http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=196605763&m=196911697
NPR's Neda Ulaby
released a segment this summer on the new Lego Friends line, a group of Lego
sets marketed specifically for girls. This would make sense considering that
90% of all Lego users were boys. Of there were always girl's who loved there Lego's
but especially since the 1990's these "pre-engineering" toys were
specifically marketed for boys with male figures and male themed sets. Little
to no Lego characters were women and some proponents for the toy claim that
some of the figure are androgynous and they can just "pretend they're
girls". As a child I loved Lego's and can relate to this frustration many
parents and children feel. I remember pretending some of the figures were girls
so in some way my gender could be included; I remember searching for sets that
weren't so clearly shoving "boy interests" down my throat. This
advertising was unashamedly focused solely on boys, even in commercials saying
things like "Boys everywhere love this!" and "Discover the new
Lego boys!" in commercials like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pN46P0iRvHI
This common problem.
would make the company's push to include girls seem very forward thinking and
would help to bridge the traditional gap between girls and Lego's. For decades
young girl's have been conditioned to play with dolls an dress up sets and
while topically there is nothing wrong with these toys they do create a
distinction from the boys who are encouraged to play with building sets and toy
computers. And now that these boys and girls have grown up we wonder why so few
of those girls pursed STEM careers. While there are many different factor's
playing into career choice we cannot avoid these obvious correlation in imposed
childhood interests; boys are thought to build an think while girls are taught
to think about clothes, motherhood, and
homemaking since birth. As a consequence of this phenomena many hailed the new
Lego sets as an important step in encouraging young girls to step outside their
traditional gender roles and introduce them to the early skills and interests
that can lead to a love of science.
Despite these hopefully
aspirations the sets have been criticized for reinforcing these gender roles
rather than truly breaking them down. Lego has been criticized for everything
from the sets' focus on traditional girl roles (house sets, shopping malls, etc.)
to the fact that the girl dolls cannot move their legs independently like the
boy figures (usually because they're wearing skirts or dresses). Critics say
that this is not a step forward but rather a continued division with marketing
now on both sides. One of the segment's final questions is why can't they make
Lego's that both girls and boys can enjoy instead of strictly defined gender
sets? Is this slow movement towards progress understandable or is Lego really
in the wrong here?
Awesome observation Sara and something I have had many discussions with my former supervisor about (Well not legos exactly, but rather the gender specific toys). I have a larger question for you though that I would be interested to see your take on.
ReplyDeleteFirst off I would like to ask you if you believe people enjoy being their respective genders and why or why not? I feel as a species, I'm sure you would agree, that we are social in our nature and enjoy a sense of belonging, thus is it not natural that we have created these groups in which we can feel part of a group. While I can agree that some of these gender roles society has created can be hurtful, most people enjoy being a part of these groups.
So my question is, is the problem that toys are gender specific or the fact that society discourages someone of one sex to play with toys outside of their "assigned" gender? I say "assigned" because I feel there is a definite separation that should be made between a persons sex and the gender they feel most comfortable with. Currently if a person is a male and he has the desire to dress as a girl, it is seen as "wrong" in our society. Rather than trying to dull the diversity we currently have by making toys that are gender-neutral, why not keep the toys and make it socially acceptable for boys and girls to play with anything they like?
In general I can definitely agree that something needs to change here, I just want to hear your thoughts in regards to which concept needs to be changed!
That's a really good question Mitchell. I think the issue is when children are pushed to only play with their gender's assigned toys by either their parents or companies themselves. The problem is when things like Lego's are very specifically marketed and made for only one gender very intentionally. These kind of distinctions serve to reinforce gender stereotypes like girls can't play with Lego's and boys can't play with dolls and the problem is that a company can profit off of these kinds of harmful stereotypes. I believe that this is a very different distinction from being proud of one's gender into being pigeonholed into the traditional roles of that gender. I don't think there is anything wrong with children playing with their gender specific toys; my issue is when they have no other options.
ReplyDeleteHere is a really interesting article I found regarding the top ten degrees women pursue in college: http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/02/top-10-college-majors-women-forbes-woman-leadership-education.html.
ReplyDeleteThe article cites research that “women tend to gravitate towards fields of studies and career paths where they can have a positive social impact and work with others.” The fields that promote these desired qualities are indeed the fields that are female-dominated: health sciences, education, and social sciences. You could make the argument that women are attracted to these fields because of society-imposed gender roles, what toys girls play with, or just by instinctual behavior. Regardless of where the inclination to have these more social jobs came from, I think it is important to look at the qualities women (and men) seek to fulfill through their work.
Here is a similar sentiment expressed within the context of the STEM fields: “Boys and young men often pursue science for science’s sake, whereas girls and young women tend to view science as a tool for some other purpose, often attached to the social good.” There is a deficit of women in engineering, but consider this article citing that women are dominating in the biological sciences: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/education/edlife/where-the-women-are-biology.html.
So perhaps this whole issue is not solely caused by childhood toys or early educational influences. Perhaps a large part of the gender gap in certain fields is due to the nature and quality of work different careers offer.
Aya, I love that you brought this up. I know for me, the engineering is a means through which I plan to help people. I'm more concerned about the societal impacts of the science than how "cool" it is (though cool is great too!). My question is though, does this stem from cultural nurturing, or biology? Is it a combination of both? I think it's important as an engineer to consider the human side of things, but is that the "female" in me talking, or more generally the "human conscious person" in me?
DeleteI definitely agree with you Brianne and I would have to say that naturally women are more nurturing by nature ( little oxymoronic there, but you get the point). http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/women_more_empathic_than_men This article is a quick excerpt discussing how women are possibly more biologically apt to displaying empathy for others. Not necessarily that men can not identify when others are feeling a specific emotion, but rather they do not reflect these emotions as well as women. As a result, I think answers your question Brianne, that being a female you tend to be more empathetic, which results in essentially more compassion towards others. It happens to be that your skill set is in the Engineering field and thus you want to use those skills to help others, where males, in a generalized sense, more use the science for science sake rather that compassion for others.
DeleteI spent some time researching the effects of cultural roles versus nature and found that it is ultimately a combination of both that lead women to seek more nurturing positions. One study found that women tend to be more empathetic than men; they "involuntarily imitated other peoples’ emotional expressions more than men." (http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/women_more_empathic_than_men)
ReplyDeleteYet here is another study claiming that there are "enough variations in gender roles across different cultures to suggest that the idea that women are naturally more nurturing than men is largely a social construct." (http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/are-women-more-nurturing)
There is certainly a combination of factors influencing the roles women play, but I am inclined to say this is more of a function of the experiences and role models an individual has.