Showing posts with label Barbie. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barbie. Show all posts

Feb 12, 2013

Yes, I’m playing with your toy, because someone needs to do it properly


Oh, isn't it wonderful how imaginative and inventive children are? 

How, when you give them a toy, they don’t play with it the *proper* way but find some other, funny, idiosyncratic and perfectly lovely way to play with it instead?

And does this sometimes frustrate the crap out of you??


Have you ever caught yourself saying any of these things?:

“See, the little fireman goes in the little firetruck!” 
“Ha ha, I don’t think the TIGER would sleep in the HOUSE!” 
“See, this carriage should go in front because that’s the engine, and the caboose goes on the back.” 
“Look, you can put the little teacups on top of the little saucers! That one’s actually a milk jug, so that goes there.” 
“Oooh, look - this swing attaches to the back of the boat and then Polly Pocket can sit in it! No look – wait – let me – I’ll give it back – I’m just trying to show you…!”

When my kids were little and they got a new toy, I was actually not always so quick to say these things, but I did sometimes, and I sometimes had to almost restrain myself from plunging in and setting up the perfect little play scenario… for me.

My sister and I have had this discussion. My nephew was recently given a little wooden police station with garage, police car, helicopter and helipad. Do you think he will ever sit the little helicopter on top of the little helipad? He won’t let my sister do it either, and she has tried to do it many a time, at first in front of him with explanations and appeals to logic, and secondly behind his back. He is having none of it.

My girls share a wooden dollhouse which is kept in the lounge [playroom] and when they were in bed I used to quite often [daily] “fix” the furniture while they were asleep so everything was in its right room. 

Then I set the dolls up in various rooms so each was engaged in a logical scenario – often wish-fulfillment ones for myself like watching television, sitting together at a dinner table, or lying in bed. This went on for a fair amount of time and I got a goodly amount of satisfaction from it… until finally I realised that actually, I was playing with the dollhouse.


These days my girls are seven and they are very adept at “scenario” toys. But they do still mix things up and of course it’s a good thing, because (a) it just is and (b) I haven’t had to buy new doll accessories as everything gets repurposed. Polly Pockets, Strawberry Shortcakes, Power Rangers and My Little Ponies all share houses and furniture, while the Monster High girls have taken over the old Barbie stuff now that Barbie is so uncool.



Though what I would really love to see is the Barbies, Monster High girls and the La Dee Da dolls sometimes go on camping trips together and use the ^&$%@#! Barbie camper vans which cost Santa a ^&$%@#! fortune two Christmases ago. I've suggested it a few times but it’s not catching on. My new evening activity, perhaps?


How to play with dollhouses: Barbie and Ricky video:

Sep 12, 2012

Barbie Science

One of my favourite science bloggers on Twitter, Christie Wilcox ("NerdyChristie"), retweeted a story from Scientific American last night which had been picked up by biologist Miriam Goldstein.
(As you can see, attributing stories found via Twitter can get quite complex)

The Trouble With Barbie Science
Recruiting women into the sciences with girly images can backfire


READ this if you have girls, or are a girl, and RELATE.

With all the best intentions in the world, there are attempts being made to attract girls to "STEM" (science, technology, engineering and maths) using "girly" aesthetics. The intention is not evil but to get girls away from thinking "that's boring" or "that's a boy thing".

Any parent (that's all of us, right?) who has sighed in frustration at the "pinkification" of everything for girls, will probably be gritting their teeth a little by now.

On Twitter, Miriam Goldstein compared the pinkification of science to [unintentionally] saying to girls: "See girls? It's OK to be smart as long as you conform to the feminine ideal!"


But not only is the message going out unintentionally problematic - it appears not to work.

Two scientists ran a study gauging the impact on girls' interest in STEM after viewing different types of female role model: "girly" STEM women, non-"girly" STEM women, "girly" other women and non-"girly" other women.
You may or may not be surprised to hear the outcome of the experiment. Girls became LEAST interested in STEM after seeing the "girly" STEM models.

