In
her book “Pink Brain, Blue Brain,” Lise Eliot discusses the differences in
behavior and aptitude between boys and girls, and how these differences have
been explained, both correctly and incorrectly, by neuroscience. In a section
entitled “Toddlers and Their Toys” Eliot brings up “boy toys,” “girl toys,” and
the early gender bias in choosing playthings, which she cites as one of the largest
and most obvious early psychological differences. By the age of 12 months there
is said to be a significant difference in toy choices between boys and girls.
However, the effect weakens with age, especially for girls, and it is doubtful
how important these choices are to development over time despite the early strength
of the bias.
A
commonly studied toy dichotomy is the difference in preference for either dolls
or toy trucks. Most studies show a similar pattern: at six-months children tend
to favor the two toys at least equally, with the dolls usually winning out, especially
for girls. By the age of 12 months, girls favor dolls and boys favor trucks. By
the age of 5 boys spend drastically favor trucks, but girls once again divide
their attention almost equally between the gendered toys. Many attribute this
tendency to our society’s more rigid demands for men to fit into traditional
gender roles and the growing acceptability for women to take on more
traditionally masculine roles. In short, they say that we give girls more
freedom to choose, to split their attention equally. In any case, this view suggests that toy
choices are not innate, nor are they predictive of a child’s disposition and
choices later in life.
Others
suggest that toy choice is indeed innate. Evidence for this viewpoint comes in the
form of monkey research. In studies using vervet and rhesus monkeys it was
shown that female monkeys spent more time playing with rag dolls and red
cooking pots, males spend more time with balls and toy cars, and that both
sexes spent equal time with gender neutral toys such as a stuffed dog or a
book. Because monkeys are not human, and thus have not been socially conditioned to recognize toys, much less if a certain toy is for boys or girls,
the results suggest that toy preferences may have an innate factor. According
to this school of thought girls are innately drawn to babies (the red pot
preferred by female vervets was the same color as a baby vervet’s face) and
boys are drawn to action and motion, such as that of a ball or a car. After
discussing both possibilities, Eliot proceeds with the understanding that toy
preference across genders is probably a result of both innate and social
factors, a wise and highly probable conclusion.
Given
these findings, one might ask “How should we go about gendering and marketing
toys?” A New York Times article by Peggy Orenstein does just that. In “Should
the World of Toys be Gender-Free?” Orenstein discusses the differences in
gendered toy choices and recent moves by toymakers and sellers in both more and
less-gendered directions. On one side we have F.A.O. Schwartz, a London based
department store that rearranged its entire toy sales floor to be gender
neutral. It donned red and white décor, instead of the traditional blue and
pink, and arranged toys by interest instead of gender categories. On the other
end of the spectrum in Lego, who unveiled a new collection of Lego products
aimed at girls, featuring pastel colored blocks and more girlish figurines. The
article explores both sides of the issue, citing some of the same research used
by Eliot. Both sides argue for gender-fairness which they see manifesting itself
in different ways. To some it is brought about by reaping the benefits that
come with a variety of gender-neutral play styles, to others it means access to
gendered toys that a male or female child is more disposed to desire.
This
leaves us asking, which way is the right way? I think the better question is “Is
there really a right way at all?” The fact remains that kids will choose the
toys that they choose. Most girls will choose dolls and most boys will choose
trucks, others will go against the grain. While childhood is a very important
period of development, toy choice has not been shown to be highly predictive of
future behavior or performance. As long as a child is developing healthily and
happily, gendered toy choices are very interesting but do not appear to be
highly influential. I would sooner devote more research to WHY gender
preferences exist than whether they SHOULD exist.
Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/30/opinion/does-stripping-gender-from-toys-really-make-sense.html?action=click&module=Search®ion=searchResults%230&version=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%3Faction%3Dclick%26region%3DMasthead%26pgtype%3DSectionFront%26module%3DSearchSubmit%26contentCollection%3Dscience%26t%3Dqry187%23%2Fgender+differences
