just building blocks (literally and figuratively) for kids’ imagination and creativity. A kid that wants to make a nail salon can make a nail salon, and a kid that wants to make a U-Boat can make a U-Boat, but nobody is suggesting that you should make either. Well, except the packaging and advertising….

Related Post: Ballerinas and Bridesmaid sticker books.

Related Post: Some people do real cool shit with LEGOs.

3 Comments

Filed under Advertising, Art, Gender

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

January 3, 2012 · 4:17 pm

Sunday (Tuesday) Scraps 42

1. RILEY: Arguably my favorite YouTube video ever. This is Riley, and she has some very strong opinions about gendered marketing in the toy aisle.

2. PENELOPE: You might be familiar with Penelope Trunk’s ubiquitous advice giving. This week, we saw a whole different, and frankly disturbing, side. On her personal blog, Trunk wrote about temporarily leaving her abusive husband.

3. TASKS: TaskRabbit is the new start-up darling (or so people say), and NYMag put the service-based site to the test. How much would you pay a stranger to install your printer?

4. HOLY TOYS: Super fascinating piece from Allison Yarrow at the Daily Beast on several new sex toy companies that exclusively target religious consumers. Christian, Jewish, and Muslim entrepreneurs have all gotten in on the sex toy game. Apparently, sex toys aren’t just for heathens!

5. LOGO: Honest Logos, a flickr stream from Hertz, recreates and rechristens the most iconic logos. It’s a nifty trick, and the YouTube copycat might be my fave.

6. TWILIGHT: What if Herman Melville had written Twilight? Virginia Woolf? iO9 takes a fun hypothetical trip into literary fantasy land.

Related Post: Sunday 41 = rapping babies, girly legos, beautiful libraries, the history of pubic hair

Related Post: Sunday 40 = pole dancing, belly galleries, Louis C.K., radio personalities

2 Comments

Filed under Advertising, Books, Gender, Really Good Writing by Other People, Sex

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

December 30, 2011 · 3:54 pm

Popstars and Bridesmaids

My first “real” job was in an adorable little toy store in the heart of the pretty adorable town where I grew up. I learned to gift wrap anything (including, once, a hula hoop), but mostly we just played with the display versions of the latest board games.

To this day, I love a good toy store, and so I found myself browsing one recently for no other reason than to see what had changed since my heyday. This is what I found:

I didn’t realize that “popstars” had edged in on the venerable paper doll tradition, nor that bridesmaids was even part of the vernacular of little girls. And since when are bridesmaid dresses ever something anyone celebrates for their style?

I did a little digging after I got home, just to see whether this was all Usborne had to offer, or whether this particular toy store was just short-stocked on the non-Princess sticker books.

The subbrand is called Sticker Dolly Dressing, and there are 21 versions available. I was super pleased to see a “Dream Jobs” title featuring a doctor and an explorer of some sort, as well as a “Sports Girls.” The rest of the list was “Ballerinas,” “Ballerinas and Dolls,” “Dancers,” “Movie Stars,” “Popstars and Movie Stars,” “Weddings,” “Weddings and Bridesmaids,” “Princesses,” “Fairies,” “Princesses and Fairies,” and something called “Fancy Dress.”

Individually, none of these is particularly problematic. It’s not as if they have “Hot Mess,” “Reality TV Star,” or “Playboy Model.” But, collectively, the bottom line speaks with one voice, and it is saying “Be Pretty!” On the other hand, the boy stickers have “Pirates,” “Knights” and “Soldiers,” so maybe their message is “Be Violent!” Is that any better?

Related Post: How to buy toys for girls that don’t involve bustiers.

Related Post: The 1998 “Ruby” Campaign took the Barbie model in a different direction.

1 Comment

Filed under Gender

Tagged as , , , , , ,

December 18, 2011 · 6:10 pm

Sunday Scraps 41

1. EQUALITY: How can we combat the misguided and preposterous belief that allowing gays to marry will someone lead the way to people marrying toasters, dogs, and dead people? A handy diagram to hand out to all your idiot friends.

2. LIBRARY: Flavorwire has a highly subjective list of the 25 most beautiful college libraries. I’m not going to argue though, because Harper is #8.

3. PUBES: Ever wonder about the history of pubic hair? Yeah, me too. The Atlantic takes a historical approach the current trend of ripping it all out.

4. FASHION: Blogger Marissa at New Dress A Day buys heinously ugly dresses and revamps each and every one to make something contemporary and wearable. And she does this every day.

5. ADORBS: Even babies who don’t know any words can mimic the speech patterns of rap music. So freaking cute (and so is the dad….).

6. LEGO: Lego is launching a new line of girls toys called Lego Friends. Businessweek investigates the origins of the new line and Lego’s history with shoving the pink crap in the corner.

Related Post: Sunday 40 = Louis C.K. on daughters, NPR’s imaginary faces, bellies.

Related Post: Sunday 39 = Siri drama, boozing at work, a library artwork mystery of international proportions.

3 Comments

Filed under Books, Chicago, Education, Gender, Politics, Really Good Writing by Other People, Sex

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

November 26, 2011 · 4:47 pm

Barbie and Ellen?

Hmmm…who does that look like?

Via Copyranter

Related Post: In 1998 Mattel sued the Body Shop for these plus-size Barbie-esque ads.

