"Sexist" toys

[Verlander]

(Here's an interview [http://www.womenyoushouldknow.net/little-girl-1981-lego-ad-grown-shes-got-something-say/] with one of the women who posed for one such ad as a young girl, and a recreation of the ad with a modern lego.

This... toys haven't changed, we have.

I have a daughter, and she asked for the Nerf Rebelle thing for Christmas last year. I bought it for her, because she wanted it. Her brothers (all younger) have an arsenal of nerf guns "for boys".... and so did she! They all play with the "boy" ones, and the boys play with the "girl" one. The toy isn't sexist, and even the concept of an accessible toy isn't sexist. What's sexist is raising children who feel that they need to play with the one that suits their gender, or that they aren't allowed to play with the others.

I have 4 children, with a 5th on the way (I'm mad). The 5 year old this year wanted Mousetrap and Nail Varnish for Christmas. He's a boy. Try finding male nail varnish... it doesn't happen. We found a nice little set in a tin, glittery ones, and he dresses up in his top hat as a magician with nail varnish on, and does magi shows for us. He couldn't give less of a damn about how girly the present was. That's the only way to break down sexism - NOT slipping snarky and divisive cards into toys. By supporting your child in their decisions, you encourage growth and confidence, and they'll be the ones who ultimately change the world.

 

[Verlander]

And they still do the occasional unisex adverts just like the old one.
(And explicitly market certain product ranges, such as 'creator' as unisex)

But still, you have to wonder what pressured them into falling in line with everyone else doing gendered toy ranges...

I'd imagine that when they started doing ranges beyond simple bricks, particularly involving different IP. It's not so much that they were specifically unisex before, but when they expanded their range, they identified markets to sell to and adjusted their marketing to suit this strategy.

 

[CrystalShadow]

And they still do the occasional unisex adverts just like the old one.
(And explicitly market certain product ranges, such as 'creator' as unisex)

But still, you have to wonder what pressured them into falling in line with everyone else doing gendered toy ranges...

I'd imagine that when they started doing ranges beyond simple bricks, particularly involving different IP. It's not so much that they were specifically unisex before, but when they expanded their range, they identified markets to sell to and adjusted their marketing to suit this strategy.

I suppose all the licensed stuff that already carries certain gendered expectations in the source material would've made those kind of things more likely.

Although they've been making themed sets which are far more than bricks alone since basically the beginning of the 80's, so that's hardly new really...

 

[NPC009]

Ironically enough, Lego actually has made a lot of girl-oriented Lego in response to people claiming Lego was too boy-oriented. And this was from the very start of Lego. The first 'girl Lego', Homemaker, was way back in the 70's, but since then we've had Paradisa, Scala, Belville and Friends. They tried it often enough, and generally it failed horribly. People just didn't want it. Yet other people kept asking to make it anyway, because girls should have their Lego too, right? Right?

The current line of girl-Lego has been the first actually successful one. So successful in fact, that it's currently the biggest and best-selling Lego line.

Make of that what you will, but there's a lot of pushing and pulling going around in girl toys and it's not easy to say who is to blame. To call the toy industry sexist for making pink toys is way too simplified a view.

I actually have several of those seventies sets, like the kitchen. Okay, they're somewhere in the big box together with all sorts of sets from several other decades, but I have them and I played with them as a child. Maybe it varies per region/country, but as a child I never had the impression girls did not play with Lego. We had them in primary school and everyone played with them. Most households had atleast some Lego, if they didn't, they were probably a Playmobil family.

Maybe it's not the overly girly sets the girls really wanted? Maybe what they really wanted was more colours (I wish I had orange, green and brown bricks when I was young!), more female minifigs... that kind of stuff. The Friends line did provide atleast some of that and it brought the focus back to town building (a normal town, not one that's one fire one half of the day and being robbed blind the other).

 

[Verlander]

And they still do the occasional unisex adverts just like the old one.
(And explicitly market certain product ranges, such as 'creator' as unisex)

But still, you have to wonder what pressured them into falling in line with everyone else doing gendered toy ranges...

I'd imagine that when they started doing ranges beyond simple bricks, particularly involving different IP. It's not so much that they were specifically unisex before, but when they expanded their range, they identified markets to sell to and adjusted their marketing to suit this strategy.

