Children Toys and Gender-specificity - Essay Example

of Submitted to_______ Toys and Gender-specifi Toys play an important part in the shaping of a child’s understanding of his or her role in the world. The way in which toys reflect the world of adults has a great impact on the way in which children perceive their future and what it holds for them. In such a situation, one also needs to look at how toys prepare different individuals for socially defined roles. Boys and girls are expected to play with different toys in most societies, a practice that carves out for each set of children an understanding of what they are required to do in the future. It strengthens patriarchy and denies both sexes a full range of opportunities. This paper shall examine the role of the kitchen set in advancing gender roles and perpetuating stereotypes about girls and women. The kitchen set, by using certain social practices that are considered feminine, seeks to condition the girl child into accepting feminine roles on her way to taking up the roles of the wife and the mother. The toy also, through the strategic use of colors and language, excludes the male child from participating in affairs that are forbidden to men in similar societies. Both boys and girls are thus, victims of gender politics of this kind. Gender behavior refers to the practices that one engages in and the roles that one takes up as a result of constraints that are imposed on people of a particular sex. For instance, a boy playing with a kitchen set would not be considered acceptable in most patriarchal societies as that would be against certain norms of gender behavior. In order to ensure conformity, children are nurtured to accept their gender roles. Thus, a girl would be told that playing with a kitchen set is natural for her to the extent that she believes it. Nurture thus forces a child to believe that cultural constructs of gender are natural rather than effects of nurture. Roland Barthes in his influential essay, “Toys”, argues that toys in French society define children as miniature versions of adults. He argues that toys are expected to not only provide children with entertainment, they are also tools employed for educational purposes by a conformist society. He argues that most of the toys that are given to children can be classifies as user toys, that is, toys that let children use definitions that have already been created. In short, such toys would not let the child create anything new. In the case of a kitchen set, the child who is expected to play with it already has a narrative that she is expected to play out- the role of the wife and the mother. The toy does not give the child the freedom to create a story herself but gives her one that she would have to abide by. In this, the toy takes away her agency by embedding her within a narrative that has already been charted out by patriarchal societies around the world. Barthes suggests that this situation is no different from death (a symbolic rather than a literal one) where there is no progress in the activities of humanity. The traditional notion of the growth of the child is reversed here where the child resembles death rather than the promise of future life. According to Barthes, the ascription of roles to the female child creates such a morbid situation. The kitchen set is a user toy. This means that it is only a narrative created by the manufacturer that is lived out by the child. The child has little or no freedom in creating her own story in such a situation. This means that any message sent to her can quickly be received as a message of gender behavior, thereby imposing on her constraints of the society. This process of socialization is aided by a user toy such as the kitchen set. Studies conducted in the recent past confirm the hypothesis that was put forward by Barthes. It is not the child but the parents who believe that certain toys are appropriate for them. The definition of what toy is sex-appropriate also depends on the beliefs and value systems of a particular set of parents (Cherry et al). This goes to prove that gender roles, rather than being inherent, are impositions by a network of power structures that seeks to perpetuate themselves. As Michel Foucault argues, such perpetuation of power structures mostly operates through the institution of the family as the social unit. The roles played by different members of the family are then ossified through rituals that they undergo (16). In the case of a kitchen set, one is able to see these power structures at work. The child who plays with the kitchen set is almost always a girl and she would be in the process of preparing for the role of a mother and wife while she is playing. This is above all, an economical process as the parents do not have to coax and cajole the child into learning something that is essentially a curtailing of freedom. There are two objectives that are achieved through this process- that of education and entertainment. The education is of course of a conformist and sexist nature as the child is expected to understand her role as a woman. It is however, equally true that the boy too is oppressed by such a system. He is excluded from such play and is therefore forced to take up roles that are diametrically opposed to that of the girl. In doing so, any positive traits that he may have gained through such play would not be available to him. Also, he would then immerse himself in playing with toys that promote an aggressive form of masculinity. Research has proven how such toys advance the notion of unattainable body-proportions and strength, not to mention the violent tendencies that such toys may encourage (Borowiecki et al, 67). This would then lead the child to indulge in anti-social behavior once he is an adult. Given the fact that the toys represent superhuman strength, the child may also be faced with issues that he may face regarding his own body. Insecurities such as these may again, manifest themselves in bouts of violence that may be directed against others resulting in the formation of a vicious cycle. It is of course, difficult to see these aspects of playing with toys. People choose to view them as harmless objects that innocent children play with in order to spend their time. The reason for this is, as Dan Fleming argues, the fact that there is a lot of cultural baggage associated with toys (38). Toys are a part of celebrations, religious functions and also are marketed using the rhetoric of loving families. In order to see through all this rhetoric, one would be required to relinquish the happiness that people are told they derive from them. To see a kitchen set as a part of such manipulative processes, one would be required to understand the kind of oppression that one’s own mother may have had to go through in order to make one’s childhood happy. It would also require one to view one’s family members as part of power structures, which may not always be easy or pleasant. As with other forms of patriarchy, the perpetrators in this case too are mostly members of one’s own family and the rhetoric through which it is perpetrated is that of love. Playing with toys improves the cognitive faculties of children. It has been proven that children understand certain aspects of life better through play than through institutionalized education offered in schools (Singer 6). Given the vast potential of toys for educational purposes, it would be a waste to see its possibilities being curtailed by the politics of gender. In the case of the kitchen set, the toy would be able to introduce to children of both sexes the value of household chores. If unrestricted by sex, the toy would be able to teach boys certain values that are imparted only to girls, in a patriarchal society. The boy, rather than learning to disrespect domestic chores, would grow up learning to respect them. Girls would be able to explore other avenues and would also be able to grow up with the understanding that domestic chores need not be impositions. The joys of performing domestic chores would then be available to girls who would not be required to look upon them as tedious work associated with their sex. The need of the hour is thus, to bring the kitchen set out of its gender-specific context and throw it open to members of both sexes. This could go a long way in creating an environment of gender equality, one that is not disrupted by heteronormative structures promoting the segregation of the sexes into two. Works Cited Barthes, Roland. “Toys”. Mythologies. New York: Penguin, 2000. Print. Borowiecki, John et al. “Evolving Ideals of Male Body Image as Seen Through Action Toys”. Web. Accessed 12 Dec 2014. http://www.afboard.com/library/Evolving%20ideals%20of%20male%20body%20image.pdf Cherry, Frances et al. “The Relationships of Parental Expectations and Preschool Children’s Verbal Sex Typing to Their Sex-typed Toy Play Behavior”. Child Development 51.1 (1980): 266-270. Print. Fleming, Dan. Powerplay: Toys as Popular Culture. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1996. Print. Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality Vol. 1. New York: Penguin, 2000. Print. Singer, Jerome L. “Imaginative play and adaptive development”. Toys, Play, and Child Development. Ed. Jeffrey H. Goldstein. New York: Cambridge UP. Print. Read More