by: elizabeth grau
Kids are bombarded with myriad stimuli throughout the day, each of which shapes the mindset of the kid in individually unique ways—many of which are received subconsciously. Of those stimuli, toys, though used recreationally, are one of the most influential objects placed in a kid’s life. Toys allow kids a chance to escape into a world which they have created for themselves and what influences how events play out in those worlds of imagination are entirely dependent upon the child. In these instances, the kids seem to have more effect on the toy rather than vice versa; however, I social situations, such as when kids are playing with those same toys together, the threshold for imaginative freedom is lower. When in groups, human propensity is to gravitate toward the common ground of the group’s opinions out of desire for acceptance, a desire that holds true seemingly regardless of age. It is in these moments of group interactions that social pressure is at its greatest and kids are more likely to shift their views and beliefs to meet that common group of the group.
This tendency is where the “intended role” of toys, as suggested by the toy producers, comes out rather than a role the toy previously assumed when kids are outside of that social pressure to conform. Because of this the normal social cues which, regardless of whether or not they are right or wrong, become reinforced by the group through those toys. So, similarly to the Computer Engineering Barbie and book released by Barbie manufacturers, kids who may not have previously known what a computer engineer is are more likely to follow the suggested storyline when around other kids than to create their own role and storyline for the Barbie. To follow the suggested storyline is safe and a common ground. It’s what is assumed to be correct. Thus, in instances such as that of Computer Engineering Barbie, the role of Barbie as merely a girl who requires the help of her male cohorts to fix simple problems rather than empowering Barbie and showing her fixing it herself, can become more deeply engrained into the subconscious mindset of kids, male and female alike, further fortifying stereotypes behind gender roles in science in addition to what it means to be a scientist.
However, this isn’t to say that all science toys follow this pattern. The boxes of toys often speak more than the toy in a positive light. For example, I had a crystal growing kit which I absolutely loved. I never successfully grew any crystals, but the idea behind it was still fascinating. The box was this large box which contained both a boy and a girl on it staring in amazement at the crystals that they had just created. I had always considered myself to be a science-oriented person, but that didn’t mean that I was immune to subliminal messages transmitted through such advertisement. I was significantly less likely to want something that had two boys placed on the box staring in amazement at something than I did when it was a boy and a girl. Furthermore, I was less likely to want to play with a toy that was found in the “boy’s section” of a store than the girl’s section. Thus, while I was extremely interested in the mobile planetarium my sister received for her birthday, I was significantly less interested/confused on how to feel because the box contained to boys—this was a boy gift. Though I had considered myself a tomboy for a large portion of my life, spending my days running around a pack of guys, even walking around my house without a shirt on during the earlier parts of my childhood to prove such while my mom implored me to put a shirt on, I still was subject to fall into the trap of believing that there were certain things that boys were supposed to like and certain things that girls were supposed to like.
These stereotypes, I think, can be combated subtly in conversation and in reaction to subliminal messages produced by advertisers. For example, this past summer I worked as a counselor at a summer camp, and one of my favorite things to do was, during our snack time when there were multiple groups of kids in one area, I would have ‘girl talk’ on top of one of the playgrounds. Anyone was welcome to join, and rather than leading the conversation by talking about boys and how annoying they were (a topic that came up at least five times a day), I would talk about science and some of the awesome things that were happening or could happen. One of my favorite conversations was when we talked about time travel and space. Everyone designed their own time machine—what would it include?—and we discussed whether or not we though time travel was possible. This wasn’t a serious conversation by any means, but I found that a lot of the girls really enjoyed it and it was neat to see their imaginations run wild in a direction not typically encouraged for girls (not to say that it’s discouraged, because I don’t think that it is, it just isn’t as common for girls to be encouraged to talk about science among themselves than boys).
In short, I think that there are a plethora of ways to combat inappropriate stereotypes. My preferred method is to simply include topics I feel aren’t brought up as often in conversations among girls as they are among guys, especially at an early age. Combating stereotypes is something that can occur at any point in time and in so many different forms, but I think that inappropriate stereotypes become engrained at an early age and therefore combating ought to take place at an earlier age. Simply reminding girls and guys alike that they are not confined within their gender is important.
This tendency is where the “intended role” of toys, as suggested by the toy producers, comes out rather than a role the toy previously assumed when kids are outside of that social pressure to conform. Because of this the normal social cues which, regardless of whether or not they are right or wrong, become reinforced by the group through those toys. So, similarly to the Computer Engineering Barbie and book released by Barbie manufacturers, kids who may not have previously known what a computer engineer is are more likely to follow the suggested storyline when around other kids than to create their own role and storyline for the Barbie. To follow the suggested storyline is safe and a common ground. It’s what is assumed to be correct. Thus, in instances such as that of Computer Engineering Barbie, the role of Barbie as merely a girl who requires the help of her male cohorts to fix simple problems rather than empowering Barbie and showing her fixing it herself, can become more deeply engrained into the subconscious mindset of kids, male and female alike, further fortifying stereotypes behind gender roles in science in addition to what it means to be a scientist.
However, this isn’t to say that all science toys follow this pattern. The boxes of toys often speak more than the toy in a positive light. For example, I had a crystal growing kit which I absolutely loved. I never successfully grew any crystals, but the idea behind it was still fascinating. The box was this large box which contained both a boy and a girl on it staring in amazement at the crystals that they had just created. I had always considered myself to be a science-oriented person, but that didn’t mean that I was immune to subliminal messages transmitted through such advertisement. I was significantly less likely to want something that had two boys placed on the box staring in amazement at something than I did when it was a boy and a girl. Furthermore, I was less likely to want to play with a toy that was found in the “boy’s section” of a store than the girl’s section. Thus, while I was extremely interested in the mobile planetarium my sister received for her birthday, I was significantly less interested/confused on how to feel because the box contained to boys—this was a boy gift. Though I had considered myself a tomboy for a large portion of my life, spending my days running around a pack of guys, even walking around my house without a shirt on during the earlier parts of my childhood to prove such while my mom implored me to put a shirt on, I still was subject to fall into the trap of believing that there were certain things that boys were supposed to like and certain things that girls were supposed to like.
These stereotypes, I think, can be combated subtly in conversation and in reaction to subliminal messages produced by advertisers. For example, this past summer I worked as a counselor at a summer camp, and one of my favorite things to do was, during our snack time when there were multiple groups of kids in one area, I would have ‘girl talk’ on top of one of the playgrounds. Anyone was welcome to join, and rather than leading the conversation by talking about boys and how annoying they were (a topic that came up at least five times a day), I would talk about science and some of the awesome things that were happening or could happen. One of my favorite conversations was when we talked about time travel and space. Everyone designed their own time machine—what would it include?—and we discussed whether or not we though time travel was possible. This wasn’t a serious conversation by any means, but I found that a lot of the girls really enjoyed it and it was neat to see their imaginations run wild in a direction not typically encouraged for girls (not to say that it’s discouraged, because I don’t think that it is, it just isn’t as common for girls to be encouraged to talk about science among themselves than boys).
In short, I think that there are a plethora of ways to combat inappropriate stereotypes. My preferred method is to simply include topics I feel aren’t brought up as often in conversations among girls as they are among guys, especially at an early age. Combating stereotypes is something that can occur at any point in time and in so many different forms, but I think that inappropriate stereotypes become engrained at an early age and therefore combating ought to take place at an earlier age. Simply reminding girls and guys alike that they are not confined within their gender is important.