ARED 3070: Gender and Sex

For a while now, gender roles of young children have been fascinating to me. From the new fad of gender reveals to the toys that fulfill our gender expectations, children are often given little choice in thier identify when it comes to being boyish or girly. Though in the twenty-first century I would argue that males are given less options and forced to conform more than young girls. As a woman should I thank the push for women's rights and the feminist movement for this? Should I be concerned about the boys?

*This blog post contains my opinion about the gendering of children's lives. And it is okay to disagree.*

Gendering of children's toys is nothing new, toys have long been modeled off of future occupations. Girls have played 'mommy' with dolls while boys play as knights, outdoorsmen, and farmers. We can cite art history to see gendered toys and play in this way. For example in Thomas Cole's Course of Empire: The Pastoral State. This painting depicts Coles' ideal world and within it we can see a young boy drawing a solider in the dirt. Another small boy is following his mother while planting seeds.

In another painting from the 1840's by female artist Lily Martin Spencer depicts a pair of siblings titled "The Little Navigator" and "The Little Sunshade." The boy conforms to playing the future occupation of a navigator while the girl is displayed oddly for the time. She is pictured in an outdoor scene that is imaginative and playful. Though she has not completely escaped gender assignment, as she is sexualized though her low-cut shirt and the stream that flows in the fore-ground representing her future fertility.

Learning about these paintings in my art history course in the fall reignited my interest in this topic, so much so I chose to make a sculpture about it.

My artwork targeted the ludicrousness of gendered toys. I took the classic tinker toy which was originally designed for boys aspiring to be architects but has maintained a very neutral color palette, advertisement, and packaging scheme since the 1920's. And adapted the toys to exaggerate gender stereotypes to what we usually see in children's toys.

The idea that children are regulated into only playing with the toys that are assigned to their gender is appalling. Riley (2011) also does a great job of explaining this in her viral rant.

Riley explains much like Lai and Cooper (2016) that "frilly dresses, pink accessories, and Disney Princess lunch boxes are signifiers of girly culture that are omnipresent in our children's everyday lives" (p. 97).

And I have to say that I agree, girly culture dominates the visual culture of young girls however, traditional boy companies are adjusting to produce for girls also. For example, Lego has successfully launched the Lego Friends line as well as many other series that designed to appeal to girls (through their content and bright colors).

I believe the variety of girl toys have only grown in recent years which, is undoubtedly something to be celebrated for young girls everywhere. We are no longer confined to playing life with dolls (even if that was my favorite thing to play as a child). However the empowerment of young girls raises considerable questions for young boys and those who are not cisgender.

It seems like young girls are given the most "socially acceptable" options in their identities. For example though girly culture is extreme it is also widely accepted to be a "tomboy" or an outdoorsy girl. It also accepted and encouraged to be athletic and sporty. However, I believe males are not given the same opportunity to cross gender lines. Young boys are expected to be tough, interested in sports or if not that at least interested in building, outdoors, or other traditionally manly hobbies. Though girls can play with building blocks and balls, it is not as widely accepted for boys to play with dolls and kitchen set foods. Boys are not encouraged to play pretend homemaker. Even when it comes to favorite colors it seems that girls often can chose any color without being accused of choosing a boy color, but young boys are unable to like pink because of its girly connotation.

I bring up these concerns because why are these rules still being followed? Why does it seem like young girls are given more freedoms and face less judgements for not fiting into their predetermined gender identities? And how can we change this?

I think the change has to begin with us all. Though we alone cannot make the change, as a society we can all become more accepting of our children identities. This can include having all types of toys for them to access and a variety of clothes to dress in. As a teacher I believe it is especially important for us to be on the lookout for potential bullying of students who are "expressing, discovering, and rediscovering themselves" (Lai & Copper, 2016, p. 105). Weisgram and Dinella (2018) present the idea that our children are not raised in a vacuum and even if gender stereotypes are not in the home, children will often encounter these stereotypes at school and conform to make friends. Which is why I believe that this is a societal issues that has to be addressed personally by every person. We can all choose to let children be the people they choose to be.

References

Lai, A., & Cooper, Y. (2016). Untangling gender divides through girly and gendered visual culture. The journal of social theory in art education (36) p. 96-107.

Riley on Marketing. (2011). Retrieved April 7, 2019, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CU040Hqbas

Weisgram, E. S., & Dinella, L. M. (2018) Gender typing of children's toys: How early play experiences impact development. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.