Visiting a Toy Store: Playtime on the Gender Agenda

The role of toys in propagating divisive gender binaries is definitely on the agenda. Laura Bates in ‘Everyday Sexism’ highlights the way in which toys encourage boys and girls to grow up, pursue certain career paths and subsequently avoid those of the opposite sex. In addition to this, British retailer Tesco recently apologised after a 7 year old girl complained that science toys were merchandised as ‘boy’s toys’, while the work of the ‘Let Toys Be Toys’ campaign seeks to encourage manufacturers and retailers to label toys based upon theme or function alone.

Considering this, I decided to do some investigative work of my own. I visited a major toy retailer’s store with ‘gender eyes’ in order to establish how this looks in practice. There are two important differences to note here: store merchandising and manufacturer branding/marketing. This is important since a toy store/retailer could refuse to merchandise on the basis of gender, yet the packaging and the marketing of a toy may still be gendered. Considering this, my findings were as follows:

• Sections that the store had merchandised for girls were almost overwhelmingly pink and focused on childcare toys (dolls, toy prams), and for older girls, the inclusion of boy-band paraphernalia.
• There was no section that was sign-posted as ‘boys’, yet sections that were merchandised by brand contained images of children exclusively of one sex for either brand or type of product. For example: Thomas the Tank Engine toys used images of boys only on the packaging; within another brand, all toys relating to battle (castles, forts) and car sets used boys only. Toys relating to girls focused on domestication (dolls, dolls' houses, etc.).
• The lines of gender appeared to be blurred when it came to kitchen sets. Pink sets featured girls only on the packaging, whereas some sets featured boys and girls on the same packaging. This is perhaps the most interesting point. There are several celebrity male chefs on British TV – the absence of boy only imagery on kitchen sets may serve to reinforce the notion of cooking as a domestic duty for girls and a hobby/career for boys.

Considering these findings, I think it is essential to support the work of organisations like Let Toys Be Toys. If toys continue to promote outdated notions of gender, this will only serve to limit and restrict individuals along gendered lines in later life and hinder the move towards equality. You can visit their website here: http://www.lettoysbetoys.org.uk/.

The Problem with anti-Feminists

I never thought that I would be writing about misandry. I thought it would be crystal clear that anyone who cares about gender equality that feminism is clearly opposed to it. I’ve recently ventured into territory where people argue otherwise; that it fights for female supremacy and is grounded in a hatred of men. It’s time to challenge this notion.

Why don’t feminists call themselves ‘egalitarianists’, or to gender the issue ‘gender egalitarianists’? While it may seem a mute point that detracts from the aim of feminism, there’s a reason why the word is important. Feminism is about acknowledging that gender inequality exists, and that the existence of this inequality is rooted in socially constructed notions that automatically prize characteristics associated with masculinity. Implicit in this, is the acceptance that men can be, and often are, disadvantaged by these notions of masculinity where they are upheld – but to move to the term egalitarianism ignores the way in which such structures are implicitly constructed in favour of men and rest upon the subjugation of women.

There are men and (gasp!) women who fight feminism by cherry picking a few self-proclaimed feminists who appear to be man-haters. They talk about misandry and ‘feminists’ who ‘bathe in male tears’. The anti-feminist movement is sinister at best, and perhaps even indicates that feminism is effective. After all, if we are progressing towards a gender equal society rather than regressing, then what is the fuss? There is no evidence of any structural discrimination against men (in comparison to women), and it is pertinent to remember that the norms of gender are propagated by powerful men. It is therefore those anti-feminists who should be looking towards men, allowing them to challenge the disadvantages of masculinity that affect (often the poorest) men rather than cherry picking self-proclaimed anti-men ‘feminists’ in order to tarnish the grassroots movement of feminism.

Even if for one second misandrist women were to be considered feminists (an oxymoron, in my book), should they be the focus of concern for feminists? Misandry is a residual product of structural prejudice, and by virtue of being a product from this subjugation, it cannot be compared to misogyny in anyway. It is a form of anger; it does not perpetuate an existing structure that marginalises a group. Feminism can be muscular, inclusive and intersectional (and inclusive of men) while recognising this structure and the need to dismantle it. In essence; let’s not worry about the disenfranchised extremes and get back to fighting for equality.