Sarah Petri

English 137
Paradigm Shift

Barbie for Boys: The Evolution of the Childrens Toy Industry and its Discrimination of Gender

Grabbing a couple of nails and screws, the diligent father places the scraps of lumber

together, drilling and hammering interchangeably, followed by a fresh coat of red paint. After

popping on four wheels and a handle, the brand new wagon for his son is ready for Christmas

morning. Twenty years later, when it is time for the son to give this emblematic, classic toy to his

own child, the tool box is left on the shelf; rather, he enters the two-story toy shop and purchases

a shiny new wagon in a cardboard box for $39.99. The value of homemade, hand-me-down toys

is a forgotten era that has been transformed into a commercialized industry, benefitting

monopolistic toy companies and limiting the educational value of childs play. Childrens toys

have been around for centuries, but beginning in the early 1900s, toys began to transform into

objects utilized for profit and business success. A childs playtime once included a handful of

one-of-a-kind toys, but now involves an array of embellished, heavily advertised products. While

toys have been modified over the years with technological advancements, they have also been

altered due to societal shifts in gender stereotypes. The domestication of women in the 1950s,

World War II, and the feminism movement have modified the marketing of toys over the past

century, and these cultural changes have affected the education and psychology of children,

specifically regarding gender identity and individual roles in modern culture. With increased

gender-stereotyped advertising and packaging, childrens toys have altered throughout the 1900s

to accommodate the growing industry for toys though conflicting with gender perceptions.
 The early to mid 1900s consisted of few, simple toys that had a direct educational benefit.

With no large toy corporations or manufacturers, toys were largely homemade or hand-me-down

from a childs parents. Baby dolls, Tinkertoys, fire engines, Lincoln Logs, and dollhouses were

amongst the most popular toys from the 1910s to the 1950s, and were only purchased around

holidays such as Christmas and Hanukkah. Because children had such few physical toys during

these decades, most childs play involved playing pretend, hide-and-seek, secret meetings in

treehouses, or other activities that did not involve a specific object (Their Toys and Ours).

Many attribute the loss of childhood innocence to the lack of imaginative play replaced with

newer, modern toys and technology. Additionally, parents purchased items that had a direct

educational benefit for their family. Erector sets were popular in the 1950s and served as an

introduction to basic science and engineering, while baby dolls and kitchen sets promoted

motherly instincts and household skills. Although these characteristic toys may seem sexist, there

was, oddly enough, less discrimination regarding toys at this time than there is today.

While the popular toys in the mid 18th century had the potential to be highly gender-

exclusive, they were interchangeably used by boys and girls. Elizabeth Sweet, author of the blog

The Gendering of Our Kids Toys, and What We Can Do About It, explains how as a child, I

dont recall feeling that my toy choices were particularly limited because of my gender. I played

with both dolls and trucks and had the most fun just making mud pies in the backyard. Maybe

this was the result of being raised by parents who didnt impose traditional gender ideas on me,

or maybe it was just emblematic of the times. Despite the popularity of toys that promoted

domesticity in women, young girls never felt the pressure to solely play with these objects; with

no advertising or marketing of dollhouses and carriages, girls willingly played with blocks,

science kits, and trucks. Similarly, with no distinction between boy and girl toys, young boys
often engaged in traditionally feminine activities, such as play-pretend with dolls or dress-up

(The Gender Bias World of Toys). There was no heavily feminized pink television ads or

aggressive depictions of cars and action figures to indicate to young children the toys they

should or should not enjoy. Representing this concept, the activist group Let Toys Be Toys,

an organization that protests retailers from classifying toys by gender, posted images on social

media in 2013 comparing advertisements from the mid 1950s to images now for the same object.

The side-by-side juxtapositions were quite symbolic, indicating how the once neutrally-colored

toys, such as carriages and kitchen sets, were now sold in distinct hues of pink and blue.

Therefore, not only were toys before commercialization more educational and valuable, but they

managed to remain fair and gender-neutral; however, these principles were quickly modified as

toys became largely manufactured and marketed through technological mediums.

