Research Paper on Child Development – The Roles of Toys

Social Roles Adults Endorse to Children Via Toys

ABSTRACT

Every parent wants his or her son or daughter to become a happy person and fully realize all its potential. Toys are the first stage that helps young ones to get knowledgeable about the world around them, learn new concepts, gain new skills. For that reason it is essential that children have access to various toys. Unfortunately, considering that the 1980s, the Western world has begun to create a many gendered toys, which obviously show that only boys or girls can play certain toys. The victory of such marketing forces parents to purchase such products and services, while young ones from age two associate themselves with a particular gender, its attributes, and behavioral patterns, demanding toys from the parents that maximally fit into the requirement of gender or a few ideas that surround gender prejudices. This practice leads to a scenario in which young ones grow up in a socially constructed gender-separated world from childhood , nor have the opportunity to test other social models. The research interviewed twenty children and asked them to choose a toy for a gift for the male, female friend and ask because of their motivation. All the children picked toys, employing a set of social ideas about interest and the needs of girls/boys. Since such differentiation appears only after distinguishing oneself with a particular gender, it can be figured gendered toys exploit social constructs , nor give young ones a chance to are.

INTRODUCTION

Toys are created not merely for the empty entertainment of kiddies, but also for observing the outside world thanks to gaming practices. Therefore children in a natural and the most accessible form for themselves could possibly get acquainted with abstract concepts, customs, norms of behavior, and the system of the external world. For that reason adults should ensure a child’s access to the most number of different toys and games. At precisely the same time, the modern consumer society, besides the patriarchy, has established a significant number of gendered toys, which, unfortuitously, are every where making hard for adults to buy neutral ones. This proposal forces parent to buy gendered toys for kiddies, even if they cannot want it and plan to grow their kiddies in neutral tones allowing them to chose their way by themselves. At the same time, a tiny child gets used to perceiving themselves regarding a certain gender, absorbing most of the social constructs about gender roles and demanding from the parents only those games that are acceptable for their gender. Such a situation, in turn, provokes parents to buy gendered toys consciously, which aggravates their state.

First, it is worth remembering that the enormous responsibility for such number of gendered toys, pink and blue aisles in stores is based on the toy industry and marketers. Therefore researchers with this problem, after analyzing the toys of previous eras, came to the conclusion that previous toys were often marked as gender neutral. This position can be noticed in wrappers, advertising brochures, by which children of both sexes played along with balls, dolls, and planes together (Hains). Only in the eighties of the last century, this trend started to change. One possible reason is that the 2nd wave of feminism was perceived by the general public more critically and provoked opposition (Oksman). Still another explanation might be that marketers found out that children aren't the one segment of industry, but can be quite a whole market with division into smaller groups (“Why It Matters”). Here it's possible to recall the advertising organizations of Lego “Zack the LEGO Maniac” (1988), which opened a company which for years showed a little boy who enthusiastically plays with aircraft built out of Lego, an auto, etc . (Hains).

In addition , after decades Lego launched the new type of products targeting girls – Lego Friends with the clear statement of its position as a commodity for girls (Hains). Also, somewhere in exactly the same period, the Lego company begins to draw on the faces of its figures apparent gender features painted lips, beards and so on. So , trying to sell toys became segmented, and marketers had to find a solution to convince parents and their children to get more than one group of toys even though they are neutral like mega block insisting that children need to have two sets of every toy designing precisely for his or her gender needs (Oksman). Therefore , today one will discover crayons, coloring books in blue and pink version or with a mark that this item is designed for girls or boys.

Here it is worth noting that scientific research has denied the existence of children’s desire to play with male gendered or female gendered toys (Fisher-Thompson). Since young ones at age about 2 yrs begin to identify themselves with a particular gender clearly, researchers are trying to explore the game wishes of small children (Todd and Brenda). Because of such studies scientists have managed to establish that small kids prefer blue color irrespective of their gender (Brown). Similar experiments suggested that small children under 2 yrs old choose toys and play using them as much as they please (Todd and Brenda). Children could choose toys that public opinion of a particular gender and gender-neutral. However , young ones mostly picked a ball and used it so long as possible, showing that young kids do not have the inner predisposition to toys that match their gender.

