Talking about toys: Taking child’s play seriously

On occasion, people ask me why I bother taking children’s toys so seriously. “They’re just toys, after all!”

Yes, toys are just toys–but they’re so much more than that, too. Toys are a central part of children’s play, and to a child, play is very important work. Through play, children experiment with their visions for themselves and others in the world; play is part of their learning and socialization.

So, it’s worth talking seriously about toys, for they have the power to shape children’s dreams and worldviews.

Plus, as the infographic below from Frugal Dad explains, toy sales are big, big business. Family spending on toys went up during the recession, even as families’ grocery spending declined. The major manufacturers, Mattel and Hasbro, are aggressive marketers; when marketers harness children’s “pester power” so skillfully, it’s hard to resist the temptation to buy new toys.

Source: frugaldad.com. Used with permission.

It’s also worth remembering that with if two manufacturers monopolize 40% of the toy industry, and aggressively market their goods, their worldviews can wind up permeating our homes. You know all the recent complaints about sexism in children’s toys? Take a look at who composes the boards of directors at Hasbro and Mattel.

Oh, and while you’re at it, check out the board of directors at LEGO and the executive team from Disney’s consumer products division, too.

See any trends?

If you said, “Wow, it’s mostly white men,” then we’re on the same page. If the people in charge lack racial diversity and skew heavily towards men, that has implications for the kinds of toys the major manufacturers will produce: dynamic, engaging toys for boys, and stereotypical, reductionist toys for girls–and poor representation of people of color, too.

Readers: What do you think? How seriously do you take toys? Parents, do you have any strategies for deciding which toys you deem fit to enter your homes?

Ponies, petitions, and girl power: This week’s roundup

Last week, I kept busy working on the My Little Pony petition, asking Hasbro to stop promoting superficial stereotypes of girls. Change.org invited me to contribute a guest post to their web site about the petition. It’s called “I Won’t Buy My Little Pony Toy That Makes Smart Princess Shallow.” You can read it here.

Mommyish.com also reported on the petition. Koa Beck wrote:

Hearing these [stereotypical] phrases from their favorite pony countless times a day cements the cultural message that girls consistently receive about their beauty being paramount. That their other achievements and interests, not matter how much they excel at them, will come second to beauty — and that’s because they’re girls.

Also of possible interest:

• The Salem News profiled my work in a piece called “Cupcakes and Girl Power.” (Thank you, Salem News!)
• Someone posted a favorable review of my new book, Growing Up With Girl Power, to Amazon. (Thank you, reviewer!)
• The Boston Globe mentioned me in an article about the new LEGO line for girls, referencing the “Chess for Girls” comparison I made previously on this blog. (Thank you, @JoannaWeiss!)

Thanks for reading, everyone. Has anything of interest come across your screens in the past week? What’s caught your attention?

It’s no joke: The Lorax trailers make punchline at women’s expense

The Lorax by Dr. Seuss is classic tale of environmental conscience, and it is a story that my three-year-old son enjoys. In fact, it was one of the first longer children’s books that managed to keep his attention for the entire story. Something about it just captivates him.

Today, I saw the trailer for the new Lorax movie for the first time. It’s a computer animated feature film based on Dr. Seuss’s book, and I smiled at the quality of the animation. There was a dream-like beauty to the Truffula Trees.

But as the trailer came to a close, it wiped the smile off my face.

Why? Because it ends with a joke that I don’t find funny at all.

Jump to about 2:20 in the above video, and you’ll hear the following exchange:

WOMAN: So who invited the giant furry peanut?
THE LORAX [gesturing threateningly]: I’ll go right up your nose! [He begins walking towards her, punching at the air. She leans towards him aggressively]
MAN: You wouldn’t hit a woman!
THE LORAX: [Incredulously:] Hoo! That’s a woman???

The “joke,” if you can call it that, is that the Lorax–voiced by Danny DeVito–doesn’t recognize his antagonist as a woman. After all, she is heavyset and not conventionally attractive, and she is behaving in a combative rather than demure way. So she’s gotta be a guy, right?

In other words, it is misogynistic and fat-shaming

The other trailer at the Lorax Movie’s official web site ends the exact. same. way.

Because it’s “just a joke,” it may seem like a small thing–but it isn’t. The comment demeans women whose bodies and behaviors don’t fit our culture’s overly narrow definition of feminine beauty. And when messages like these are relayed over, and over, and over, it becomes a really big deal. This “joke” reinforces the idea that it’s okay to objectify women–that women’s value is in their appearance–and that women who don’t fit the cultural ideal don’t deserve to be regarded as actual women.