The late 1900s sparked multiple changes for the toy industry, beginning with

monopolized companies and mass advertisements. Emblematic toy companies began to be sold

or bought out in the late 1960s, primarily due to the deaths of the owners or CEOs. In 1967, A.C

Gilbert, owner of a well-established toy company since 1913, passed away, and with him so did

the production of Erector sets and science kits. Other old companies such as Playskool and

Fischer-Price, known for practical, educational toys, succumbed to newer, larger corporations

such as Mattel and Hasbro and were quickly merged. Occurring gradually throughout the 1960s

and 70s, this shift began to engulf what was left of scholastic, sensible toys and promote those

with more of an outward appeal to children (Their Toys and Ours). Escalating household

television sales throughout the 50s and 60s facilitated a new age of advertising, which Hasbro

initiated in 1957 with its release of Mr. Potato Head. These television advertisements

revolutionized the way children play; rather than exhibiting the object on the screen, they
depicted how to play and subsequently limited imaginative activity. Replicating the actions seen

on television further limited the practical, real-world value of toys and quickly replaced this

significance with whimsy and movie-like situations (Toy Timeline). Furthermore, Mattel and

Hasbro introduced primary characters for children to become familiar with, beginning with

Barbie and G.I Joe. Not only did these two popular characters begin a division between boy

and girl toys, but they also initiated the manipulation of producing several individual products,

such as additional Barbie outfits or G.I Joe attachments, for one toy and therefore eliciting

multiple purchases. With this, the sheer number of toys in the market began to multiply in the

1950s, which can be represented by the comparison of Sears newspaper ads. In 1905, there were

139 toys in total in the Sears catalog, and by 1945, the number had doubled (The Gendering of

Our Kids Toys, and What We Can Do About It). Evidently, Mattel and Hasbro were not the sole

companies producing toys at this time, but they managed to commercialize Barbie and G.I Joe

and artificially generate two new worlds for these characters. These fantasies were filled with

stories that mentally diverged children in these decades from their parents, who failed to

comprehend this modern play. These two giants transformed an industry that once pertained to

parents best interests for their children into a business preying on young girls and boys

captivation and attraction to specific objects and characters. Concurrently, society was morphing

due to historic milestones and affected parents mindsets regarding their childs toys.

As the toy industry began to mechanize in the mid to late 1900s, American culture was

also undergoing changes regarding gender roles. Mothers and fathers in the early 1900s had the

ease of purchasing toys with real-world value, knowing that engaging in play with this object

would in some way prepare their son or daughter to become a mature man or woman. However,

the sudden modification of gender roles muddled what being an ideal, mature adult for each sex
entailed, leaving parents confused as to what to purchase for their children to aid their

development. Throughout World War II in the 1940s, women began to leave their housework and

join the workforce, thus varying a womens role in modern culture. Quickly after the war,

however, women resumed their housewife positions throughout the 50s, only to return to various

careers in the 1960s (Toys Are More Divided by Gender Now Than They Were 50 Years Ago).

With this fluctuation throughout the decades came the doubt of parents, leaving them vulnerable

to their childs wishes; many parents purchased the toys their children requested after viewing an

advertisement since they were unknowledgeable of what toys would be beneficial to them. Even

so, Children as young as twelve to eighteen months can recognize brands, it went on, and are

strongly influenced by advertising and marketing (Orenstein 156). Modern advertisements are

able to instill their products in very young childrens minds, which only demonstrates the

authority of commercials and other publicity of toys in developing childrens lives. Similarly,

increasing technology throughout the 1900sthe radio, television, computersleft current

adults unaware of the critical skills their child would have to learn (Their Toys and Ours). With

this growing technology, the late 2000s brought high-tech toys to the market, such as child-proof

touch screen tablets, laptops, and cameras. The increasing digitalization of toys not only

debatably limits creativity and imagination, but also makes virtual ads more potent.

Advertisements were the sole element driving toy sales beginning in the late 1900s, and an

escalating technological presence continues to enable toy manufacturers to create ads pertaining

directly to girls or boys to maximize sales. Ironically, the un-domesticizing of women lead to

discriminating advertisements for young girls and boys due to the ambiguity of the future. Some

toy companies have taken gender classification to an extreme, blatantly singling out boys or girls

and causing a parental uproar.

 As toy companies entered the 1980s to the early 2000s, the pink and blue distinction

of toys hit its peak. Advertisements, both print and electronic, and the products produced were

driven specifically towards boys and girls, so much that it began to be brought to attention by the

public. In the mid 2000s, an online petition was initiated by 13-year old McKenna Pope to get

Hasbro to make Easy Bake Ovens that were not just pink and purple. Receiving over 30,000

signatures, the notion ignited backlash against the new Lego Friends line the same year, a version

of the popular building toy that is sold in pink and purple with dolls included. It is not just girls

toys that are targeted either; Thomas the Train was previously debated with in 2007 since its

packaging and commercials depicted only young boys. While these specific toys were

highlighted by news reports and viral complaints, there are thousands of products and

advertisements nationwide that evoke the same message of gender discrimination (Orenstein 58-

67). The dilemma here is not just with what this instills in childrens mentality for the future, but

also with the contentment of the young girls or boys childhood currently. In an article written in

The Huffington Post, one mother of a 7-year old boy could not find any sewing kits not geared

toward girls despite her sons interest (The Gender Bias World of Toys). Additionally, author

of Cinderella Ate My Daughter Peggy Orenstein details an instance in which her daughter was

ridiculed for having a Spiderman bicycle because her friends referred to it as a boy toy.

