Parents struggle to find gender-neutral toys

Dec 21, 2012 by Michelle R. Smith
In this file photo provided by Hasbro, McKenna Pope poses in front of earlier models of the Easy-Bake Oven during her trip to the Hasbro headquarters in Pawtucket, R.I. Hasbro has announced it has been developing an Easy-Bake Oven in the gender-neutral colors of black and silver. It made the announcement after meeting with Pope, whose online petition asking the company to make one attractive to all kids gathered tens of thousands of signatures. Hasbro says it knows both boys and girls have fun playing with the Easy-Bake. (AP Photo/Hasbro, File)

(AP)—A 13-year-old girl's campaign to get Hasbro to make an Easy-Bake Oven that isn't purple or pink so it would appeal to her little brother is a fresh sign of movement in an old debate. Parents who hope to expose their children to different kinds of play—science sets for girls and dolls for boys, for example—can find themselves stymied by a toy industry that can seem stuck in the past when it comes to gender roles.

Hasbro wasn't the only target of criticism this year.

One of the year's hottest toys, the "LEGO Friends Butterfly Beauty Shop," specifically aimed Legos at , but turned to tired gender stereotypes with its focus on a beauty shop and inclusion of characters with curves and eyelashes. Barbie turned builder with a new construction set. But while some praised it, others criticized it for being too pink.

Toy experts say the industry reflects cultural norms, and toy companies are giving people what sells. Plenty of parents find nothing wrong with buying pink frou-frou toys for their girls and avoiding stereotypically "girl" toys for their boys in favor of guns and trucks. But other parents are sent into knots by an unapologetically gender-specific toy industry.

"There's a lot of pressure to conform to those gender stereotypes from the time you're pregnant," said Teresa Graham Brett, a higher-education consultant from Arizona and mother to two boys, ages 6 and 11.

Children naturally begin to identify themselves as boys and girls around the ages of 3 and 4, said Dr. Susan Linn, a psychologist at Harvard Medical School, who co-founded the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood.

"When a child's environment is filled with rigid messages about, 'This is what boys do, this is what girls do,' it limits their ability to reach their full capacity," Linn said. "It's not like girls are born with the predilection to pink, but they're trained to it, so it becomes what they want and need. There are neurological differences between boys and girls at birth. But our goal should be to provide them with a range of experiences so they can develop all of their tendencies."

Large toy stores and most large online retailers often divide toys up by gender. On Amazon, or on the websites for toy makers Mattel or Hasbro, for example, toys are sorted by age, category and gender. A person who wants to buy a baby doll on the Toys R Us website will find hundreds of choices categorized for girls and five for boys. Three of those are dressed in pink.

In recent years, Toys R Us was criticized for an ad selling three microscopes, silver, red and pink. The pink one was the least powerful.

"Toy companies are businesses, so they are responding to and making their products based on consumer demands. They're meeting with moms, focus groups. They're doing what makes sense," said Adrienne Appell, a spokeswoman for the Toy Industry Association.

Chris Byrne, content director for timetoplaymag.com, said the market ultimately decides what makes it onto store shelves and into people's homes.

"The toy industry is always going to reflect the culture at large, and it's going to reflect the market," he said.

That's even true for a soon-to-be-released toy that has gotten a lot of attention for seeking to subvert . GoldieBlox, a construction toy, was invented by Debbie Sterling, who holds a degree from Stanford in product design engineering and who aimed to make a toy to spark an interest in girls in science and engineering. She was turned off by what she saw in a visit to a toy store.

"I felt like I was in the 1950s," she said. "The girls section was pink. It was teaching a girl how to be a housewife, and a princess and pop star."

Meanwhile, she described the boys section as dynamic, with kits to make interesting things like roller coasters and "smarter more complex, engineering math and science toys."

The toy's main character is Goldie, a female engineer, and it is scheduled to be on store shelves in April. In a concession to commercial realities, the toy's color scheme includes a liberal dose of pink.

