The obsessive tendency for children to grow up in an increasingly politically correct world may come in handy even to an infinitely liberal and tolerant person. Favorite classics are issued without racist qualifications, the toys become gender neutral, and you have the feeling that the next step is for everything to be asexual, colorless and as gray as the Sofia landscape in November. Just so that no one is offended.
Is this really happening? Aren’t you tired of the tasteless shelves in the shops, overflowing with pink and blue plastic and the endless search for boys’ clothes that are not in black, blue or green? Is it possible to set a limit acceptable to all countries – both more conservative and more liberal? And don’t we instill in children stereotypes that they don’t need?
The issue of politically correct upbringing of children reached Bulgaria only around 2009, when it turned out that in the new edition of “Pippi Longstocking” Captain Longstocking was no longer “King of the Negroes” on the island of Korekoredut, but “King of the South Sea”. because it has been accepted for years that the word “nigger” is offensive.
The word was also removed from Huckleberry Finn, and in different countries they corrected their own children’s books in the respective new politically correct vocabulary.
For example, in Germany in the popular fairy tale “The Little Witch” for years there are no “Eskimos”. The argument that there is nothing racist in the books themselves and that they simply reflect the time in which they were written and allow for critical reading was not accepted. On the other hand, removing a word does nothing to change a whole classic.
However, attempts to impose “politically correct” toys are far behind in time.
As early as the late 1990s, Mattel, the manufacturer of the Barbie doll, decided to change it and give it a more politically correct look. Its new design had a wider waist, thinner lips and a smaller bust. “This gives it a more modern and natural look,” Matel explained at the time.
Many of the comments were that the company was ruining its own icon, the most successful toy in the world, and that by that logic, the next step was to put a mustache, cellulite and varicose veins on it.
However, the company’s decision was the result of growing criticism of the unreal-looking doll, which is a model of a stereotypical brainless woman with an unattainable appearance. And from here to a generation of anorexic girls with low self-esteem, the road is short.
However, this is not exactly political correctness. Mattel simply follows the mainstream, which began to change in the late 1990s – mothers do not want their daughters to consider a blonde sex bomb a role model. At the same time, they “deform” one of the dozens of Barbie models – the others do not gain weight.
Over the years, there have been a series of attempts at “politically correct” toys following a similar pattern – expanding beyond the classic stereotype to cover more niche markets.
As early as the 1970s, “different” dolls appeared. Matel itself launches a pregnant doll that carries a small baby in its womb and may even be born. Even if the idea is good, the performance is quite sinister, so the life of the doll is quite short.
In an attempt to help fight breast cancer, Matel is also launching a pink Barbie, the color of the campaign. But this Barbie has the classic gorgeous and chic look of the doll and has nothing to do with women who have to experience the terrible side effects of the battle with cancer.
The situation is similar with a company that wants to draw attention to premature babies. But the babies of “Koleko” are full and round and have nothing to do with the children struggling to survive in incubators.
In 2008, a company from the US state of Utah called “Obama’s Sock” launched a monkey with the appearance of Barack Obama. And from there they claim that they did not intend to compare a black man with a monkey, on the contrary.
Curious is also the case with “Matel”, which puts a dark-skinned Barbie in clothes with the “Oreo” logo in a joint marketing campaign. Without realizing that in the United States, “Oreo” is the name given to blacks who want to be white – like the milk filling of a dark biscuit.
Matel’s most revolutionary step at the moment, however, is since 2019, when the company launched the world’s first series of gender-neutral dolls.
They have different skin colors and each has two hairstyle options – short and long hair, as well as the corresponding clothes – jeans, shirts, shorts, baggy pants, sweatshirts and a neutral wardrobe, without anything bright, pink and shiny. The doll can be a boy or a girl, asexual or both – her lips are not too thick, her eyelashes are not too long and her jaw is not too wide. He has neither Barbie’s chest nor Ken’s shoulders.
