When you think of Valentine’s Day as celebrated by children, what images come to mind? Pink and red hearts? Cute, fuzzy animals? Teddy bears?
How about ninjas wielding nunchuks?
This is one of the sticker puzzle Valentines that came home with my son today.
Not exactly Cupid and his bow, is it?
Images like this have become so normalized in the pop culture aimed at boys that no one even questions the messages they are sending.
Aside from the violent image and the text that signals what a “hero” is supposed to be, there is a subtext about emotional expression: Valentine’s Day is the one occasion where boys are supposed to share kind words and convey some feeling of friendship, yet even here the cultural imperative to be overtly and stereotypically masculine rules.
Critics will say I’m overreacting. I concede that one card is unlikely to permanently sway a boy’s attitudes toward gender, violence, and the definition of the word “hero.” But cards like this are another piece of the gender puzzle; part of the “environment of images” that shapes a boy’s view of what it means to be male.*
When it comes to selecting Valentine cards, kids often go for what is popular. Ninjago certainly fits that description, just as the equally violent Transformers did a couple of years ago.
But maybe instead of just going along, we adults should use cards like this to start a discussion with our sons about what the images and text actually mean, and whether the cards are the best choice for an occasion that is supposed to be about “love,” not war.
As anyone who writes a blog knows, part of the job of blogging is accepting and responding to criticism. I welcome comments and questions and have enjoyed many interesting conversations with people who have challenged something I’ve written.
But of all the criticisms I receive on this blog, there is one that really irks me: the assertion that my discussion of male gender stereotypes is just a thinly veiled plot to turn boys into “honorary women.”*
I was reminded of the intensity of this sentiment yesterday when someone posted a link to an appallingly misogynistic video in the comments of one of my posts. The video argued that feminism’s end game is the complete emasculation of men. Another comment on the same post claimed, sarcastically, that we should just let boys wear pink and purple (as if that is really a problem) and that we should go so far as to let men and women share the same bathrooms.
At no time have I ever advocated anything so ridiculous. Nor have I ever said that boys should be forced into so-called “feminine” behaviour. In fact, my argument is quite the opposite. I am asking that boys stop being forced into certain roles simply because they are boys. And the other “feminazis” (to quote that video) who work on the same issues as me have made the same argument.
The corollary to the “you want boys to become girls” argument is that I am denying boys’ nature; that, left to their own devices, boys will naturally prefer “boy things.” To this I say, “By all means, let nature take its course.” In other words, get out of the way. Keep your opinions about what a boy should do or should play with to yourself and see what happens. Yes, many boys will choose trucks and light sabers, but some will choose trucks and a doll, light sabers and a toy kitchen, or—gasp—pink and purple LEGO. And that is okay. There is no reason to think that a boy who doesn’t act “typical” of his gender is some kind of shameful aberration. He’s just a kid being a kid.
The discussion of kids and gender stereotypes is not about pushing children into gender-atypical roles just to prove a point. Nor is it about establishing female dominance over men. (As if!) Rather, it is about letting kids explore the world on their own terms without feeling that they are limited to certain activities, attitudes, and behaviours because of their sex.
We feminists have no hidden agenda. We just want to give our kids the freedom to be themselves.
References
*Nathanson, Paul and Katherine K. Young.Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture. Montréal: McGill University Press, 2001.
The LEGO Disconnect on Gender
As most readers of this blog know, there has been a huge uproar over LEGO’s newest product line, LEGO Friends. (Google it. You can’t miss it.) Regular readers might also know that LEGO has been one of my favourite targets for a while now.
Like the people protesting the LEGO Friends line, I have had visitors to this site tell me, in defense of the company, that: LEGO is a business; they need to make money; they are only making what sells; and it’s not their responsibility to tackle weighty issues like gender stereotypes. Fair arguments perhaps, but I would like to invite those individuals to read the Company Information section of LEGO’s website, then consider whether or not LEGO owes children a more balanced and thoughtful representation of gender.
