Search results for toy

In her book Gender Play: Girls and Boys in School, Barrie Thorne looks at how children play an active role in socializing themselves and one another. It’s an interesting insight because we often portray children as these passive, empty vessels who are acted upon by adults, the media, and so on, but who play no role in defining or interpreting the world around them (sometimes in ways that are much more rigid and cruel than what adults do).

An example of this is the way that kids often play with toys in ways that aren’t, um, intended by the manufacturers or parents. I mean, Barbie may represent a certain type of femininity, and kids may receive that message and be affected by it…but they often also make Barbie have an awful lot of casual sex, have superpowers, or become horribly deformed after being mutilated (my cousins and I played a game where we tried different ways of popping Barbie’s head off). My point is simply that kids aren’t just passive recipients of a set of messages about the world and, thus, that we can’t always assume that because a toy is “supposed” to reflect a certain cultural ideal that kids are always unambiguously getting that message.

Elizabeth Z. sent in a good example of this when she describes how her daughter plays with some Playmobil figures. Here is a picture of the Silver Knight:

A description from a website selling the figure:

The Playmobil Silver Knight is a perfect addition to your world of Playmobil Toys. He is as strong and valiant as knights come! Riding a black horse and carrying his flag of honor, the Playmobil Silver Knight is ready to take on any battles and enemies that get in his way – and of course he’ll be successful! The Playmobil Silver Knight set includes a knight dressed in silver/purple armor, a black horse in black/purple riding gear, shield, and battle flag.

While this company has very clearly gendered this figurine, on the Playmobil website, the gender is not given–it’s just “Silver Knight.”

Now, my guess is that a lot of parents buying this toy are going to interpret it as a male knight for the simple reason that, you know, knights are guys. The princesses they save are girls. I have no idea what Playmobil intended–if this is supposed to be a gender-ambiguous figure that could be male or female or not (Elizabeth points out the hair is long, and thus “feminine,” by our standards but would have been pretty clearly an acceptable hairstyle for men in medieval times).

But regardless of what Playmobil “means” this toy to be (that is, whether or not they manufactured it to be gender-neutral), kids such as Elizabeth’s daughter are going to do their own interpreting:

I noticed that my daughter’s micro castle world…had two knights, and she called them the boy and the girl. They didn’t to my eye appear to be a boy and a girl — the “girl” had hair in a cut that’s called a “pageboy” for a reason, you know — but I could see why she thought of that way…my [daughter] has an answer she’s happy with to the question about where the princess is; not captive, not sitting at home in a dress, but riding on a horse with a big sword. That works for her.

When we’re talking about kids, toys, and socialization, we should keep in mind that kids can be awfully creative and smart and might not be seeing things the way us adults do.

Thanks, Elizabeth!

This is the fourth installment in a series on why and how people of color are included in advertising aimed primarily at white people.  In the first installment, I argued that people of color are included in such advertising in order to associate the product with a racial stereotype (i.e., hipness, intelligence).  In the second, I showed how people of color can be used to give a product “color” or “flavor.”  And, in the third, I argued that people of color are used to invoke ideas of “hipness,” “modernity,” “progressive” politics and other related ideas.  In this post, I suggest that people of color are used to trigger the idea of human variation itself.

In this first ad the idea that each body is different is illustrated by including women of different fitness levels, ages, and races.

In this ad, Levi’s uses a woman who appears Latina to sell their jeans, which come in various fits because there is “a style for every story.”  The idea is that people are different; not everyone wants the same cut of jeans.

In this Toyota ad, the copy says “For every expression, there’s a Toyota.”  People are unique and so, apparently, are Toyotas.  Race is used to communicate the notion of human diversity.

This is an ad for Playtex bras with half sizes.  The implication is that people’s bodies are more variable than the A, B, C etc sizes suggest, so half sizes accomodate that variety.  I think this ad is particularly interesting because the model is racially ambiguous.  Maybe she’s half Asian, Latina, or white, and she’s being used to sell a product that now comes in half sizes.

NEW:

Next up: Including people of color so as to suggest that the company is concerned with racial equality.

See the other posts in the series:
(1) Including people of color so as to associate the product with the racial stereotype. 
(2) Including people of color to invoke (literally) the idea of “color” or “flavor.”
(3) Triggering ideas like “hipness,” “modernity,” and “progress.”

Elizabeth (from Blog of Stench) sent us a link to a story in The Times Online about “disability dolls,” such as these dolls that depict Down’s Syndrome:

Here is a passage from the Times Online article:

Carol Boys, chief executive of the Down’s Syndrome Association in the UK, says: “Anything that helps to ‘normalise’ Down’s syndrome and promote inclusivity has to be a good thing. If the Down’s syndrome dolls give joy to those with the condition and their siblings, we fully support them. However, there is a range of products on the market of varying quality and accuracy, so we would advise people to purchase with care.” Boys adds that it is difficult to know with any certainty what Down’s children generally think of such toys: “We have no idea what they think of such dolls, because there has never been any research done to find out.”