"There's a lot of parents out there, they're conditioned by this. They won't even pick up something if it doesn't cue that it's a girl," she said. "I don't want girls to miss out on GoldieBlox because it wasn't overtly messaged for them, at least in the early stages."

Some things are changing in the industry. This year, the London department store Harrods redesigned its toy department to organize it by theme rather than by gender. Swedish toy firm Top-Toy published a gender-neutral catalog in which boys were shown playing with a kitchen set and hair dryer and a girl was shown shooting a toy gun.

Hasbro this week announced it has spent the past 18 months developing an Easy-Bake Oven in the gender-neutral colors of black and silver. It made the announcement after meeting with McKenna Pope, the 13-year-old New Jersey girl whose online petition asking the company to make one attractive to all kids gathered tens of thousands of signatures. Hasbro says it knows both boys and girls have fun playing with the Easy-Bake.

Even parents who are sensitive to gender issues say they sometimes have to challenge their own notions. Brett said her older son was interested in aimed at both genders as a little boy. But when son number two came along five years later, she was surprised to see he had a stronger preference to play with guns and Army men.

"I really needed to let go of controlling what I thought he should play with as an enlightened boy," she said. "They may choose to do what is stereotypical, and they should have the right to choose that as well."

Explore further: Power can corrupt even the honest

3.8 /5 (13 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Collectible toys could lure children to healthy food choices

Sep 19, 2011

The thought of toys being given out as part of children's meal deals might be easier to swallow, and better for you, if the toys are part of a collectible set and tied to healthy, nutrition-rich food choices. Who says? Kids ...

Age-appropriate toys are the best choice, says expert

Dec 18, 2007

Many parents around the country will purchase toys for their children this holiday season. While choosing toys that will further a child's education development is important, it's also a great idea for parents ...

Recommended for you

Power can corrupt even the honest

1 hour ago

When appointing a new leader, selectors base their choice on several factors and typically look for leaders with desirable characteristics such as honesty and trustworthiness. However once leaders are in power, can we trust ...

Learning at 10 degrees north

1 hour ago

Secluded beaches, calypso music and the entertaining carnival are often what come to mind when thinking of the islands of Trinidad and Tobago. But Dal Earth Sciences students might first consider Trinidad's ...

How to find the knowns and unknowns in any research

3 hours ago

Have you ever felt overloaded by information? Ever wondered how to make sense of claims and counter-claims about a topic? With so much information out there on many different issues, how is a person new to ...

Minorities energize US consumer market, according to report

3 hours ago

The buying power of minority groups in the U.S. has reached new heights and continues to outpace cumulative inflation, according to the latest Multicultural Economy Report from the Selig Center for Economic Growth at the ...

User comments : 44

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Mauricio
2.4 / 5 (14) Dec 21, 2012
wow

Then they ask why people go insane in the USA.... they act surprised with insanity, when they are destroying children in their sea of ignorance.

Of course, nobody can tell them ANYTHING in the "departments" where they "work", because this "research" is beyond good and evil. If you disagree than differences among the sexes are due to genetic/physiology, you would be fired. Impressive they spend taxes money on this "research".
Lurker2358
2.9 / 5 (17) Dec 21, 2012
Oh yes, This is the good old perverted U.S.A., where we can't tell John he's a boy because he has a Y chromosome and a penis, and can't tell Sally that she's a girl because she has a vagina and no penis and no Y chromosome.

You can see how everything else in civilization is mixed up, since we can't even make common sense, scientific judgments about such basic things as sex without being accused of "hate speech".

It's sad that we'd need to do something like this, but we really do need to pass a constitutional amendment to make it clear to all the perverts what is a "boy" and a "girl".

My suggestion:

Amendment:

"A male shall be defined to be one who has a naturally occurring Y Chromosome and a penis and testicals and no ovaries. A female shell be defined to be one who has two X chromosomes and a vagina, with no penis and no testicles. Anything else shall be considered a homorphrodite."