Other studies conducted with kids older than 2 yrs indicate that after the moment in which the daughter or son identifies it self with a specific gender, they consciously begins to choose behavioral patterns, items that in his / her mind are related to his gender. Since all these some ideas about gender and its attributes a child receives from communication with other children and the outside world, the children’s representations concerning the norms of behavior flow from social constructs, maybe not from inner desires (Dahl). Another demonstrative study was an experiment conducted in 1986 by psychologist Marilyn Bradbard, where groups of children were invited to play toys from boxes called “toys for boys, ” “toys for girls” (Shaw). However , researchers put in boxes those toys that are labeled in society as the ones that must be played by representatives of the contrary gender. Therefore , girls got cars, helicopters, while boys got dolls, glitter. Those children through the experiment played happily with toys they usually do not play, just because they received them with the marking of gender validity and gender matching. You can also recall the experiment, which shows that social constructs affect not merely the toys that kids choose but additionally the means of playing. Therefore , to the American kids were brought a Canadian toy, with which they weren't familiar. The kids were split into two groups. The first group was told that this is really a Canadian toy for girls, while another group heard that is a Canadian toy for boys (Bradbard, Marilyn, Endsley). Girls who have been in the initial group showed the best outcomes of interest in this game, within the second group the boys showed more interest and success (Bradbard et al. ). Therefore , gender marked toys affect the self-esteem of the kids, bring some hesitation about their abilities to be good at a particular play and provokes a great or small interest. Possessing that that does not match to one’s gender harming child self-esteem and confidence in own ability to match the band of peers.

At precisely the same time, one must understand that the clear presence of gendered toys is dangerous not only because children from childhood become accustomed to residing in a gender-differentiated consumer society, but because consciously refusing certain toys and playing practices, kiddies deprive themselves of the ability to deepen their knowledge, meet new experience. Therefore small children develop with the idea that there are areas inherent for them, which later affects their choice of profession, the way of life. Ergo, children are captives of social constructs created by adults, do not dare to raise or disprove existing practices and therefore are unlikely to cause specific changes in the system as time goes by (Shaw). It's worthwhile to know that experience of only one part of life, for females in role-playing games in motherhood and the creation of beauty, and for boys in adventure, research, guidance, limits experience and the possibility of future understanding and empathy to each other.

Consequently , under the compulsion of marketers and their social perceptions of gender roles, parents often unconsciously limit the power of their kids to realize themselves, find work of their lives and be a complete member of society (Wood). Regrettably, toys dictate those gender roles against which the feminists of the last century rebelled. Therefore , the girls mature with the thought of the need to meet up with the social demand for beauty standards, particular behavior in the family and in the society, with small think that they can achieve success in careers in mathematics and physics, but choose specialties where they need to communicate, help other folks having time for household and children. Toys created for boys show that they ought to be brave as heroes of cartoons and movies, usually do not pay much attention to the upbringing of children, without necessity to help the wife running the household. This example not only limits children and reduces the probability of children to fulfillment, but additionally denies recent achievements of feminism in neuro-scientific employment, distribution of duties in the household and the like.

Method

With this research was chosen an experiment where a group of four years old young ones took part. All these young ones participated with parental consent and received financial rewards. Twenty young ones were invited, including ten boys and ten girls. Each of them was interviewed alone. Children were offered some toys, which in their function are neutral: cubes, coloring books, mega blocks, pencils, plasticine, plastic animal toys. Each of the toys was presented in three versions: gender-neutral, male gendered and female gendered. Toys differed in color, labels, and inscriptions. During the study, the children were asked to decide on a toy, which they would present to their male or female friend and to choose a toy for themselves. Following the child made a choice, she or he was asked why she or he chose this particular version of the toy. It absolutely was important to hear how the son or daughter determines their choice with such concepts as “this is a ball for girls and so i will give it to a lady. ” Young ones were also asked about their ideas on the big difference between the orange ball and blue and pink ones. Also, the youngsters were asked to explain why boys would really like the plasticine with the image of the tractor rather than plasticine, which depicts animals. Also, children share their a few ideas about what type of reaction one need to are expectant of from a boy who received a set of pencils on which the princess is drawn and vice versa. The answers were evaluated on a scale of 10 to 0, where 10 meant the use of social constructs and references for them as the major reason for choosing. The evaluation of zero denoted answers, which failed to contain any references to social constructs, only personal reflections of children.

Results

The outcome of the experiment showed that kids are really guided by traditional ideas for selecting presents for their friends of different gender. Regardless of the presence of children, who explained their choice with personal preferences, for example , the desire to give plasticine with a giraffe on the package only because the daughter or son loves the giraffe a lot more than everything else on the planet, most of the answers contained the socially constructed statements. Children were sure boys’ toys could not get to girls because a) girls don't like toys for boys b) girls will undoubtedly be upset if indeed they will be given a toy for a boy c) a girl will undoubtedly be ashamed to play this type of toy, because this toy is “wrong”, while her friends possessed “correct” toys (the same explanations ought to be applied to boys and girls’ toys). It had been interesting that children comprehended that neutral toys are acceptable for everybody, but they chose them exclusively through their sympathies for color, pictures, etc ., realizing that if there's a choice between a neutral toy and a gendered toy, it is best to choose a gendered toy for an individual, because “girls love girly toys and boys like boys’ toys. ” The kids have shown they do not understand that varieties of toys are a variation of exactly the same toy, and therefore the quality of the overall game, the functions of the toys in every three cases remain exactly the same and do not require additional skills from kids.

discussion

The experiment showed that young ones, under the influence of existing social constructs, choose gendered toys without thinking about the very essence of the toy and its functionality. So , the little one can not observe much this position limits her or his courage and interest to try to play with toys that are less neutral, like machines, cars, dolls. The experiment just isn't exemplary, however it clearly implies that the four-year-olds are aware of what's needed and rules for the gender division of roles in society and quickly reproduce them without trying to break their truthfulness or truth.