The reaction is expected – the liberal part welcomes, the conservative finds another proof of the collapse of American society.
Well, the reason is probably far more prosaic again – a response to market demand.
For years, millennials have been annoyed by the pink-and-blue division of toys for their children and want more neutral options – such as girls building airplanes or doing chemical experiments – toys that are traditionally on boys’ shelves.
That’s why in 2015 in the USA “Disney” removed the labels for boys and girls from their costumes and so the girls can also dress as “Captain America”. Gradually, engineering games for girls began to appear, dollhouses became green or yellow instead of pink, and kitchen sets were white and without flowers and butterflies on them.
However, the new doll is something more. It was tested among 250 families, including 15 children, who identified themselves as trans, gender non-binary, or gender fluid. And this doll is for them too, Mattel explains to the Times.
And this group of children is growing. A study in California, for example, found that 27% of teenagers in the state identified themselves as sexually inappropriate, ie. do not meet the social role required of their gender. Another study claims that 35% of Generation Z – born between 1995 and 2015 – know someone who uses a gender neutral pronoun such as “they”, while in Generation X of those born between 1965 and 1980, the percentage is 16%. . The expectations are that the trend will be upward in the Alpha generation of those born after 2010.
This, along with children who just want to replace trucks with dolls, is a big niche market.
The idea that boys are born with a desire to play with trucks and girls with dolls is also debunked by science. A study by psychologists Lisa Dinela and Erika Weisgram found that when toys with wheels are colored white, ie. without the signs for boys and girls, they are chosen equally often by both sexes.
Removing such signs also helps boys and girls to play together, which is a social training for later in life, when men and women have to interact as colleagues and partners.
“If boys, like girls, are encouraged to acquire parenting skills by playing with dolls, they will also become more empathetic fathers who have more to do with raising their own children,” Dinela explains.
Especially with regard to boys, the attitude of parents is more conservative than with regard to girls. That is, it is easier for a parent to accept a girl to play with strollers, but not a boy – with dolls. For example, more than three-quarters of participants in a 2017 survey say it is good for parents to encourage girls to play with toys related to boys.
But when asked about the opposite – boys to play with girls’ toys, “for” are 64% of respondents.
The videos from the test groups for the gender neutral doll also show that the parents are not ready, the Times notes. Many of them confuse “gender” – the gender and role with which a person identifies, with sexuality, ie. to which sex are the sexual preferences of the person. They also mix “gender neutral”, ie. without a specific social gender role, with a “transsexual” – a person who changes his social sex, and subsequently sometimes biological.
Unlike their parents, Generation Z is much more likely to believe that a person should not be defined by gender, and will raise their children that way. And accordingly he will buy their favorite toys.
And the sharp division between boys and girls is actually relatively recent. Until the 1930s and 1940s, toys were again what we now call “gender neutral” – they were rarely marketed as boys ‘or girls’.
It was not until the 1940s that manufacturers realized that wealthy families would buy different toys, supplies and even clothes for children of different genders.
And so the idea of pink and blue toys and clothes was born. Then come the princesses and supermen and the messages behind them – the boys are masculine, aggressive and active, and the girls – gentle, passive and busy with children.
Analyzes of Lego sets show the same thing – boys emphasize building skills and professional skills, and girls – that girls should take care of others and be beautiful. That is, girls spend their childhood exercising to be beautiful, and boys – how to become what they want.
Well, Lego has learned a lesson. It has recently become clear that they are another big company focusing on more gender neutral toys.
Traditionally, Lego is used more by boys, but the company also develops products aimed at art and craftsmanship, which are specially designed for both boys and girls. The next step will be to promote more education and care, as well as creative thinking and problem-solving skills.
The “for boys” or “for girls” labels have been removed, as well as the ability to filter by gender in the Lego online store.
And again: Gender neutral means no gender, not encouragement to express a different gender. Such toys will not make boys girls and vice versa.