The scientists' conclusion was that the "Barbie Scientist" role models were too daunting - being super-smart and successful PLUS girly and sexy is just too damn high a bar to reach. Girls see this and doubt they can do it, so they abandon any interest.

I absolutely agree with this interpretation. I have never articulated it like that, but have had the same heart-sinking feeling myself on occasion and hesitate to present some of these types of images to my girls for the same reason. It's the same reason I feel conflicted over Barbies with cool careers.

Between the ages of 5 and 35, girls are swimming in pressure to be hot. Not just pretty - but glamorous and sexy and confident and flirty, as well as organised, healthy and cool. Once upon a time, applying oneself to "neutral" or "tomboy" pursuits was a way to get a pass on some of this pressure. No longer.

So... You mean I STILL have to be sexy even if I'm successful and super-smart? Do I NEVER get a break from this stuff?

Poor girls!


The only good thing? I sense we're at a tipping point on the pinkification thing. Change, at last, is a-coming.


Cartoon by Zack Weiner at SMBC Comics (embedding allowed)


Dec 29, 2011

Gendered Toys, Lego and Pink

There has been a lot written lately about the way most toys are very strongly gendered so that they are either "for boys" or "for girls". Parents have long found this frustrating and have worried about the impact. If your little boy likes Dora, or your little girl likes Ben 10, tough luck - you cannot buy any "gender neutral" merchandise for these characters, whether it's toys, clothes or lunch boxes.


Lego Friends
This month Lego launched a range for girls, which has attracted some controversy. Lego's market research showed that girls' interests are beauty, community, design and friendship; girls like to play make-believe in an indoor-worldy setting, while hanging with friends and looking pretty. Hence the Lego Friends range to meet this "need". (In other words, Lego has found a way to make its toys look just like Strawberry Shortcake and other existing toys for girls).

Lego Friends - Stephanie's Outdoor Bakery.
Yay, we girls love baking!

As a mother of girls I can attest that yes indeedy, they do like these things. But whether this is "innate" or whether it is what has been fed to them since they were one, is an unknown thing. Like most mothers I think it is a bit of both.

We all know little boys who have enjoyed playing with dolls and girls who play with trucks and Lego; at a young age all kids play with everything. Sadly and perhaps (perhaps) inevitably, this tends to disappear around 3 years of age when kids tend to gravitate towards the toys "for" their gender.

So is this necessarily a bad thing? I'm not sure. Is it limiting? I have no doubt. Is it "natural" or inevitable? I think to some degree yes, but I've no doubt we exacerbate it.


Whose fault is it?

When I found out I was having girls I happily and excitedly bought up clothes and wraps and linen in loads of pink, lemon and mauve. Having never been fond of pink, I found myself buying up pink clothes and pink everything and loving it. If I was having boys, I would have happily and excitedly bought up everything blue and green. It's natural and fun to celebrate whatever gender your kids are in this way.  I always had other colours including blues, and the girls had toy cars, trucks, trains and blocks which were their favourite toys as toddlers.

Now the girls are six, they do strongly gravitate towards "girly" toys, and I do get annoyed at ads for whatever latest toys are marketed at them with emphasis on clothing design, beauty, "makeovers", baking, hanging out with pretty friends walking miniature dogs, etc. Because when they see these things, they do want them. And when they see things that are clearly aimed at boys, like Flick Tricks, Ben 10 stuff, or the rest, you can sense the peer pressure making them shy of expressing interest in these things, even if they are initially interested and even if I encourage it.

This works on boys too, of course. Squinkies look fun and exciting to all kids, but are "clearly" "for girls" - hence "Squinkies Boys" with motifs of skulls, garbage cans, ghouls etc. Hence too girls play with "dolls" while boys play with "action figures". (And why it's funny in Toy Story 3 when Ken is picked on for being "a girl's toy").