I suppose all the licensed stuff that already carries certain gendered expectations in the source material would've made those kind of things more likely.

Although they've been making themed sets which are far more than bricks alone since basically the beginning of the 80's, so that's hardly new really...

True. According to the Lego Wiki, the first sets were Lego Town, Lego Castle and Lego Space, which were launched in 1978, only really creating more towards the end of the 80's. An admittedly quick search didn't bring up any adverts for those products that featured girls - they appear only in the generic Lego adverts. From my perspective, it would seem to be less about Lego becoming sexist, and more about Lego discovering greater profit in the sets, and focusing less on the generic bricks (which in my opinion is a shame).

 

[Jesterscup]

Funny, you know back in Victorian Britain pink was for boys and blue for girls ( or so I've been told) .

Just like sexism in computer games these sorts of things are generally due to laziness and lack of creativity...

"whats the mario story?" - " save the princess" , thats a good idea lets take that and run with it every single time for the next 30 years...
"It's a toy for girls, what color should it be?" - "girls like pink, pink is good" - every single girls toy ends up being pink...

Are the toys sexist in and of themselves? In regards to nerf I'd say no, it is marketed to girls and boys separately, mainly due to an understanding of how our society generally is. It should be pointed out that
a. Super-soakers suck since nerf got them
b. "nerf-for-boys" has 3 different ranges ( elite, Mega, zombie ) 'for-girls' only has Rebelle
c. Rebelle is one of the best toys out there colour-wise, most of the toys have a splash of pink ( if that ) only one pistol is majorly pink. Over-all the designs are pretty good and multi-coloured. Clearly a lot more thought went into these than the 'for-boys' ranges.

There are some great examples of open minded parents standing up against what could easily be termed 'social pressure' and encouraging their children in their own interests, be that legos, nerf or nail varnish.

When your market is predominately one sex does marketing to that sex make it sexist? I'd argue that it's not a given.

 

[Aerevolt]

What is sexist about the nerf gun for girls?
They are the exact same toy as "for boys", but have "girl colors".

There shouldn't be segregation of toys.

 

[VanQ]

Well pink was a boys color not too long ago in history, so that's kind of proof. That and the idea that girls are just naturally drawn to that particular color is kind of ridiculous and requires a bit more evidence than "my young, female relative, who was never ever influenced by society at all, likes pink."

And Blue was a color that was considered girly too. This just sounds like "Pink used to be a boys color and blue was once a girls color and we finally overcame that and even managed a complete turnaround but now it's still problematic just because."

 

[VanQ]

And Blue was a color that was considered girly too. This just sounds like "Pink used to be a boys color and blue was once a girls color and we finally overcame that and even managed a complete turnaround but now it's still problematic just because."

And where have I ever pointed out how a complete turnaround of the colors associated with genders was a good thing, or even hinted that that might be a good thing? It was dumb and limiting to consider blue a girls color and pink a boys color then and it's dumb and limiting to consider pink a girls color and blue a boys color now. It's still problematic because assigning colors to genders and impressing that upon children was always problematic; it doesn't stop just because you change what the colors happen to be.

I'm still not sure where these limits are. You're drawing a vague line in the sand and complaining about the line you drew in the sand. Me and every other normal person will just continue not putting so much importance on something as silly as a color and you keep making a mountain out of it. If that's what makes you happy.

 

[Lieju]

But the feeling I'm getting is that to many girls, this new line feels more like a permission slip to check out nerf toys. "Oh, they come in girl colours now, so it's okay if girls play with them." .

thats a good way to describe it

in that I think people seriously underestimate the effect these things can have, that feeling of "this is not for you"

but its kind of a hard thing to answer, if a little girl is interested in something whats stopping her from doing it? I liked a lot of things that were [i/]clearly NOT[/i] marketed towards me, but I can say there was sometimes a little bit of self consciousness, particularly as I got older

for every girl who happily picks up a Teenage Mutant Ninja turtle figure there may be another who wanted it but knew, even at that age that it [i/]wasn't meant for her[/i]

Yeah, I recall a girl back in elementary school for example wanted to get a water pistol but was afraid to ask for one for her birthday because they were 'boy toys'.

And I was outright told several times as a kid that the toys I liked were inappropriate, I still collect LEGOs and hang out with hobbyists and have to listen to things like 'girls don't like toys with moving parts' ???