Then we can add a "homorphrodite" section, so people who have real disabilities can get help.
Lurker2358
2.1 / 5 (14) Dec 21, 2012
Oh yeah, add the following:

"The decision to intentionally become a homorphrodite shall not be sponsored by the government in any way."
dan42day
2.4 / 5 (14) Dec 21, 2012
Perhaps we should start giving them gender neutral names like 86 and 99.

I am so glad my children weren't gender neutral.
ValeriaT
2.3 / 5 (15) Dec 22, 2012
This article is just a PR. Human boys and girls not only tend to play differently from one another — with girls typically clustering in pairs or trios, chatting together more than boys and playing more cooperatively — but, when given a choice, usually prefer hanging with their own kind.
Sean_W
2.5 / 5 (16) Dec 22, 2012
PURPLE IS NOT A GIRLY COLOUR!!!!1 X-(

I don't know how this got started but I keep seeing it and it needs to stop. People have died (no pun intended) in the past to procure the ingredients for dyes so that male warlords could wear purple as a sign of royalty.

Purple is not feminine. (SEVERAL EXCLAMATION POINTS)
Deadbolt
1.7 / 5 (13) Dec 22, 2012
It doesn't matter if boys tend to be a certain way, or girls tend to be another way. It's good to have something available for the exceptions.

It's not like this is some kind of totalitarian scheme to make everyone into gender neutral drones.
Noumenon
3.1 / 5 (27) Dec 22, 2012
More proof that liberal progressives are emotional mush-heads. They want to normalize in society, what is not in fact normal.
Lurker2358
2.8 / 5 (13) Dec 22, 2012
It's not like this is some kind of totalitarian scheme to make everyone into gender neutral drones.


Oh, but it is.

Now, if little Jimmy wants to call himself a "she" and go to the girl's bathroom at school, the faculty must let him go to the women's restroom, because if they don't, little Jimmy can sue the school board, and he does't need parental consent to do it either.

Whenever I went to school, if some guy tried that, he'd get detention.

If little Jimmy is a transvestite he needs counseling to explain to him that it's wrong and makes him a deviant from nature.

If little Jimmy is not a transvestite, and is just using this as an excuse to peek on the girls, he should get a detention, and then the disciplinarian should inform him it would be better technique to just ask for the girls' number in the hall.
BSD
3 / 5 (18) Dec 22, 2012
Parents struggle to find gender-neutral toys

Is someone over thinking this?

Here's a concept, why not just buy toys to suit your child and not some bone headed researcher's sexual hangups.

This crap gives science a bad name.
NeutronicallyRepulsive
2 / 5 (8) Dec 22, 2012
If little Jimmy is a transvestite he needs counseling to explain to him that it's wrong and makes him a deviant from nature.


No, it doesn't deviate from nature. Or do you mean it deviates from average? So what, many kids deviate from average in some aspect. Usually, no big deal. He needs counseling, to explain that it is OK, but they can't go to the women's restroom. But transvestite kids usually don't go to the women's restroom. It's usually the cross-dressing, but usually at later age. If you mean transsexuals, then they should be visiting specialist, and work with parents on determining whether this is a phase, or a real thing.

The point is, we're not living in a black and white world.
cantdrive85
2.9 / 5 (17) Dec 22, 2012

A lot of people say, "What's that?" It's Pat!
A lot of people ask, "Who's he? Or she?"
A ma'am or a sir, accept him or her
or whatever it might be.
It's time for androgyny.
Here comes Pat!
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (26) Dec 22, 2012
If little Jimmy is a transvestite he needs counseling to explain to him that it's wrong and makes him a deviant from nature.
No, it doesn't deviate from nature. Or do you mean it deviates from average? So what, many kids deviate from average in some aspect.


Don't be personally offended.

It is not equivalent to deviations from average, like in height or mental capacity.