However, some professionals have their reservations. Jenni Smith, a chartered educational psychologist in London, says: “I feel that children who have disabilities, including children with Down’s syndrome, tend to see themselves as ‘like everyone else’ and to offer a toy that ‘looks like them’ may only emphasise the difference.”

There are a lot of issues these images–and the article–might be useful for, most obviously depictions of people with disabilities and arguments about whether they “should” (or “want” to) be shown as “normal” (?). I thought it was fascinating that an opponent of the dolls used this analogy:

“In early research into race stereotypes, in which black children were asked to choose from three dolls – one black, one brown and one white – and say which doll they would be most like, almost all chose the white doll,” Smith says.

The use of that example to argue that kids like to associate themselves with “a positive, generally accepted image,” as she goes on to say, might not be all that comforting to a lot of people.

The other thing that hit me when reading the article is the way adults were discussing whether or not children with Down’s Syndrome would like the dolls…but (as Boys says in the quote above), apparently no one has bothered to just go out and ask some kids with Down’s Syndrome if they like the dolls or to watch and see if, given the option, they actually play with them. Wouldn’t that be more effective and respectful of the children under discussion? In general adults often discuss children as though they would be incapable of providing input or expressing desires, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this tendency is exacerbated when the children have a disability or are otherwise considered “extra sensitive.”

Gwen Sharp is an associate professor of sociology at Nevada State College. You can follow her on Twitter at @gwensharpnv.

I recently came upon these two ads in magazines and noticed how they both evoke old-money wealth and luxury.

I found this Rolex ad in The New Yorker. Notice the ivy-colored background and the connection to Wimbledon, an event (for a sport) often associated with the upper class.

The text says,

Defined by unparalleled grace, manicured courts, pressed tennis whites and achievement that’s second to none, Wimbledon stands alone. Timeless in its tradition, endless in its list of legends, history is no stranger to Wimbledon. Nor is the world’s appreciation of it. Rolex proudly celebrates its 30th anniversary as official timekeeper.

“Manicured courts” and “pressed tennis whites” bring up images of aristocratic lifestyles, and the ad connects Wimbledon (and, therefore, Rolex) to “tradition” and “history.”

I can’t remember for sure where I found this ad for the Toyota Corolla, but I think in Glamour (don’t ask).

The text, which is clearly to be taken less seriously than the Rolex ad:

Ascots, tiaras, and sway bars, oh my! Once you purchase the 2009 Corolla, you’ll start living the dream. To ensure a smooth transition into high society, we’ve equipped the Corolla with revised suspension, springs, and sway bars, which will keep any recently acquired tiara firm upon your brow. If you’re more of the fetching ascot type, consider the comfortable ride an accessory to your necktie. Whatever flourishes you fancy, the Electronically Controlled Transmission and Vehicle Stability Control will distinguish your dominion over the road. Live the dream for less coin.

I thought it was interesting that the second ad (for a car not generally associated with the upper class) is trying to evoke the idea of luxury, but in a joking wink-wink way, whereas the Rolex ad clearly has no element of parody about it–the connection to “tradition” and “pressed tennis whites” is completely serious.

CORRECTION/CLARIFICATION: I am reposting this because I want to make clear that a couple of things that people picked up on in the comments are MY mistakes/confusing wording, not Jackson Katz’s. First, in regards to the Rambo movies, I was confusing Rambo:First Blood Par I, which came out in 1982, with Rambo:First Blood Part II, which came out in 1985, which is what Katz is quoting in the movie. I just googled the movie to find the year it came out and didn’t notice it was for Part I, not Part II. I have corrected that below.

As for the Terminator image, that is entirely my fault. I could not find the exact image Katz used in the documentary, though I searched for quite a while. I just put up an image I meant to be representative of both Terminator movies, and the one I used, as the commenters point ou, was not a good example of what I was saying. Since I can’t find the image Katz used, I have taken the Terminator image out of the post.

I just wanted to a) correct those two things and b) make it clear that they were my mistakes, not Katz’s.

*****

In the documentary Tough Guise: Violence, Media & the Crisis in Masculinity, Jackson Katz discusses how images of masculinity in pop culture have changed over time, and particularly how in the 1980s and 1990s images of male heroes got larger and more menacing, as well as hyper-violent. He uses Humphrey Bogart, Clint Eastwood, Sylvester Stallone, and Arnold Schwarzenegger as examples. I’m basing my discussion of the images from movies on Katz’s analysis.