I would find this joke reprehensible anywhere, but it really has no place in a children’s film. Surely the writers and directors could have done better! But, no–apparently the producers thought it was comedic genius. Cuz, you know, when women’s bodies aren’t sexy, they’re funny.

Readers: What do you think?

---

For further reading: “It’s just a joke“: a theoretical but interesting discussion of offensive jokes

Order my book, Growing Up With Girl Power, today!

I’m delighted that my book, Growing Up With Girl Power: Girlhood On Screen and in Everyday Life, is now available from my publisher, Peter Lang Press! Won’t you buy a copy?

You can order from Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or directly from PeterLang.com. Orders placed now should arrive by the end of February.

Here’s a synopsis:

For more than a decade, girl power has been a cultural barometer, reflecting girlhood’s everchanging meanings. How did girl power evolve from a subcultural rallying cry to a mainstream catchphrase, and what meaning did young girls find in its pop culture forms? From the riot grrrls to the Spice Girls to The Powerpuff Girls, and influenced by books like Reviving Ophelia and movements like Take Our Daughters to Work Day, Growing Up With Girl Power charts this history. It considers how real girls who grew up with girl power interpreted its messages about empowerment, girlhood, strength, femininity, race, and more, and suggests that for young girls, commercialized girl power had real strengths and limitations–sometimes in fascinating, unexpected ways. Encompassing issues of preadolescent body image, gender identity, sexism, and racism, Growing Up With Girl Power underscores the importance of talking with young girls, and is a compelling addition to the literature on girls, media, and culture.

Professors: Are you considering assigning Growing Up With Girl Power in one of your classes? Request a free desk copy here, and check out my book’s companion website–it’s full of great content to prompt class discussion. If you adopt it for your course, I would be glad to visit or chat with your class via Skype. Email me for details!

Save the Childhood Studies program at Rutgers University!

In 2007, Rutgers University launched North America’s first doctoral-level program in Childhood Studies–a multidisciplinary program located at Rutgers’ Camden, NJ campus that also offers bachelor’s and master’s degrees.

The program’s creation was fantastic news: the program promised to serve as a pipeline for research and social action on issues relevant to children.

The fact that an institution as esteemed Rutgers saw value in a Childhood Studies program was a boost to our growing field (which also saw the creation of the Journal of Children in Media in 2007 and Girlhood Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal in 2008).

Now, in 2012–a mere 5 years later–New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has endorsed a plan to merge Rutgers University at Camden, hostile-takeover-style, into neighboring Rowan University.

Jettisoning Childhood Studies from Rutgers would sever the program’s faculty and students from the resources available at Rutgers–which could cripple this groundbreaking program. Professor Daniel Cook, director of Graduate Studies in the Department of Childhood Studies at Rutgers, explains:

All of this is threatened by this “merger” which would take the resources and name of Rutgers away and thrust us into incredible uncertainty. We are hoping to make the case to the Rutgers Board of Governors that our program is something unique and valued not only by us but others and an important part of that value comes from our identity as Rutgers.

Indeed, he is correct: Childhood Studies has symbolic value beyond Rutgers’ walls. A blow to the program would be a symbolic blow to our field.

Do you believe in the importance of Childhood Studies–in the value of treating children’s lives as a subject worthy of serious study?

If so, please sign this petition to help keep Childhood Studies part of Rutgers University. Thank you!

New at the Disney Store: Princess Dolls with Extra Sparkles! (and extra problems)

On a recent visit to my local Disney Store, I learned that Disney had just released a new line-up of Disney Princess dolls at the holidays. The new line-up was on the shelves–and so were some of their older counterparts.*

All of the dolls had new face molds (with larger eyes) and new dresses (which were sparklier than ever). Here’s what I saw:

The old Belle doll (left) has sparkling swirls on her gown's skirt, while the new Belle's dress is 100% sparkles. She also looks kind of worried. What's wrong, Belle?

The old Jasmine doll (left) has sparkly swirls on her pants, while the new doll's outfit is sparkly all over. Great news: She isn't wearing eyeshadow! She looks a little angry, though. What's wrong, Jasmine?

Our local store only had the newer Mulan doll in stock. It made me a little sad: Disney seems to want to “girl up” its tomboy. (Maybe that’s why the new Belle doll looks worried!) Check out Mulan’s tulle:

Hey, Mulan! Where'd you get that enormously poofy pink gown??

They didn’t have last year’s doll in stock (a sign that customers who like Mulan want a dress that’s true to the character?), so I found these online:

The old Mulan doll has swirly sparkles, like all of the older models; hers are just around her waist.