Since natural has conspired to propagate the species in only one bio-mechanistic way,... it is clear that homosexuality is counter to nature, and therefore is an abnormality by definition.

This does not mean that it should be banned, or that it makes sense to be 'against' it,... but purely scientifically speaking, it should NOT be made-out to be normal.

Liberal progressives actively seek to normalize it,... they're doing so in public schools.

[Much of liberal progressivism is likewise unscientifically minded. They don't even see evolutionary mechanisms in free market capitalism]
NeutronicallyRepulsive
2.2 / 5 (10) Dec 22, 2012
Since natural has conspired to propagate the species in only one bio-mechanistic way,..


Nature does not conspire, it's not a living thing. Propagation of species is A function. There are many other functions. For example an ant colony is full of ants, that don't reproduce. Does it mean they are abnormal? No, the queen is abnormal, there is only one per thousands of ants.

By acknowledging it as a way people can be born, it is not saying everyone should behave this way. If someone did, I would be of course against it. But the problem is, that the situation is reversed. There quite few people either homosexual, transsexual, and plenty more. They cannot lead maybe the lifestyle of heterosexuals, but that doesn't mean they are unnatural. Maybe from the point of view of heterosexuals (and only from fewer and fewer nowadays). They (me included) say it is normal in a sense, that it is not OK to live their life that way. Not to be hunted by police and locked, or Church and burned.
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 22, 2012
NumenTard is right. Owning Easy Bake ovens is not normal.

Normality as defined by the long history of mankind has children owning nothing but rocks twigs and sticks.

"More proof that liberal progressives are emotional mush-heads. They want to normalize in society, what is not in fact normal." - NumenTard

Well done NumenTard
VendicarD
4 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2012
Correct. Purple is the color of gay, just as the triangle is the shape of gay.

"Purple is not feminine."

According to the Late Christian "genius" Jerry Falwell.

After all... Tinky Winky was gay, and he,she,it had no genitals at all.

http://www.youtub...13sTSWGM

http://www.youtub...ure=fvwp

http://www.salon....l_tinky/
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (22) Dec 22, 2012
Since natural has conspired to propagate the species in only one bio-mechanistic way,..
Nature does not conspire, it's not a living thing. Propagation of species is A function. There are many other functions. For example an ant colony is full of ants, that don't reproduce. Does it mean they are abnormal? No, the queen is abnormal, there is only one per thousands of ants.


That's what I meant by, nature has conspired. There is no need for parsing of words here. Evolution does conspire the best means, and has so arranged that males and females are attracted in order to propagate the species. A failure of that mechanism having manifested in a given person, is an abnormality. It's that simple.

If the evolution of those ants arranged so that some don't reproduce, then it is in accord with nature, isn't it.

------

I can't make any sense of VD's post in response to mine.
NeutronicallyRepulsive
2.3 / 5 (12) Dec 22, 2012
Noumenon: Then a pair unable to have their own child is abnormality too. Therefore we shouldn't consider those people normal too? I don't believe you would do that. You're probably only set against homosexuals, etc. That would explain it. If not, how do you explain that?

First of all we're humans, and we should be able to understand, that people deserve status of normality. Otherwise you would end-up in a pretty cruel world. Because unless you're only applying this to a certain set of people. What stops you from threating mentally ill, disabled people, old people, ill people the same? That's all not normal, or rather as you put it: abnormal.

Second, people as well as ants can be productive in the different manners, not only by reproduction. We don't need a differentiation of classes of people. Also there are the hypotheses to explain the homosexuals, etc. Many of them reason that the conditions have other benefits. So you never know it can be a intermediate step in evolution
Noumenon
3 / 5 (24) Dec 22, 2012
Noumenon: Then a pair unable to have their own child is abnormality too. Therefore we shouldn't consider those people normal too?


If it is a biological defect that prevents one from having a child, then it stands to reason there is a medical abnormality. Those people being normal in all other respects, are not so wrt reproduction capacity.

