But What If Girls WANT To Play With Barbies?
Sarah Knapton reports at the Telegraph/UK that the new president of the British Science Association, Dame Athene Donald, has said girls should stop playing with Barbies and be given Lego or Meccano instead to prevent them growing up believing that science and engineering are only for boys:
Dame Athene Donald, Professor of Experimental Physics at Cambridge University, said that toys for little girls were dominated by themes of 'love and magic,' which reinforced gender stereotypes.Speaking before her inaugural address as the new president of the British Science Association (BSA), Dame Athene said: "We need to change the way we think about boys and girls and what's appropriate for them from a very early age. Does the choice of toys matter? I believe it does.
"We introduce social constructs by stereotyping what toys boys and girls receive from the earliest age. Girls toys are typically liable to lead to passivity - combing the hair of Barbie, for instance - not building, imagining or being creative with Lego or Meccano.
"You can see that boys (toys) ads are dominated by power and battle whereas girls seem to be able to get through life on love and magic. I'm sorry, I don't think that will get them very far and whereas I am no fan of battles the idea that active behaviours is to be encouraged.
Girls looking for work experience were also likely to find themselves in hairdressing salons while boys went to the "local garage", she said.
"This isn't good for either sex," said Dame Athene.
Why not?
I had Barbies but I wasn't very interested in them. (Not surprisingly, perhaps, I have never been interested in having children.) But many or most girls seem to be interested in dolls and in simulating mommyhood. Even girl chimps seem to be, per the research of Richard Wrangham and Sonya Kahlenberg that I linked here.
Can someone please explain to me why we should push girls to be car mechanics and boys to be hairdressers and, as Dame Athene suggests, shove girls into engineering?
Well, to be fair, car mechanics and engineers tend to earn more money than hairdressers. And I will say that almost every product related to babyhood and small childhood has gotten "gendered" in a way that it was not (at least, not as much) in the 1960s and 70s, partially because ultrasound lets people buy gender-specific nursery items in advance and partially because parents have relatively more disposable income and thus don't feel the need to ensure that everything can be shared with future siblings any more (note the rise of monogramming/name personalization on all sort of items for babies and kids). Kids today really do have a lot more…stuff than we had. More clothes, more furniture, more toys, more whatever. And they are the target of a LOT more marketing…and marketing in general has gotten a LOT more sophisticated. I'm not saying that dolls weren't promoted for girls and toy trucks weren't promoted for boys when we were little, but boys didn't come home to truck-themed nurseries, wear lots of truck-themed clothing and get 20 different trucks for Christmas. I find it somewhat overwhelming, and I'm an adult.
But the idea that girls like dolls more than trucks (on average) because they are brainwashed into doing so by marketing misses the point. Marketing is set up the way it is because the majority of little girls are more drawn to items such as dolls and princesses. Who can, by the way, be quite active! And I do find it hilarious that Dame Athene had to qualify her social engineering related to gender to specify that she is "no fan of battles."
My two small daughters love Hello Kitty. And trains. And their "babies." And rockets. And Snow White. And minions. And hair bows. And dinosaurs. It is perhaps not a coincidence that their parents and caregivers like those things as well, and communicate that to them, but who knows? In my experience, the parents who freak out the most about avoiding the horrors of "gender conformity" are the ones who end up with super girly-girls and super macho boys. Kids sense what you fear and head straight for that. We really don't care about gender "conformity" one way or another, as long as they don't feel that they can't try or do something because they're girls. (With the exception of peeing standing up, but they don't seem upset about not being able to pull that off…)
marion at September 4, 2015 11:31 PM
Because, dammit, we have to start the process for the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General sooner or later
lujlp at September 5, 2015 1:33 AM
Because boys and girls are completely identical and interchangeable. Feminist ideology will accept nothing else. And if that isn't reality then feminists say reality is wrong and must be punished.
It is also part of the socialist ideology. If everyone is equal then everyone must be the same. One people, one class, one gender.
You once asked why so many people are strongly opposed to Adderall, and this is why. It is vastly over prescribed and for medically inappropriate reasons. Back in high school or junior high they diagnosed my wife as ADHD and got her started on Adderall. That then lead to diagnoses of bipolar disorder and psychosis among other things. Which mainly shows psychologists just don't want to dispute each other. None of those diagnoses was remotely correct. She is a tomboy. That is all. There is no medical way to 'fix' that and no moral reason to change it. She is now completely unmedicated and leading a much saner life. But this need for everyone to be the same, act the same, do the same thing at the same time of our education system sent her through the hellish world of the public mental health system to no good end.
Ben at September 5, 2015 5:37 AM
Yes, she is a scientist - a physicist. But, as head of the BSA she has access to people who should be able to correct her thinking on gender differences.
The way she's going now she might be assigning some young women to lives they won't enjoy.
Canvasback at September 5, 2015 6:17 AM
Her job is not to control kid's toys is it. So what is the agenda.
Control. "We need to change the way we think ... what's appropriate for them ..."
Control. "... social constructs ..." (meaningless word that can be defined to mean whatever the speaker wants)
Control. "Girls looking for work experience were also likely to find themselves in hairdressing salons while boys went to the "local garage", ..."