In this image of Humphrey Bogart (found here) in The Maltese Falcon (1941), his gun is very small compared to his body. His body language is not particularly imposing or threatening. Keep in mind this was during World War II (though the U.S. had not joined yet) and that machine guns had been invented during the Civil War. So Humphrey Bogart conceivably could have been shown holding some sort of automatic weapon instead of a small handgun.

Then we have Clint Eastwood in Dirty Harry, from 1971 (found here). The gun has gotten much bigger and the body posture a bit more threatening.

And in 1985 we get Rambo:First Blood Part II (found here), a military revenge fantasy in which a Vietnam vet gets to finish the war the U.S. military wasn’t “allowed” to win, presumably because of weak, feminized elements that controlled the government. Stallone’s body is huge and muscular, and the gun has gotten larger and more deadly.

Katz attributes these changes in images of masculinity to a growing concern in U.S. culture that we are somehow being “feminized” and becoming weak. He argues that the loss in Vietnam (or lack of an outright win, if you prefer) as well as political and economic gains by women and non-whites caused a cultural panic about the status of white men. As these men were supposedly losing power and status in everyday life, cultural images of them emphasized strength, power, and aggression as a version of ideal masculinity.

Here is a clip from Tough Guise:

And here’s a clip that takes the Tough Guise intro but adds some other images:

I was thinking about this because when I was in Oklahoma, I was around a lot of trucks, and specifically, a lot of old farm trucks. And one day when I was standing next to an old Dodge Ram, it hit me how much less…I don’t know…imposing it was than newer trucks. It seemed like a cute little toy truck. Here’s a picture of a 1985 Dodge Ram (found here):

The 2005 version of the Dodge Ram (found here):

Looking at my family’s old farm trucks (and we’ve got a collection of rotting, rusting trucks dating from the 1950s on; I did not post pictures of our trucks because my grandma would kill me for exposing our farm junkiness to the world), I kept thinking, “We used to haul cattle with that?” or “That was considered sufficiently masculine at one point?” And the answer is, yes. Yes, they were.

Now, I’m certain that a lot of the redesigns had to do with advances in safety and efforts to improve fuel efficiency (by making the truck body more rounded, for instance). But there also seems to be a pattern in trucks today to design their headlights and grills to look sort of “mean,” if you will–like they’re snarling or growling.

I’m not necessarily saying there’s a connection between Katz’s work and the way trucks have been redesigned to look meaner and more aggressive…but it just got me thinking.

Of course, as a farm kid, what strikes me about trucks is the way the newer designs make them less functional for the types of things you see people doing in truck ads. While the cabs have gotten larger, making room for more passengers (that is, more like a car), the beds have gotten smaller, so you can’t carry as much (or as long of) stuff in them–and carrying stuff in the back is what you supposedly need a truck for. Yes, you can still stick more stuff in the back of, say, a new Dodge Ram than in a lot of cars, but I’m just sayin’. (Also, you’d be shocked at how much stuff I can get in the back of a Honda Civic if I lay the seat down and am really motivated. And my mom once brought a 130-pound calf home in the backseat of a car–I had the fun job of trying to keep him from attempting to crawl into the front. And we had a woman in my hometown who used to haul pigs around in the backseat of her Caddy.) A lot of things we used to haul around in the back of our trucks wouldn’t fit in the beds of new trucks, or you couldn’t fit nearly as much of them. And of course the majority of people who buy trucks for their big motors aren’t doing the types of things (driving through extremely rocky or muddy country, hauling trailers full of cattle, etc.) that require such a huge motor in the first place. So why not just buy a car?

Just some thoughts that struck me while hanging out on the farm.

Hello Readers!  Welcome to our third installment of Behind Your Back.  Below is a list of posts that we have enriched during the month of June without telling you.  Enjoy!

We added a commerical (found at Feministe) to our post featuring an ad using a male-to-female transgendered person to sell a epilator to women. The commercial is really interesting, as is Holly’s interpretation of why it’s problematic.

The evolving controversy over the Obama Sock Monkey toy led us to make a few updates on our post. If you didn’t notice, the company making the toy aggressively revoked its apology and we’re pretty sure they’re still selling it. Check it out here.

For contrast, we added the posters from the Terminator Trilogy to our post on how female heroines were represented in posters for The Sarah Connor Chronicles, as well as some more images portraying the heroines in The Sarah Connor Chronicles differently and some that feminize John Connor.

We added a Greenpeace video targeting Unilever to this post about Dove and Axe ads.  The video shows how the American beauty industry that is hurting American girls’ self-esteem is destroying the environment of other girls’ lives.  It’s pretty great. 

We found a particularly egregious Nebraska Wakeboard ad and added it to another objectifying ad for shoes.

We added an image showing the actual caption to this post about FOX News referring to Michelle Obama as a “baby mama.”

