It's interesting to me how clearly delineated sexual roles are in kids' toys. I've been watching Nickelodeon all day, and if there's one thing toy commercials make clear, it's that sexuality comes up a lot in toys.
Consider the dolls targeted at little girls, which are, in large part, baby simulacra. These are dolls that not only train girls to nurture, but reinforce an expectation of future motherhood (I make this claim without looking up real data, but how many little girls profess a desire to be a mommy?). For somewhat older girls, dolls move towards simulacra of teenage girls and adult women. These dolls (Barbie, Bratz, etc.) focus a lot on fashion-consciousness and the socially normal form for relationships (what is Ken but an accessory for Barbie?). Again, it seems to me that doll-play for girls is deeply focused on preparation for attracting a mate, maintaining a relationship and caring for the eventual result of the relationship.
Boys toys are not innocent of sexual preparation, but they focus on a surprisingly different side of the relationship. Most of the toys targeted at boys are based on ideals of combat, construction, or control (e.g., G.I. Joe, Legos, and toy cars, respectively). In essence, they prepare boys for the long-standard masculine role as family bread winner, which is a way of teaching boys to attract and keep a mate and support offspring, since not being a deadbeat is an attractive trait to have.
I guess it shouldn't be surprising how prevalent the idea of sex is in children's toys: man is a sexual animal, which is a fine thing because it has let our species dominate thoroughly. As my brother once said, everyone with working genitals is a secret pervert. In this age of false unity, when the politically correct thing to do is often to pretend that men and women are the same, I'm glad that we still can't help but teach the next generation the real truth about genders. The roles that have so long shaped society did not persist for thousands of years because of some unfortunate sexist accident in the dim memory of mankind: these roles, to varying degrees, are inherent in our genders, defined by who knows what combination of physiology and genetics and sociology. The truly progressive thinker, in my opinion, must learn to accept the differences between humans. Equality between all groups can only come through understanding.
By my hand,
~Michael Akerman
2 comments:
In this age of false unity, when the politically correct thing to do is often to pretend that men and women are the same, I'm glad that we still can't help but teach the next generation the real truth about genders.
Kids' toys are cultural artifacts, not grand truths about human nature and gender roles. It may be true that men and women have inherently different roles in relationships, but I think using a cultural artifacts as evidence for those potential differences is a major logical fallacy. It just shows that culture propagates itself beginning at birth.
I didn't mean to imply that toys are necessarily signs of natural truths, just that I'm glad toys haven't (and probably can't) succumbed to the excessive smoothing of society. The toys kids demand and the toys we're willing to give to kids are deeply driven by gender roles (which happen to be norms that are nearly uniform across cultures).
Post a Comment