I was always very bad at undertanding what was 'appropriate' for a girl and then of course I have had to listen to comments about being weird or trying to be 'special' for liking monsters and dinosaurs...

I hate colour pink even these days because I was always told I liked pink. Not even that I should like pink, but that teachers in kindergarten and adults who didn't even know me thought they knew better than I what I liked.

I'm still not sure where these limits are. You're drawing a vague line in the sand and complaining about the line you drew in the sand. Me and every other normal person will just continue not putting so much importance on something as silly as a color and you keep making a mountain out of it. If that's what makes you happy.

Haha yes normal people. I was bullied throughout kindergarten for liking blue since it was 'for boys.' My high school art teacher told us 'girls love pink', and she was not the only one. People put a lot of importance for things like that, I would have been fine with pink if it wasn't always made the default for me. And if I wasn't told what my opinions were without asking me.

 

[NPC009]

Kinda off-topic, but your avatar sure takes me back, Lieju. I was such a Franquin fangirl as a tween! Of course, me having an interest in comics outside of the usual girls' anthologies was considered inappropriate as well, so... yeah.

 

[CommanderZx2]

I'm still not sure where these limits are. You're drawing a vague line in the sand and complaining about the line you drew in the sand. Me and every other normal person will just continue not putting so much importance on something as silly as a color and you keep making a mountain out of it. If that's what makes you happy.

How is me criticizing the idea that we should be splitting the colors up amongst the genders so that we have girls color and boys colors, me putting so much importance on the idea of colors? The line in the sand was already there unless you somehow managed to miss the way we ascribe colors to genders, but go on pretending this is all just something I made up.

No where on the box does it say for girls. The images on the box are clearly designed to imitate Katniss and appeal to fans of those movies/books. There are plenty of guys that will buy pink things too.

You know those LEGO sets which some people seem think are sexist because they are aimed at girls? Well they're actually quite popular with males too, as they offer a new range of pastel colours previously not available in other LEGO sets.

 

[CaitSeith]

snip

So, what do you guys think?

Is the color what you consider sexist? I think MovieBob talked about the subject in his video: Pink is not the problem. Personally I'm glad these toys exist, because before there weren't any commercials that even hinted girls that they could play with these kind of toys that were traditionally made for boys. It's a step. It's better than before. And it will make it easier to make toys look less sexist in the future.

PS captcha: silver lining That's my point, captcha.

 

[ccggenius12]

for every girl who happily picks up a Teenage Mutant Ninja turtle figure there may be another who wanted it but knew, even at that age that it wasn't meant for her

and I don't know what the answer is, because making the Ninja turtles pink wouldn't be the answer...

I think the answer could be as simple as putting not just boys but girls as well on the packaging and in commercials. I mean, look at old Lego and its ads. For instance, in the early eighties they had this series of ads that pictured both boys and girls playing with the same bricks, proudly showing their creations to the viewer.


This is what I grew up with, but if I look at modern Lego sets, I can imagine young girls now get a different message.

(Here's an interview [http://www.womenyoushouldknow.net/little-girl-1981-lego-ad-grown-shes-got-something-say/] with one of the women who posed for one such ad as a young girl, and a recreation of the ad with a modern lego.

Funny thing that. It was one of the examples in my marketing text book. Legos HAD been designed as gender neutral. Despite that, the female market still made up a small fraction of their sales. So you got all of those "boy" sets to cater to the people who were actually buying their product. The "girl" sets as of late are the direct result of market research, and nothing more. I'd say any inequality is the result of parents and relatives, not the company, as they have final say on what is or is not bought for the kid (Though that doesn't discount the possibility that they just weren't interested. The textbook claims that the market research indicated that girls were, on average, simply not interested in playing with Lego). A sizable portion finally decided it would be OK to buy their niece/daughter Legos now that they're available in bright pastel colors and don't have many of the customizable properties one normally associates with Lego. They're more like dolls with some assembly required, and we all know how the stereotypical girl feels about dolls. And if it means the kid is assembling Not-Barbie's Dreamhouse instead of Daddy? That's what we call a win win.