Let me provide a few examples of what the company claims, juxtaposed with images from some of its marketing. Emphasis in bold text is mine. All images are from the LEGO website.
Caring and Learning
Learning is about opportunities to experiment, improvise and discover – expanding our thinking and doing (hands-on, minds-on), helping us see and appreciate multiple perspectives. (From The LEGO Brand.)
Hmm. Expanding kids’ thinking by telling them that pink and purple are for girls…
…or violent toys are for boys…
…or that the difficult work of saving the world is a job for “gentlemen…”
…or “boys” with big guns?
Caring is about the desire to make a positive difference in the lives of children, for our partners, colleagues and the world we find ourselves in, and considering their perspective in everything we do. (From The LEGO Brand.)
“Caring,” shown through positive, life-affirming imagery like this?
or this…
The Skrall, pictured above, are described as: “…arrogant, vicious, brutal, fear nothing and care about even less. They are incredibly skilled fighters, both with and without weapons. What they may lack in technique they make up for with sheer bludgeoning power and strength.”
Or the Heroica character below…
…whose character description reads: “SURGE, there’s been a breakout at the Hero Factory and we need your help recapturing them! We can’t leave anything to chance, so we’ve equipped you with a high-power electricity shooter, plasma gun and super-thick armour. Slap those cuffs on them and give them the shock of their lives!” Yikes!
Perspective
The word “perspective” is used twice in the passages from the LEGO Corporate pages that I cited above. For example, from the excerpt on “caring,” it says that the company considers the “perspective” of children, colleagues and partners in everything they do. And how do the images below affect a child’s perspective on gender?
Intergalactic Girl
(Note that she is a girl, not an astronaut or spacewoman, while her male counterpart, below, is a spaceman.)
Spaceman
The LEGO Friends, below, are hanging out…
… in contrast to the Alien Conquest soldiers, below, who are all male and ready to save the world.
Or how about the LEGO cheerleader, described in her bio as waving her pom-poms wildly whenever she talks, “which is pretty much all the time.”
Or, finally, one of my personal favourites…
LEGO’s Not Walking the Walk
All large companies are guilty of spinning public perception vis-a-vis their degree of corporate responsibility, but these words and images show the incredible disconnect between LEGO’s purported values and their actions. And they are marketing to children, let’s not forget.
How do corporate brand priorities like “caring” and “learning” mesh with violent, bludgeoning toys for boys and a pinkified world for girls, or the near-complete absence of girls from the playsets aimed at boys?
And what are boys learning about their place in the world through the messages sent by LEGO marketing? Aggression is a highly valued trait for boys. Girls don’t rescue, they get rescued. Boys can’t play with pink things, play houses, or restaurants– those are the domains of females. (Watch Feminist Frequency‘s latest video on this. They raise some amusing questions about what the men of LEGO City do when they feel tired or hungry, since there are no houses or restaurants in their town.)
I know that LEGO is not the only toy maker to trade on gender stereotypes but they are pretty intent on making themselves seem like a compassionate company with children’s best interests at heart. (By way of contrast, I checked the Mattel site–another toy maker known for its less-than-progressive views on gender. Their Corporate Responsibility page says nothing about “caring,” ”learning,” or the value of a child’s play experience. Its focus is more on safe play and ethical sourcing. Their code of conduct talks only about achieving success and employee integrity.)
So LEGO, to use a cliche, if you are going to talk the talk, you need to walk the walk. And sexist, violent, stereotyped imagery is not the way to do it.
#####
As an aside, I thought I’d add this bit from the LEGO site:
As corporate citizens in the local communities in which we operate, we acknowledge that we have a responsibility that goes beyond the value chain of our products. We truly appreciate our close stakeholder relationships, which influence our strategic decisions and give us valuable knowledge about the impact of our actions. (From Stakeholder Engagement)
We’ll see about that. To date, there has been no response to SPARK Summit‘s 50,000-name petition about LEGO Friends.