Despite the attention these sexist toys have recently received, they would have not been

acknowledged a decade ago. The marketing of childrens toys has been manipulating young

girls and boys perception of gender identity for years, but it is the recent societal advancements

in feminism that have been influencing the toy industry for the better.

Before specific toys and their presentation were finally called to attention, American

culture needed to shift towards the acceptance of varying gender identity and womens rights,
and began to do so in the late 1900s. Although the feminist movement technically began in 1848,

many mark the 1960s and 70s as the initiation of the modern feminist movement as women

argued for workplace equality. Since then, women have protested and demonstrated their need

for respect and equality to men regarding career opportunity, sexual rights, salary, and the

elimination of stereotypes. Feminism is still prominent today, and is a cause adopted by many

celebrities such as Beyonc and Emma Watson (Your Childrens Toys Are Perpetuating Gender

Discrimination). In addition to the growing number of feminists, the LGBTQ community has

begun to take a stand in modern society. Believing to have been initiated in 1969 with the

Stonewall riots, the gay rights movement has acknowledged the once taboo topic of alternate

gender identities and the acceptance of various sexual orientations and transgender

identifications (Toys Are Move Divided by Gender Than They Were 50 Years Ago). It is these

fairly recent movements that have modified contemporary culture to accept and support gender

equality and openness and are pioneering the toy industry today.

Childrens toys have been modified throughout the decades to portray various societal

ideals and technological innovation; nevertheless, the commercialization from this progression

often represents a corrupted industry with a misguided concept of gender. Although many people

believe that an increased virtual aspect in the market for children will assist in vital life skills in

the 20th century, children will be overindulged in misrepresentative advertisements for products

based specifically on their gender. The early 1900s were filled with lively childhood interaction

and toys with family tradition built by hand into every seam or screw; even in the days of

extensive sexism and gender inequality, childrens toys remained gender neutral and objective.

The market for toys is moving toward a distinct division of the sexes despite a cultural shift

toward the acceptance of gender ambiguity and the rights of women, leaving parents enraged and
childrens futures at stake. Peggy Orenstein, debriefing about her own mothering experience in

her novel, explains, Id believed I could keep out the tales and the toys but had failed on both

counts (Orenstein 78). Despite a parents best effort, the mechanization of toys is inevitable as

advertisements and popular objects become unavoidably pervasive, leaving any child vulnerable

to the hindrances of gender-discriminatory products. Innovation and creation over the century

has given children a more widespread, diverse market, but a psychologically limited one.

Luckily, as social movements progress in the modern era, the over-commercialization of toys is

being put on the spotlight and corporations are beginning to be held accountable for sexist

marketing. This is not to say that a girly-girl should be discouraged for only enjoying

traditionally feminine toys, or a boy should be shamed for not also enjoying dolls and dresses;

children just need to know they have other options beyond the stereotypical gender-prescribed

toy. Needless to say, that hand-made, red wagon will most likely not be a fad once again because

of such extensive industrialization, but its values of unbiased childrens play have the potential to

return to the market and allow children to discover themselves through the freedom of play. The

feminist movement, LGBTQ awareness, and other cultural shifts towards acceptance are each a

phenomenon yet unrelated to children directly; the rights they need at their young age is the

freedom of play, and its about time that is returned to them.

 Works Cited

Caprino, Kathy. "Your Children's Toys Are Perpetuating Discrimination." Forbes. Forbes

Magazine, 13 July 2015. Web. 04 Nov. 2016.

Cross, Gary. "Their Toys and Ours." The New York Times. New York Times, n.d. Web. 4 Nov.

2016.

Orenstein, Peggy. Cinderella Ate My Daughter: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the New

Girlie-Girl Culture. New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2011. Print.

Samakow, Jessica. "Let Toys Be Toys Compares 1970s Toy Catalogue To Toy Marketing Today

(PHOTO)." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 07 June 2013. Web. 09 Nov.

2016.

Sweet, Elizabeth. "The "Gendering" of Our Kids' Toys, and What We Can Do About It." New

Dream Blog. N.p., 7 Oct. 2011. Web. 4 Nov. 2016.

Sweet, Elizabeth. "Toys Are More Divided by Gender Now Than They Were 50 Years Ago." The

Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 09 Dec. 2011. Web. 04 Nov. 2016.

Topol, Jill. "The Gender Bias World of Toys." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 24

Dec. 2014. Web. 09 Nov. 2016.

"Toy Timeline." Discover. N.p., 21 May 2011. Web. 04 Nov. 2016.