I don't believe you would do that. You're probably only set against homosexuals, etc. That would explain it. If not, how do you explain that?


I already explained above that it makes no sense to be "against" homosexuals. I'm not at all. I'm only against trying to convince to society that homosexuality is normal, when it is clearly not. It's a defect.

What stops you from threating mentally ill, disabled people, old people, ill people the same? That's all not normal, or rather as you put it: abnormal.


Where have I threatened anyone. Why do you turn this into a hate issue?
VendicarD
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 22, 2012
What is "normal" is distribution.

"I'm only against trying to convince to society that homosexuality is normal, when it is clearly not. It's a defect." - NumenTard

Individuals find other individuals attractive for a variety of reasons.

Nature provides a normal distribution to such preferences.

At the tail end of the distribution there are those who find members of their own sex to be attractive and desirable.

That you label the tail end of the distribution to be a "defect" or not "normal" tells us in light of our knowledge of statistical distribution, that your labels are arbitrary, based on personal preference, and have no relevance to the real world.

In nature, you don't find gophers, or grasshoppers arguing over such irrelevancies.

That is natural.

The rest is human culture.

Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (21) Dec 22, 2012
What is "normal" is distribution.

Individuals find other individuals attractive for a variety of reasons. Nature provides a normal distribution to such preferences. At the tail end of the distribution there are those who find members of their own sex to be attractive and desirable.

That you label the tail end of the distribution to be a "defect" or not "normal" tells us in light of our knowledge of statistical distribution, that your labels are arbitrary, based on personal preference, and have no relevance to the real world.


That's a fair analysis of WHY some one is homosexual, if such a distribution is even quantifiable, but you won't get a Normal Distribution from only two data columns; can procreate / can't procreate, which is the basis for my claiming abnormality, as in counter to natures evolutionary design.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (20) Dec 22, 2012
...
You also have another problem,.. that assuming your distribution makes sense, it would imply that the uglier the more likely one is attracted to the same sex. The distribution would then be shaped like an M, so would not be normal anyway.
NeutronicallyRepulsive
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 22, 2012
Where have I threatened anyone. Why do you turn this into a hate issue?


I'm not turning it into a hate issue, but I'm rather trying to determine, why are you attempting to find a reason to call this abnormal. The conditions you've specified can be used to describe other groups of people we don't call abnormal, nor do we find the need to go >scientific purist< on them. We don't invoke statistical distributions, deviations, on them. It's just normal people who don't have children, can't have children, or already had children. So the point is not the hate, but why behave differently in a case of transvestites (or homosexuals); as you've mentioned. It's just normal people, who cross-dress, or prefer same sex. It's normal. It's just variation of normal.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (22) Dec 22, 2012
why are you attempting to find a reason to call this abnormal.


Homosexuality defines itself as abnormal in being counter to the mechanism nature has evolved in order to propagate the species. It's not about ME looking for ways to insult people.

I would be categorically against treating homosexuals with less dignity and humanity then others.

I'm only saying that teaching things that are counter to scientific fact, is propaganda and wrong.
NeutronicallyRepulsive
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 22, 2012
The incorrect assumption of yours is, that gay cannot reproduce, but they usually can. It's just that they prefer same-sex. Sure, they cannot reproduce via gay sex. Some people play with trains, some go jogging, and cannot reproduce via that either. Will you call them abnormal? What's your point again?
kochevnik
2.4 / 5 (14) Dec 22, 2012
This does not mean that it should be banned, or that it makes sense to be 'against' it,... but purely scientifically speaking, it should NOT be made-out to be normal.
WTF is so good about 'normal?' Did you aspire to normal grades in school?

Smells more of the typical conservative fear of the unknown.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (22) Dec 22, 2012
The incorrect assumption of yours is, that gay cannot reproduce, but they usually can. It's just that they prefer same-sex. Sure, they cannot reproduce via gay sex. Some people play with trains, some go jogging, and cannot reproduce via that either. Will you call them abnormal? What's your point again?