Watch out, Mulan--you're being swallowed by a rampaging ball gown. Run!!!

Did they put Pocahontas in a ball gown, too?

No ballgown here--but perplexingly, her feet are shaped for high heels. Old Pocahontas doll (left): sparkly necklace. New Pocahontas (right): sparkly necklace AND sparkly waistband! Good point: Her face mold seems truer to her on-screen counterpart. Big problem: The newer doll has noticeably lighter skin.

Disney lightened their Native American character’s skin? Hey, I bet that’s why Jasmine looks angry.

Not cool, Disney. Not cool at all.

In short, the new dolls have some good points (e.g., less makeup, a wider range of facial expressions) and some that cause concern (e.g., Mulan’s westernized dress and Pocahontas’s lightened skin).

Parents and Disney fans: What do you think of the new dolls?

---

*Note: My local Disney store did not have the older models of several dolls, including Rapunzel and Tiana (which have been selling very well). Has anyone seen the other dolls side by side? What did Disney do well? What could they do better next time?

“Chess for Girls,” or how Saturday Night Live predicted the future.

Saturday Night Live’s fake commercial, “Chess for Girls” [video] [transcript], was hilarious in 1997–but today, it strikes awfully close to home. An ultra-pink chess set that’s “not too hard, just pretty and fun”–with prancing ponies and a long-haired queen in a gown? Wow. Who knew SNL could see the future of children’s popular culture?

Right now, everyone is talking about gender divisions in the toy aisles. Boys toys swim in a sea of blue and black, while girls’ toys look like victims of a catastrophic Pepto-Bismol spill.

This is a big enough problem that about a month ago, Hamleys toy store in London made news by desegregating children’s toys, grouping them by interest instead of gender.

It wouldn’t have been newsworthy if the typical toy store layout wasn’t such a problem.

As you’ve likely heard, LEGO one-upped the stakes recently by creating a reductive and offensive girls’ line of LEGOS. If you think about it, the concept of LEGOS for girls practically plagiarizes SNL’s Chess for Girls. Like chess, LEGOS are enjoyable to both boys and girls. But making a new LEGO line that is pink, beauty-centric, and not too hard? Perfect!

No wonder parents and critics are upset.

In fact, it seems a movement is building, buttressed by a national dialogue about unnecessarily heightened gender divisions in children’s popular culture. SPARK mailed LEGO more than 48,000 signatures protesting the new line yesterday. The numbers speak volumes.

But how did we get here? How did gender divisions become quite so divisive?

There are lots of ways to explain this history. But in my opinion, Disney–one of the major producers and arbiters of children’s culture–plays a central role in it. In 1999, a Disney exec realized that by grouping Disney’s Princesses together, they might be worth more than the sum of their parts. This marketing insight that has brought Disney billions in revenue. Other companies like Mattel moved quickly to cash in on the trend, fueling the princess craze.

If there’s a princess version of nearly everything, and “princess” is a category that excludes boys, then gender divisions in children’s popular culture can only be heightened. Superheroes are for everyone–even if they’re “for” boys, girls enjoy them, too–but princesses are aspirational. Only girls can become princesses, so princess culture is only for the girls. And this means that the Disney Store now gives about 2/3 of its floor space exclusively to girls, if the Boston-area Disney Store I visited with my family last weekend is the norm: Cars and Toy Story products largely filled the left-hand side of the store, while the center and right featured princess and nothing but princess.

When I was a kid, Disney was about Mickey and Donald and Goofy and Pluto. Oh, and Minnie and Daisy, too. These were characters all kids could enjoy. The recent devolution in children’s culture–from boys and girls having at least SOME shared interests, to such a divisive schism–is troubling. In fact, when I assign my 19-year-old media studies students to analyze what’s happening in their local toy aisle, even they are surprised: They haven’t shopped in toy aisles in nearly a decade, and though they remember some gender divisions (boys’ aisles and girls’ aisles have been around for ages), they often don’t remember those divisions being quite so complete.

The only way our current situation will change is if we fight back. And that’s why I created a petition about Hasbro’s talking Princess Celestia toy. A television show has finally presented a princess character that appeals to boys and girls alike–because she’s a leader, not a beauty object. If you agree that children need more characters like these, and that toys shouldn’t reduce such characters to princess stereotypes, won’t you please sign it?

Readers: What are your thoughts on the gendering of children’s popular culture? How have you seen it shift over time? Do you agree that the Disney Princess phenomenon has a lot to do with the current situation?

P.S. I’m excited to announce that my new book was released this week! If you check it out, please let me know what you think.