Friday, February 28, 2014

Toy Corporations: Exploiting the Ever-Widening Gap between Boys and Girls at Play

One of the most controversial topics in the fields of genetics, neuroscience, psychology, and many other scientific disciplines that investigate the relationship between our biology and behavior centers on the argument of Nature vs. Nurture. Lise Eliot’s book Pink Brain, Blue Brain analyzes the two faces of this dichotomy in relation to human development. Are boys prewired to have an interest in cars and sports? Do girls have a gene that predisposes them to favor ballet classes over little league tryouts? In order to answer these types of questions, Eliot delves into the physiological and environmental factors that ultimately contribute to our behavior in the early stages of life.


It is important that we examine the differences in behavior between boys and girls rather than those of men and women. Observing the demeanor of an individual during the stages of infancy and even fetal development serves as good ‘control’ for a researcher who mainly wants to study biological effects on behavior.  On the other side of the spectrum, the behavior of a middle-aged man would be heavily influenced by his environment and the manner in which he was raised and lived his life. This is the reason why Eliot explains how children of various ages, rather than adults, interact with each other.

One topic of Pink Brain, Blue Brain, individual toy preferences of boys and girls, is discussed in the New York Times article “Should the World of Toys be Gender Free?” The article discusses how major toy corporations such as LEGO and Mattel capitalize on the wide gap between girls’ and boys’ toy preferences. These companies realize that the different genders gravitate toward different objects in which they can express their creativity, athleticism, and even spatial skills. Although the marketing departments of these corporations may not grasp the biological or environmental bases of the differences between boys’ and girls’ toy choices, they certainly realize that gender-neutral toys do not grasp the same amount of the children's attention or desire.

Eliot cites multiple studies in which toy preference was tested with different species of monkeys. They remarkably showed similar behavior to humans: the males preferred playing with balls whiles the females spent more time with dolls. Eliot suggests that this could be explained by the high activity level of young boys, which is a result of higher testosterone levels in fetal development. They are attracted to objects that will engage them physically and that will ultimately improve their visual-spatial skills. Girls, on the other hand, exhibit more social-oriented and creative play, which could be attributed to high prenatal androgen levels. Eliot also describes how elder siblings have a huge impact on the kinds of toys younger ones want to play with; whether it is due to mimicking, role modeling, or simply a case of playing with the already available toys in that household. The aforementioned NY Times article points out the potential problem with sustaining this segregation of play: Are we limiting the potential these children have to expand their cognitive skills while their brains are still so malleable? Are we hindering their expectations for the future by only providing toy guns and trucks to boys and play make-up to girls?

Eliot lists helpful tips for parents who are stuck in the middle of this gender-segregated struggle. She encourages them to introduce their children to engaging activities that will give them the stimulation that they are lacking in their traditional form of play. For boys, she suggests literary enrichment or motor skill practice, such as drawing or typing. For girls, she advises sports or activities that improve their spatial skills, such as puzzles. The article “Should the World of Toys be Gender Free?” includes a video clip of a young girl who clearly sees through the ploy of these major toy companies:


Riley brings up some valid points. Some boys are more feminine than others, while some girls are more masculine. Wherever they lie on the spectrum, their choices of toys- and on a deeper level, how they choose to express themselves- should not be so black-and-white, or pink-and-blue, if you will. If this five year old girl has the foresight to realize that her toy options are not limited to the ‘pink aisle,’ there may be hope for future generations of kids at play.

References
Book:
Eliot, Lise. “Learning Through Play in the Preschool Years.” Pink Brain, Blue Brain: How Small Differences Grow into Troublesome Gaps- And What We Can Do About It. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2009. 103-42. Print. 

Article:
Orenstein, Peggy. “Should the World of Toys Be Gender-Free?” The New York Times. The New York Times, 29 Dec. 2011. Web. 28 Feb. 2014.

Images:
http://www.extravaganzi.com/one-of-a-kind-pink-diamond-barbie-doll-by-the-blonds-auctioned-for-charity/
http://www.fbtb.net/2005/08/25/review-10143-death-star-ii/

No comments:

Post a Comment