When I said above that 'nature conspires' to arrange some mechanism in order to propagate the species, I did not simply mean the biological reproductive system, but also that mechanism that causes one sex to be attracted to the other.

If nature simply relied on arbitrary choice we probably wouldn't have lasted millions of years, statistically speaking. So there must be some biological predilection hard wired in our dna for the opposite sex, which mst have become abnormally mixed up or not developed, in homosexuals.

@kocknevik, I'm speaking logically here on a science forum, save the emotional bed-wetting for your knitting class.
aroc91
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 22, 2012
NeutronicallyRepulsive, you're reading waaaaay too far into Noumenon's comments.
barakn
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 22, 2012
Noumenon is flat out wrong and also a disgusting individual. Now if the human species were one in which children were abandoned at birth, and humans were nothing but vicious to one another except during copulation (or perhaps even during), then he/she/it might have a point. But it so happens that we are a social species that help each other, especially those we are related to. A study of the fa'afafine, a class of gay men in Samoa, shows that they devote far more time and energy on their nieces and nephews than would straight people, but also only to their nieces and nephews, showing much less interest in helping those not related to them. And so despite Noumenon's fervent belief, upheld by no data, that homosexuality is simply some sort of mistake which not possibly confer any evolutionary advantage, we see that homosexuals increase the likelihood that their nephews and nieces, to whom they are closely related genetically, survive and thrive until adulthood and reproductive age.
barakn
3.4 / 5 (10) Dec 22, 2012
Ultimately Noumenon's posts are interesting, as we can see how the bigot twists science into pseudoscience to further his/her/its faith-based agenda, and perhaps is venting to relieve the pressure of fear, doubt, and self-loathing.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (18) Dec 23, 2012
And so despite Noumenon's fervent belief, upheld by no data, that homosexuality is simply some sort of mistake which not possibly confer any evolutionary advantage, we see that homosexuals increase the likelihood that their nephews and nieces, to whom they are closely related genetically, survive and thrive until adulthood and reproductive age.


I don't think you understand how evolution works. Why would you call me a "disgusting individual"? Please explain this odd emotional reaction,.. in light of me having already posted this,...

@kocknevik, I'm speaking logically here on a science forum, save the emotional bed-wetting for your knitting class.

It's not about ME looking for ways to insult people. I would be categorically against treating homosexuals with less dignity and humanity then others.

Don't be personally offended.

This does not mean that it should be banned, or that it makes sense to be 'against' it

Foundation
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 23, 2012
What's so wrong about gender neutral toys? It's true the gender difference for little kids is hugely marketed when it's not needed. The reason it's split like that is because the companies want to make more money.
50 years ago toys (and children's clothes) weren't all pink and blue, like plain wooden blocks. Was it so bad back then, was 'gender' totally broken down?
mrlewish
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 24, 2012
Only if I have a gender neutral child.
mountain_team_guy
2.4 / 5 (17) Dec 25, 2012
We don't need to debate someone else's sexual preferences. Don't bother me and I won't bother you. You raise your children anyway you see fit. If you want to raise your kids gender-neutral, good luck. If you want to raise your child to be gay, do what you think is best for your child. Leave me and my children out of it. Keep your social and political agenda out of my school and home.
FrankHerbert
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 25, 2012
Geokstr sure does hate them gays, lol.

Geokstr is a crazy racist/homophobe/fascist that I singlehandely all but drove from this site. He is reduced to nothing more than a shadow that gnaws at itself in the darkness.

He also runs a stamp counterfeiting ring. His real name is George Kopecky. Maybe if enough of us report him the Postal Inspectors will put him away for good.

Merry Christmas you sack of shit.
gwrede
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 25, 2012
It is perfectly normal for a pair to not have children. They inlcude (but, obviously are not limited to) him, her, or the particular mix of genes being infertile.