Related Post: Handy chart for buying toys for girls. Is there a bustier involved?

1 Comment

Filed under Advertising, Gender

Tagged as , , , , , ,

August 7, 2011 · 2:01 pm

Sunday Scraps 22

1. GENDER: Sociological Images caught a great example of gender assumptions in kids products, this one more insidious than most. The boy backpack is for a pilot, the girl backpack is for a pilot’s assistant.

2. COLBERT: Stephen Colbert picked apart the coverage of new health care regulations that cover breast pumps, birth control and domestic abuse counseling. “What’s next?” says the commentator, “manicures and pedicures?”

3. SPORTS: The history of the “high five” from ESPN. Who knew it included the first MLB player to come out (after he left the league)?

4. INTERWEBZ: Debates I often have with myself about arguments on the internet, crystallized in infographic form.

5. PARANOIA: I cackled at this post from The Bloggess about using bananas to scare the bejeezus out of your friends, or random supermarket patrons.

6. LIFE: Big questions? McSweeney’s has all the answers.

Related Post: Sunday 21 = happy married gay people, geeky flowcharts, FNL FTW.

Related Post: Sunday 20 = Ambien, Dubai, playhouses, blood spatter.

2 Comments

Filed under Gender, Hollywood, Media, Politics, Sports

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

June 10, 2011 · 2:13 pm

Ruby, 1998

I was ten in 1998. I had just got my first AIM screen name. The squealing AOL took so long to dial up that I took showers while waiting to IM with all my ten-year-old friends about really important ten-year-old things.

In 1998, I didn’t have a google reader, or Facebook, or Twitter. I didn’t read blogs. The word blog wouldn’t even make the dictionary for 6 more years. Without fourteen social networks telling me what to read on the internet, I completely missed the boat on the Body Shop’s “Ruby” debacle. Too bad, it would have been right up my alley.

The Body Shop launched a campaign featuring a size-16 plastic figurine nicknamed “Ruby” for her rubenesque shape.

One example from the "Ruby" campaign

The campaign launched around the world until two things happened. China banned the ads on subway platforms, claiming indecency. Mattel, maker of the ubiquitous Barbie (one sold every 2 seconds), sent a cease-and-desist order. They claimed that Ruby capitalized on their trademark plastic dolls and that her image was doing them a disservice.

Galia Slayen stands with a life-sized Barbie built to doll-proportions (cbsnews.com)

I know there are some that will look at Ruby and say she can’t possibly be a “healthy” role model, and who in their right mind would shove such an an unhealthy ideal on children? Fair point. But apply the same standard to Barbie and you run into a bit of a conundrum.

A life-size Barbie would be 5’9″ and 110lb. She would have size three shoes, and she would have an 18″ waist. Most people would also argue that this is also an “unhealthy” ideal. And yet, over 900,000, 000 Barbies are sold every year.

Here’s the thing: kids like dolls. I might want my hypothetical kid to entertain themselves with crayons and play-dough all day long, but what if she (or he)* wants a doll? How do I talk about body confidence and the vast and wonderful range of human forms to a three-year-old? I think I would start by making sure whatever dolls we have around don’t all look the same, not all Rubys, not all Barbies. Variety is the spice of life, amirite?

*Action figures aren’t so awesome for boys either.

Related Post: I made a handy chart to figure out what to buy girls. It’s not foolproof but it’s a start.

Related Post: Speaking of rubenesque beauty… interesting survey results out of the UK.

Related Post: Oh jesus this again… there is no “real” body type!

7 Comments

Filed under Advertising, Body Image, Media

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

January 24, 2011 · 5:27 pm

A Practical Guide to Buying Toys for Girls

Of all the parenting hullabaloo on the interwebs lately, I’m less inclined to pay attention to “tiger mother” Amy Chua, who strikes me as a flash-in-the-pan anomaly, and much more interested in Peggy Orenstein’s new book, Cinderella Ate My Daughter. Through interviews, field trips and a whole bunch of self-reflection, Orenstein examines the inevitable “princess phase,” and it’s subsequent (and perhaps more dangerous?), Bratz and Hannah Montana (RIP) stages.

In a stellar interview with Mother Jones, Orenstein expresses great frustration with trying to buy toys, school supplies and basic toiletries for her daughter that aren’t covered in princess paraphernalia. I vividly remember trying to pick out gifts for a holiday toy drive and being disgusted with the array of Bratz dolls baring belly-buttons even while “snowboarding.”

So here’s my stopgap, haphazard solution. I give you the Should I Buy This For My Daughter/Niece/Sister/Toy Drive? Guide. It’s a handy chart to pull out when you’re standing in the aisle at Target overwhelmed by the sparkles. Keep a clear head, start in the top left, and follow the arrows:

One could (and maybe I will) make a similar flow-chart for buying for boys. Avoiding violent gun culture and absurdly offensive video games (have sex with a prostitute, kill her and then take your money back) isn’t easy either. I think the last “No” box on the chart is decent criteria in general, though finding things that fit that bill is no picnic. Just give them a box of crayons. Who isn’t happy with crayons?

Related Post: Book buying for a guy who hasn’t a female-authored book since he had to read some Jane Austen in high school? Check out Books for Dudes (by Chicks).

15 Comments

Filed under Advertising, Family, Gender

Tagged as , , , , , , ,