 

[SeanSeanston]

I do often wonder if perhaps all this sexism malarky is in fact moreso relevant to today than it ever was 20+ years ago.

i.e. When people talk about lack of female characters or w/e in gaming, I originally thought they were completely wrong... but more recently I've started to wonder if perhaps I was more biased in favour of looking at older games, and maybe that they actually have a more valid case in the past 10-15 years or so? Not exactly a brilliant one, but maybe a little better.

Then that Lego thing from the 70s makes me think I may have been right.

It's just... I don't remember girl gamers being considered a strange or alien concept 20+ years ago. I may be wrong but I think it was quite assumed that while there were much more boys playing games, there was a reasonable amount of girls too, or at least it wasn't considered outright "weird" or whatever like it seems to me modern revisionist groups would have you believe. Just that they seem to me to be proposing an idea that states gaming was always "sexist" and it exists on a simplistic linear scale where there was more of it in the past and less of it now. Despite it being hard to think of many games back then with 2 or 3 protagonists where 1 of them wasn't female, and I really don't think they were trying to appeal to boys with that either... more likely it was to appeal to the obvious notion that there might be a girl around sometimes when people wanted to play multiplayer, and if they could hook them in then all the better.
Then again... maybe that's because the PlayStation changed the face of gaming, and before that gamers were all considered weird outcasts? Then it may have become more of a demographic-targeted exercise, where they realized they could hook in more "normals" and make it "acceptable". Trying to appeal to the ordinary young adult male who might be interested in playing FIFA before/after a night out drinking? The kind of people who play COD now and have no real interest in gaming. I dunno.

 

[Batou667]

No where on the box does it say for girls. The images on the box are clearly designed to imitate Katniss and appeal to fans of those movies/books.

Yep, I was stopping by this thread to make the same point. Without getting embroiled in the sexism debate, on a much more pragmatic and financial level, this Nerf bow is surely designed to appeal to the same demographic who read and watch The Hunger Games. The palette and stylings are definitely feminine, but it's a "touch chick" vibe rather than "pretty pink"... wouldn't the feminists call that a small step in the right direction, at least? It's not smashing or inverting any gender roles, but it's broadening them... and realistically, I think this kind of gradual change is the best we can hope for.

 

[Vault101]

And Blue was a color that was considered girly too. This just sounds like "Pink used to be a boys color and blue was once a girls color and we finally overcame that and even managed a complete turnaround but now it's still problematic just because."

pink isn't just a color

its a code, a sign it more often than not means "feminine" and its VERY hard to separate from that meaning these days...(save for the 80's)

 

[Rellik San]

Nerf made toys with a visual aesthetic that appeal to a different demographic than the other Nerf toys, the Recon Series is different to the Zombie Series which in turn is different to the Elite Series which is different to the Rebelle Series of toys.

That is all they have done. Sure there are girls on the box of the Rebelle line, but looking at my plush Rainbow Dash or the fact my nephew who loves his Nerf Guns as much as his mothers giant Pinkie Pie plushie...

...in fact that's a good point I'll bring up, until recently despite ALWAYS listening to the songs on Youtube, my nephew would say he hated Frozen. Now this isn't some coda he's picked up from his family, this was because another 5 year old girl told him that's what her Mother said, with a little coaxing and me talking to him about how much I liked the film too (Uncle Rellik is the paragon of manliness and always right.... wait... does that make me the patriarchy? or is it just a silly bit of fun with my nephew, I'll let the screaming hordes decide that one) he now openly admits to loving it.

I don't see people taking Disney to task over the sexist marketing of Frozen toy lines that made my nephew believe that he shouldn't like something he really really liked to the point he got seriously upset about it one day. So why is Nerf being taken to task for a new toyline where the only real difference is the tribal markings and a girl on the box?

 

[loa]

The notion that things with too much magenta in it are for girls is rather silly, yes.

 

[Platypus540]

I don't think it's sexist at all. You can argue that the existence of pink Nerf guns is due to sexism in the culture (and in many ways you'd be right), but neither the toys nor the marketing is sexist itself. The fact is, very few girls were buying Nerf guns, for whatever reason. The company saw a market and created a product line marketed explicitly to girls, and now girls are buying more Nerf guns (and Nerf is making more money). It's not like a girl who wants a regular yellow or blue Nerf gun can't get one now that these exist, they simply tap into a market (young girls who want pink crap) that would otherwise not be buying Nerf products.