Why science and engineering toys aren't for girls

Holding’s article is a clear example of Gender stereotyping. This is logically emphasized by the idea that stores are starting to differentiate their toys between genders. The writer elaborates on the fact that children should “allow them to choose freely what they want”, further emphasizing Judith Butler’s theory that Gender roles is a ‘performance’ of males and females in society. Manufacturers have realized that customers like to dress their girls in dungarees and vice versa.  Yet, it seems that stores are bringing back traditional values as a way to reinforce each gender. Yet, this is almost as hypocritical when they advertise girls and boys playing with ‘pirates and the Caribbean cruise ships’ or ‘unisex Lego’. Holding tries to display the fact that children may like products that are ‘not suitable’ for their sex, but are we as adults going to advise them against it. This then prevents children from embracing their likes and dislikes by being made to choose what they are allowed to buy... The image of Morrison’s sectioning, sounds absurd, but to some may sound as a conventional way to advertise male or female products. Traditionally years back, parents would have dressed their girls in pink and boys in blue. Society has then grown up with the social construction of these stereotypes and conveys it as the norm. By society now challenging these ideas is an obvious way to breach the confusion with both customers and staff. However, although Butler is against this, it can be argued that these toys advertise themselves. Most girls products are labeled pink, boys as blue. It’s very rare to see a combination of the colors for a “stereotypical” unisex product. The fact that this is considered as a ‘performance’ is emphasized by the YouTube video of the little girl. However, it can also be argued that to a child, are they going to really care what colored sign is above the toys section. Although this links to Butlers theory by the fact that this is not ‘biologically fixed’, children will be able to express their interests whether the product is pink or Blue. An example of this is the Lego blocks. For years, customers had bought the primary coloured blocks, but the reinvention of the pink blocks enabled boys and girls to both be interested in them just because they were new and a different color. For children, it’s all about experimenting with new materials and colors. It seems post feminism (and holding) is trying to challenge the idea of gender stereotyping and to some extent, children have been socially constructed by their parents likes and dislikes (such as; clothing, products). However, as they get older these ideas will change as the child starts to develop. The main problem that links with Butler’s ideas is if society doesn’t accept these stereotypes and starts to judge the person for who they are.

Holding’s motive behind this comes from Vicky from the organization pink stinks "The reason why it'd be bad for their sales is because if they sold toys for everyone, people would be able to buy one toy for a boy and a girl."  This then challenges Butlers idea of post-modern feminism by gender stereotyping that this isn’t a personal offence against gender stereotyping but more that it enables companies to make a profit by brainwashing them to buying both girls and boys product. Although, this has been emphasized by the sale reduction, I think it’s probably safe to say that come Christmas and birthdays, society won’t be stirring u[p the issues of gender stereotyping and that some customers like to have sectioning as it allows them to quickly find what they want (challenging Butler’s stereotype).

Towards the end of this, Holding said ‘Only this week, my daughter was called a nurse when she started playing with a stethoscope. Innocently said, but tell me this: do you not think that if she had been a boy, she would have been called a doctor?’ First of all, this challenge reinforces Butler’s theory. Yet it, it can be ultimately argued that it seems unlikely for a child of that age to care about these stereotypes at their age and also with media like Holy city where both sexes embrace being nurses or doctors, conveys some sort of equality.  These gender stereotypes aren’t going to change overnight, but subverting the idea of these stereotypes when they have become tradition seems ridiculous. It all depends on different customers who want to purchase different items.

Amelia Hill then argues that sexist stereotypes are being applied to Print Media. The fact that the writer states that 78% of front page articles were written by male journalists and 84 of those had been mentioned in this news article reinforces Butler’s ideas that genders have been differentiated by society. This also subverts the mRobbie’s theory, as although some of the media represent the empowering of women, it seems sexist views of occupational privileges is not yet granted. This is also reinforced by the idea that Only the Duchess of Cambridge, her sister and girls like Madeline McCann were only mostly shown within the media. This can be represented as appalling as these representations of women was only to mock them (Kate’s revealing body) and to inform (Blumler & Katz) the reader about a missing girl. Both of these stories, don’t reinforce female independence, but degrades and weakens them within society. Hills then  reinforces this by putting across about how can women be taken serious or lead up to expectations that is expected of them by women, if the only way they can represent women is posting embarrassing and humorous pictures of them.

This is nothing in comparison to men’s representations within the media, such as Simon Cowell, who are photographed frequently and build a strong representation of a dominant male role in society. Women’s groups of women being violated and becoming victims of sexism , also not only reinforces a certain degree of Gender stereotypes (Butler), but also emphasizes the fact that even successful people such as Harriet Harman )the deputy lead of the labour party, still is presented as inferior in today’s society. Also successful people like Arlene Philips who has been represented as an iconic symbol of an older female role model, can still be represented as replicable by men within the media. Although, Entwhistle says: “There’s real headway with Amanda Vickery, Mary Beard and Lucy worsely. We have made a real progress in actively looking for, and finding great female experts”, apparently this isn’t enough when we compare this to statistics that convey that only 34% of female writers appeared on the front page of The financial times, and how out of 668 people named in leading articles only 84% that were mentioned, were men. It is safe to say that these ideologies distinctively link to Butler’s theory of conveying traditional male ideologies of men being considered as breadwinners by families. Or does this challenge the basic idea that women will never have the same respect or equality to men, as long as they govern newspapers.