(both low end low paying jobs in today's world but let's not assume high expectations can come from an individual on their own, they need our help)
Negate their ability to control and you've destroyed their influence beyond their true responsibilities.
Bob in Texas at September 5, 2015 7:12 AM
And when do we begin converting all carnivores to herbivores?
Goo at September 5, 2015 7:13 AM
Of course, you could listen to what I actually said about offering children different toy options here on the BBC. I think both boys and girls should be given a range of toys. Sub-editors always put clickbait titles up but in the quotes given in The Telegraph article you will not see me saying girls should stop playing with Barbies. And that's because that's not what I said.
Athene Donald at September 5, 2015 8:12 AM
"Of course, you could listen to what I actually said about offering children different toy options here on the BBC."
I think children shouldn't be *given* many toys at all. They are mostly useless junk that entertains for only a few minutes.
Smart parents watch their children's interests develop in sports or art, or mechanical things, and buy age appropriate materials that help them develop those interests.
When I was a child, I remember being entertained at elderly relative's houses by paper and pencils. After the age of eight or so, I was expected to help them work on their latest jig saw puzzle, or read a book.
In the summer it was a trip to the community pool, or go ride my bike.
Isab at September 5, 2015 8:42 AM
In short, what I am trying to say here is that toys are any thing a child finds entertaining.
A parents choices in this area should not be some kind of quasi totalitarian cram down to try and force an interest in what the parents think the child *should* be entertained by.
You know what girls do, who don't have Barbies?
That's right, they style each other's hair, and put on mom's jewelry and makeup.
My mother kept a box of old stuff for this purpose.
(Unfortunately I started using the doll clothes to dress my cats)
And if you live in a country like the UK with a very unhealthy cloudy climate, the last thing you should want your kids doing, is spending even more time indoors playing with government approved crap.
Isab at September 5, 2015 10:53 AM
Isab, I never had kids of my own but have two nephews and eight nieces. I'm sure I gave them some toys as birthday and Christmas presents but I gave them a lot of art materials over the years. None of them ended up pursuing art as a career but one niece graduated with a degree in architecture from the U of Minnesota a few years ago so I like to think my gifts may have played a part -- even if only a very small one -- in her interest in architecture.
JD at September 5, 2015 11:09 AM
I think children shouldn't be *given* many toys at all. They are mostly useless junk that entertains for only a few minutes.
Smart parents watch their children's interests develop in sports or art, or mechanical things, and buy age appropriate materials that help them develop those interests.
Posted by: Isab at September 5, 2015 8:42 AM
_________________________________________
Nicely said. Toys are merely a substitute for unavailable playmates, when one thinks about it. Not to mention that the fewer toys kids have, the less of a hassle it is to get them to PICK THEM UP.
(As my favorite columnist/therapist wrote, this can start in infancy; let the toddler know it can have a second toy only when it brings back the first toy to put back in the box. Gradually, the number can be expanded - but it's still a good idea to limit the number of toys as opposed to things that can belong to everyone, such as boxes or spoons.)
Also, toys that don't encourage creativity tend to stimulate greed, as Dr. Spock once pointed out. Finally, it is every parent's right to refuse to pay for ANYTHING that the kid asks for first, aside from when the PARENT asks something like "what do you want for your birthday?" Otherwise, the kid can earn the money (or save allowance money) and buy the toy.
lenona at September 5, 2015 11:37 AM
Progressivism requires there be no such thing as human nature: we are all blank slates with which progressives will fix society.
Stephen Pinker put paid to that a long time ago. And, if Dame Athene were even remotely right, communism would have worked.
Perhaps ironically, Dame Athene, and all doctrinaire feminists, believe as a matter of religious doctrine, that evolution stopped at the neckline.
Jeff Guinn at September 5, 2015 1:03 PM
Ms Donald,
You do talk about how girls from unisex schools do better in math and physics than girls from schools with both genders. And there you make an assumption that 'society' or their educators are causing this difference. Aside from me personally rejecting that assumption, why even push for society to change it's education methodology? You already have a solution that appears to be working, single gender schools. Why not go with the proven solution instead of pushing for some vague and unproven solution?
Also, barbies can be quite creative. I played with my sister and her barbies when we were kids. I would dismember several dolls and we would hide the parts. First person to reassemble a doll won. That something has an intended purpose doesn't mean you must follow those intentions.
Ben at September 5, 2015 1:08 PM
"Progressivism requires there be no such thing as human nature: we are all blank slates with which progressives will fix society."
Yes, if we are all just given the proper brainwashing, and the right toys, we would voluntarily choose the careers that the Progs want us to chose.
Isab at September 5, 2015 5:38 PM
Give them toys? Nope, just a rock and a stick - let their imaginations run wild!
I'll bet most girls will turn the rock into a "pet rock" and the stick into some sort of doll (more anorexic than Barbie!)
And most boys will turn both the rock and the stick into projectiles.
And if some do the other, or both, or something all together different - who cares - Just don't put out anyone's eye!
charles at September 5, 2015 6:56 PM
Leave a comment