Further researchers can conduct experiments by varying age groups, dividing children by gender, providing a choice between neutral and explicit gendered toys, putting young ones at the same time more accurate and detailed questions. Also, for further research, it will be interesting to ask children about their a few ideas about dreams, gaming methods of the alternative gender, to know how social constructs captivated not only the children’s sense of ​​games but also the image of opposite gender. So , it's known that girls frequently try to declare themselves brave and strong and go as the right until they realize that society does not purify and encourage such behavior among girls. Awareness of how children relate gender stereotypes to the alternative gender will help see how social structure and parents influence the upbringing and self-awareness of young ones. This research can help both researchers and parents to appreciate that the present practices of educating young ones about the nonexistence of gender barriers aren't efficient and certainly will force them to look for new solutions, including fighting more actively against gendered toys.

Conclusion

The available studies about gendered toys and the harm that they can cause indicate a few main points. The foremost is that girls are not born with an innate love for pink color and dolls, while this desire is formed only after the moment of clear identification with a particular gender. Therefore , somewhere from a two-year-old age, a kid realizes it self as a boy or perhaps a girl and begins to replicate behavioral patterns, habits, and rituals which are connected with a specific gender because of his or her observations and games with other children, adults. Thus, it really is socialization that provokes the kid to provide a definite advantage to gendered toys and toy practices which are characteristic of his o gender.

Still another aspect is that a clear division of toys by gender and a reduction in how many neutral toys is created by marketers and market representatives who are perhaps not interested in growing a happy child with increased knowledge and experience. This kind of proposal creates demand among parents who're forced to purchase gendered toys for their young ones. This practice leads to a scenario in which parents convey the notion of the adult world in regards to the distribution of gender roles in your family and society to their young ones, even if they did not want or would not have an apparent belief that the allocation of tasks is correct. In this case, young ones cannot be fully realized, because there are a lot of spheres, activities, and professions by which they are afraid to imagine themselves working in, and so do not things to try. As time goes on, this will entail strengthening existing gender biases and discrimination, because there will not be a generation that will complete the dismantling of the outdated views of the patriarchal world. Whilst the third wave of feminism fights for the final liberation of gents and ladies from the oppression of prejudices and social constructs, allowing individuals to choose the vocations that they like, not having young ones, being a careerist, etc ., the toys don't reflect this active struggle but continue steadily to create a world in which women must be beautiful, have an important amount of clothing and not work, while the boys grow with faith inside their own omnipotence and power.

Works Cited

Bradbard, Marilyn R., and Richard C. Endsley. “The Ramifications of Sex-Typed Labeling On Preschool Children’s Information-Seeking And Retention. ” Sex Roles, vol 9, number 2, 1983, pp. 247-260. Springer Nature, doi: 10. 1007/bf00289627.
Brown, Christia Spears. Parenting Beyond Pink & Blue. Berkeley, Ten Speed Press, 2014,.
Dahl, Melissa. “What The Science Says About Kids And Gender-Labeled Toys. ” Science Of Us, 2015, http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/08/science-of-kids-and-gender-labeled-toys.html.
Fisher-Thompson, Donna et al. “Toy Selection For Children: Personality And Toy Request Influences. ” Sex Roles, vol 33, number 3-4, 1995, pp. 239-255. Springer Nature, doi: 10. 1007/bf01544613.
Hains, Rebecca. “The Problem With Separate Toys For Girls And Boys – The Boston Globe. ” Bostonglobe. Com, 2015, https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2015/02/27/the-problem-with-separate-toys-for-girls-and-boys/2uI7Qp0d3oYrTNj3cGkiEM/story.html.
Oksman, Olga. “Are Gendered Toys Harming Childhood Development?. ” The Guardian, 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/may/28/toys-kids-girls-boys-childhood-development-gender-research.
Shaw, Maureen. “Science Shows Gender Neutral Toys Empower Young ones, And Possibly Society At Large. ” Quartz, 2015, https://qz.com/494673/science-shows-gender-neutral-toys-empower-children-and-possibly-society-at-large/.
Todd, Brenda K. et al. “Preferences For ‘Gender-Typed’ Toys In Children Aged 9 To 32 Months. ” Infant And Daughter or son Development, vol 26, number 3, 2016, p. e1986. Wiley-Blackwell, doi: 10. 1002/icd. 1986.
“Why It Matters. ” Let Toys Be Toys, 2013, http://lettoysbetoys.org.uk/why-it-matters/.
Wood, E et al. “The Impact Of Parenting Experience On Gender Stereotyped Toy Play Of Children. ” Sex Roles, vol 47, 2002.