I am not too fond of Bratz dolls, but am not too bothered by Barbie. I loved Barbie when I was a kid (and Sindy - remember her?), and at least now you can buy Barbies in sporty swimsuits with flat-soled feet. Most of what I find distasteful in these toys is around the pushy marketing and the emphasis on playing with collections - a couple of dolls and a car/house/pool/camper are never enough!  I get a little sick of the saccharine emphasis on friendship and the kinds of girly fun that these toys all have together such as eating cakes, having sleepovers and doing makeovers. What's wrong with having an adventure, or saving people from danger, or travelling to other worlds?

When my girls play with their Barbies, they are always going to balls, going on dates with boyfriends, or occasionally attending musketeer school; all the scenarios come from TV shows or the Barbie movies they've watched (I know, I know - but please, have girls before you judge me!).  I have to admit I am shocked at how every TV show and movie for kids these days has "boyfriends and girlfriends", dating, or even marriage themes. Was it always this way?


Pink Stinks

In 2009 sisters Abi and Emma Moore started the "Pink Stinks" campaign, to protest the "pinkification" of little girls and offer more alternatives. Two years on it doesn't seem much has changed - yet. But there is definitely a feeling out there, that things are too limited for both boys and girls, and we don't want to go backwards after so many gains made in gender equality over the years.

Will the marketers catch on?


Interestingly, I have noticed that while little girls love everything pink around the ages of two to four, from the age of five or six they start to "move on" to other colours - usually via purple. (When I was a kid in school I remember it was from pink to baby blue). Thanks to school and peer pressure, my kids are now starting to reject pink as too "babyish" for them, at least in public. They'll still choose some pink things at home, but are more likely now to favour purple, tourquoise, white, blue or green.

Has the very saturation of pink created a self-limiting effect I wonder?
We can but hope.

Here are some of my favourite recent tweets on this subject:
(Apologies I have not yet worked out how to embed them prettily - will fix later if I can)



@tammois My girls are 6 and "moving on" from pink which they see as a little-girl colour; now love purple, blue & green. Yay!
@JackieK_ I was so grateful when my daughter moved on. She is now vocal that . :-)

    9yo girl: "Can you think of a good name for girls who don't want to be girly girls but aren't tomboys?"

    Kate @kateburge    
    @tammois The idea of Monopoly changed for girls with beauty salons and malls? Oh wow. Isn't that mental?
    I especially love this one - a good reminder that being diverse is normal, not "tomboyish" or strange:
    My daughter is perfectly conventional. Loves horses, dresses, hairclips, dogs, footy, cricket, utes, dinosaurs, pirates & Lego.

    What do YOU think?

    Dec 23, 2010

    Get over yourself Mum

    My five-year-old called me out on high-mindedness last night.

    We had a lovely night last night with some friends visiting, so we could catch up before Christmas and exchange gifts for each others' kids. After they left my girls were unwrapping the birthday gifts their godmother had given them, and I was using the large kitchen scissors to free the Barbies from the tiny, transparent but industrial strength plastic ropes that bound them in ten places to their cardboard containers.

    As M stepped near me to get a closer look I said "Be careful of my scissors!" in that authoritarian voice mums use when we're running the show and sending a warning.

    M was not having it. "No Mum, it's not me that has to be careful, it's you, because you're the one waving them around."

    And she was right, of course.

    Sep 24, 2010

    Just Believe!

    How do you know when your daughter has watched too many Barbie movies?
    (Real answer: When you know she has watched at least one...)

    Here's how I knew.

    A broken toy, a request to fix it. Knowing the toy was beyond repair, I answered that I couldn't fix it.
    M. looked at me and said, "Did you try to fix it?"
    "Yes," I said (lying - it was completely beyond help). "I tried, but I couldn't fix it."
    M. looked at me earnestly. "You can Mum, " she said. "You just have to try. And believe in yourself!"

    "Well, " I said, "sometimes, there are just some things you can't do, even if you really believe in yourself!"

    LinkWithin

    Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...