Response to Professor, Week1

Nik B. said...

I believe it all comes down to fear and security. Parents want to steer their child in a specific direction and, since at a young age toys are often a kid's first friends, then a parent wants to make sure their boy or girl is hanging out with the appropriate friends. In this case, the superimposing of toy purchases fulfills a sort of homophobic, societal/cultural duty of tradition that ensures a lucid steering toward a specific gender and its respective proper behavor. This really is just speaking of the majority and not the whole of population, of course.
It does indeed hinder a child's choice to have what pleases them, but after all we as parents will always have the need to decide what is best for our son or daughter.
The marketing can be gender-biased when television commercials or other advertisements strictly portray boys playing with action figures or girls only with Barbies, for instance. That in itself plays a large role in what parents confide in as a guideline for purchases. The media will often clearly paint the gender lines either blue or pink depending on who they think their target audience will be. Is this just good social advertising, third party child-rearing, or perhaps even a little of both?
Like many traditional American male children I was always steered toward the action figures, footballs and hockey pucks (most notable male sports) from an early age yet past the androgynous Fisher Price toddler toys. Even with my nephews, I see my brother stubbornly and with conviction filtering his kids' play things so that they foster a direct male path. In our majority society of the heterosexual, traditionally gender outlined masses, this innate desire to choose our children's paths for them and according to traditional values is in our nature.