Melissa Harris-Perry: I'm Melissa Harris-Perry. This is The Takeaway. The supply chain crisis has plenty of holiday shoppers starting early this year. Even though it's not yet Halloween, it's already Christmas stocking stuffer time. Now, if kids are on your holiday list, you might notice that things are looking a little less pink and blue these days. In recent years, some parents and advocates have pushed to break the binary when it comes to our kids' toys. Last week, Lego, the world's largest toymaker, announced it would make its toys more gender-neutral. Earlier this month, the state of California passed a law requiring large retailers to display toys and childcare items in gender-neutral ways. I spoke with Elizabeth Sweet, assistant professor of sociology at San Jose State University. I started by asking whether she's surprised by Lego's recent decision.
Elizabeth Sweet: It is a little surprising in that, even just five years ago, the toy industry was really resistant to making this kind of changes. They were really interested more in broadening the categories for boys and for girls rather than be constructing them so it is a little surprising to see them make this commitment. On the other hand, I think it's not surprising in that if we look at where society is and the conversations we're having about gender, I think the toy industry is really playing catch-up and recognizing that it's not really profitable anymore to rely so heavily on gender stereotyping. It's a kind of a yes and no.
Melissa Harris-Perry: Let's talk about gender stereotyping in toys because this goes to the heart of your research. I think it's one of those things that we think of as always true, just always true that there were girls' toys, boys' toys, but you actually show that there's change over time.
Elizabeth Sweet: Yes, absolutely. In my research, I examined toy catalogs from the 20th century to try to understand how toys had been marketed historically, particularly in regards to gender, but also in regards to race. What I found in this research is that historically, toys were a lot less gendered than they were in the 21st century. Also, that there was a lot of variation over time and the extent of gender marketing and in the ways in which gender coding was accomplished.
As we see today, those historic shifts in gender marketing were really connected to larger shifts that were happening in society in terms of cultural beliefs, about gender, and in the structures of gender inequality in the adult world. I think now we're in a moment where there's a lot of contestation around gender, so it doesn't surprise me that we're seeing this play out in the world of children's toys, but people tend to think this is something that's always been this way. That's just really not the case. Historically toys were much less likely to be gendered than they are today.
Melissa Harris-Perry: As a parent, and I've got-- My eldest is nearly 20 now. I got to say over those two decades, one of the phrases I've picked up is before you're a parent, you're a sociologist and you think that it's all about how children are reared. After you have children, you're a geneticist and you're like, "No, they just showed up like this." This one may be much less in my control than I think. Help me to understand what's at stake here. I just will say my nephew is going to pick up anything and turn it into a sword, even if you never give him a sword to play with.
Elizabeth Sweet: It's really hard to tease out the effects of any one thing on kids when kids are born into a world where everything is gender-coded. Gender categorization is one of the most primary categorizations that we make as humans. All of these categorizations carry this heavy set of cultural beliefs and stereotypes around them. By the time kids are three or four, they have been exposed, they've been swimming in this sea of gender stereotypes.
When we look at a child and see them responding to these stereotypes, perhaps it's not surprising. There's a lot of really excellent work in the field of developmental psychology that finds that kids' preferences and interests really are shaped by these products. If you label something for boys or for girls, it affects how kids feel about it, and whether they think it's appropriate for them.
Is it surprising that girls tend to prefer pink on everything, all of their products are pink? If you give people one choice, they're going to choose that. I think what we find is that if you give kids a much broader selection of choice, and if there aren't heavy social costs and potential social benefits for choosing particular choices, then you're much more likely to see the diversity of interest that kids have.
Melissa Harris-Perry: I've also noticed there is, and maybe this is as you just pointed out the issue of social cost that gender fluidity and gender neutrality across toys and play interests seems to be sufficiently well, or maybe not sufficiently, but it is rewarded or at least not punished for girls who make gender-neutral or what we would think of as gender-fluid choices into preferences we tend to think of as male. My seven-year-old really liking blaze and the monster machines, everybody's down for that, no problem, blaze and the monster machines for the seven-year-old girl. The gender fluidity from male to female, the idea of my nephew wanting to carry around a baby doll, oh, that gets policed and people will take the doll out of his hand.
Elizabeth Sweet: The line between girls' toys and everything else has always been much sharper than the line between boys' toys and gender-neutral. In fact, historically boys' toys and gender-neutral are really hard to distinguish sometimes in terms of color schemes and things like that. I do think that that boys are sanctioned much more heavily for transgressing those gender norms. That's a really big thing to worry about because the toys that promote social skills, that promote empathy and caring, those are marketed almost exclusively to girls yet boys go on to parent.
Compassion and care are just human characteristics that are beneficial to our society. Relegating those characteristics only to girls is problematic. In the same way, I think toy lines that have tried to expand femininity, making stem toys pink for girls, that's problematic too because again, it suggests that girls are fundamentally different and incapable of just doing science. Science is not gender so why do we have to gender it to appeal to girls?
Melissa Harris-Perry: What moves corporations to make these kinds of decisions? Is it legislative action like the recent bill in California or is it marketing pressure from parents and caregivers who are purchasing the toys?
Elizabeth Sweet: That's a great question. I think some of the changes like we're seeing from Lego, or Mattel has made some similar changes within the past couple of years. Those are really about money. They understand that the parents of today have a lot more progressive attitudes about gender than parents of 10 years ago, perhaps. They recognize that this is going to be profitable for them, but it shouldn't be left to the goodness of a company's heart or whether it's profitable for them to make sure that our products are good for our kids. In that way, I think the legislation is incredibly important.
The legislation in California is really aimed at the retail side, so making sure that there is an option for a gender-neutral toy aisle, even if the rest of the toy aisles are pink and blue, but the toys themselves are still very heavily gendered. We need to address both the way that toys are sold, but also the way that toys are made and marketed.
Melissa Harris-Perry: Elizabeth Sweet is an assistant professor of sociology at San Jose State University. Professor Sweet, thank you so much for joining us.
Elizabeth Sweet: It's been such a pleasure. Thank you so much for having me.
Copyright © 2021 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.
New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.