Matt S. sent us three more PETA posters and a video featuring Alicia Silverstone showing how how PETA sexualizes women in its anti-fur campaigns.  See it here (scroll down).

We found another ad using sex to sell homes and home-related products.  We added it to some others here.

Yikes.  P.J. sent us another doozy from Axe (also sold as Lynx in some countries).

We added a commercial illustrating the bizarreness of yogurt advertising articulated in this post.

Laura L. found another ad that trivalizes women’s rejection of men’s attention.  This Noxzema ad implies that women really like to be catcalled on the street, even if they appear not to.

And we added a fashion ad to this post about ads that use ambiguous images that could imply consensual sex or sexual assault.  Thanks again to Laura L.!

Finally, we added another sexualized image of Condoleezza Rice–as Lara Croft–to this post about differences in how Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton are portrayed.

Don’t forget to check out who links to us!  And if we’re on your blogroll and aren’t on the list, make sure to send us a note!

Happy July!

More proof that complaining works or, as I prefer to say, the squeaky wheel gets the grease (you haven’t forgotten the Obama sock monkey and the sex target yet, have you?).  The commercial below was set to run in the U.K. for five weeks, but has been pulled due to complaints that a guy-on-guy smooch forces parents to talk to their children.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sgNg_2eM38[/youtube]

Remember Ellen, though?  And look what happened to her!

Via AdFreak.

Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.

One of my former students, Kim D., brought my attention to the old and new versions of Strawberry Shortcake (found here):

Her hair has gotten longer and sexier and she’s more “human” looking. Her clothes are also more form-fitting, and her face is thinner.

Here is a close-up on their faces, from this series of images focusing on her “makeover”:

Notice her lips are fuller and pinker and her eyes are larger. She also has fewer freckles.

The New York Times discussed her makeover:

Strawberry Shortcake was having an identity crisis. The “it” doll and cartoon star of the 1980s was just not connecting with modern girls. Too candy-obsessed. Too ditzy. Too fond of wearing bloomers.So her owner, American Greetings Properties, worked for a year on what it calls a “fruit-forward” makeover. Strawberry Shortcake, part of a line of scented dolls, now prefers fresh fruit to gumdrops, appears to wear just a dab of lipstick (but no rouge), and spends her time chatting on a cellphone instead of brushing her calico cat, Custard.

I don’t remember Strawberry Shortcake being “ditzy,” but maybe my memory is bad. And do kids really like cell phones better than pets these days? They probably do, I’m just out of touch.

Here is the original Holly Hobbie from the 1970s (found here):

The new, sassier version, from USA Today:

There’s a Holly Hobbie website where you can read her journal and watch videos.

When I started looking at these, I was puzzled; if the originals are so unappealing to today’s kids, why are they being re-released? Why not just come up with new products? I found some interesting commentary on Jezebel.com:

As part of a growing toy-industry trend (Care Bears are getting slimmed down; Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles will be more pumped, less aggro), vintage brands are being reworked to appeal to the kids, while still playing on young parents’ nostalgia…What I find bizarre about all this is the implicit assumption that kids can’t relate to a character who’s not exactly like themselves. Strawberry Shortcake wasn’t popular twenty years ago because we all wore bloomers and lolled around in a berry patch; it was cute and fun and the dolls smelled good. This kind of formulaic thinking presupposes a narcissism that, ironically, agendas like these seem to create.

I think she may be on to something there: the appeal is to parents, not the kids themselves. To a little kid, Strawberry Shortcake and Holly Hobbie have no history and aren’t particularly different from other toys available at the store. It’s their parents who have an attachment to the toys. But since the prevailing wisdom is that kids are more “sophisticated” and grown-up at earlier ages, the toys are tarted up a bit to look more sexified teen or pre-teen girls.

I think these images are good for showing the trend toward making girls’ toys, even those for young girls, increasingly sexy, with an emphasis on more human (as opposed to obviously toy-like) features, make-up, and flirty eyelashes and lips. Don’t get me wrong–I’m not meaning to romanticize the earlier versions as some perfect type of toy for girls or that there’s some idyllic past when childhood was sweet and innocent. Personally, I thought Holly Hobbie was boring when I was a kid, though I adored Strawberry Shortcake (or, more specifically, Blueberry Muffin and Lime Chiffon; all I really cared about was the way they smelled and the pets they came with–I was a farm kid, so animal toys were always of great interest to me). But I do think there’s something disturbing about the ways that so many of the toys we give girls today constantly reinforce the message that sexiness and being flirty are desirable attributes, even for young girls.

That might lead to a larger discussion: why are we seeing this trend? What’s going on there? What might be the cultural impetus behind the choices to design, manufacture, market, and purchase toys that incorporate these messages about femininity?

Thanks, Kim!