Depending on the population and its circumstances, it can be even extremely important that there are extra adults who can do chores, keep a look-out, or even tend to the others' kids.

Whether we should _force_ their genes into the next generation, is at the very least debatable, and _definitely_ not part of this toy-inginted thread.
Epsillon
3.2 / 5 (5) Dec 25, 2012
These arguments entirely miss the point of the article. Women are hardly a dominant force in the science and technology field. Hell, look at these comments. I have serious doubts anyone here is female. Contrary to what Noumenon believes, it is not a concerted effort to make everyone homo/asexual, but rather an effort to encourage promising talent at a young age to pursue whatever field they want, free of stereotypes such as 'women can't do math/engineering/join the army' or 'men shouldn't cook/dance/ clean the house'. These stereotypes are what are really holding back the virtuous side of capitalism, and become ingrained into kids at an early age. Maybe if regressives took a moment to think about how their antiquated views on gender are hindering the very economic system they seem to champion, the economy would be a bit better off.
ab3a
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 25, 2012
Speaking as a father of three, I can say without reservation that children gravitate toward gender specific roles very quickly. Gender neutral toys do not necessarily hurt or help.

I give my son a bunch of blocks and he'll build a tower to see how far he can go with it, and I can give my daughters those same blocks and they'll build gardens, houses, etc.

Making an easy bake oven gender neutral misses the point. The nature/nurture issue will never be totally clear, and it is highly probable that the answer is an interactive amalgamation of both.

The question we should ask is whether these sex roles are worth perpetuating or changing. By definition the liberal will seek to change them and the conservative will seek to keep them as they are. My question to both is to what end?

I have no problem with changing or keeping sex roles, but I don't want it to be thoughtless nonsense. Nobody is served well by Metrosexual men or Diesel Dyke women.
Husky
5 / 5 (2) Dec 26, 2012
hasbro bring on the pink plastic ak-47
ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 26, 2012
The contemporary people cannot see the forest for the trees, being flooded with trivial temporary informations. The unisex tendencies escalated at the end of 60's, when the world become richest per capita (do you remember the hippie movement and era of cosmic flights? They're related each other.). The lost Vietnam war and first large oil crisis has brought the world into decline, which returned the traditional division of gender roles back. It's elementary physics, my dear Watson - the society will remain homogeneous, until it remains rich. When it gets poorer, the spontaneous symmetry breaking occurs and the society will get into segregation like every physical system under cooling.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Dec 26, 2012
The contemporary world greatly expanded in size, so it faces the lack of resources. Therefore little girls are more sexists than their parents, because they see their future in gender biased "social-prostitute" roles (you know: acting, singing, modeling where women are consumed with masculine world). They don't dream about carrier in science or computer programming, like their parents did. Now the parents who had grown in the egalitarian society lack the gender neutral toys, which they used during their childhood, because the don't realize, the world simply changed and it returns back before 50's of the last century. It will remain so, until the cold fusion implementation will not start the new era of human civilization.
Traltizer
3 / 5 (2) Dec 26, 2012
@Mauricio and Lurker: What the hell are you guys talking about? Did you even read this article before you started spouting nonsense about hormaphrodites and government sponsored research on gender? This article is about a thirteen year old GIRL and her online petition to HASBRO. At no point does it mention hermpahrodites or any form of government funded research....Please read before you post diarhea.
tadchem
4 / 5 (2) Dec 26, 2012
The issues seems to be that of gender stereotypes, of which the original complainant is the most guilty party. What makes her think that boys might(?) have a problem with pink or purple toy ovens? My mother once owned a complete set of kitchen appliances described as 'avocado' green, for which I would have applied the color adjective 'bilious' green.
Husky
not rated yet Dec 27, 2012
it's funny that if you look at the old WWF videos, the hypermasculine machoman randy savage and the heart fammilly run around in neon yellow and pink suits and the people loved them, i guess you have to earn your male card first, before you can get away with that.