Here is the now famous 1981 Lego ad entitled, "What it is/is beautiful," side-by-side with my own ad which says, "What it is/is still beautiful." The girl on the right is my daughter (with her fresh new hair cut!) holding her Legos. She put those together and I took a picture of her with her creation--she looks just as happy and proud as the girl on the left. This is who she is--a kid who likes to build, use her imagination, and doesn't have to be told what it is to be a girl. She already knows.

So, take a look at these two pictures and ask yourself, what has changed between 1981 and today? 

They are pictured here in PFZ's "Girls Are Important" tees which were created, in conjunction with the nonprofit organization, SHARE, to emphasize the global imperative to raise girls up in order to improve the lives of girls and women everywhere.]

Linden, Cousin Olivia, and Mason in their "Girls Are Important" tees

Today I brought my boys, Linden, age 7, and Mason, age 4, to karate class for sparring.  My karate class. They watched for an hour and cheered me on while I sweat, got punched and kicked by men and women, did a little kicking and punching myself, and wore goofy looking protective gear. They especially got a kick out of my helmet and lovely mouth-guard.  They started taking karate at the studio quite some time ago; they both liked it, but then decided that gymnastics was more their thing.  But before they quit, I joined in to show solidarity--I wanted to bond with them. After they decided to leave, however, I didn’t want to stop. I loved it. As it turns out, it is my thing!  

When I asked the boys what they thought of me taking karate classes, they said, “That’s cool--karate is for everyone.” That’s what I wanted to hear. In fact, that’s what I teach them all the time: Anyone can do anything they want to do, regardless of gender.   

We spend time with lots of different kinds of friends with different kinds of households. Many are like ours--stay at home moms, and dads that work outside of the home. Mainly middle class families. I always like to discuss family dynamics with the kids whenever the opportunity arises. When we spend time with T and G, for example, I always comment to the kids about how cool it is that T and G’s dad stays at home and raises the kids, while mom works. When I ask the kids their thoughts about this they say, “That’s cool - their parents are really nice.”   

I also like to tell my kids what other parents do for a living as well as in their free time.  For instance, C’s mom is a graphic designer who owns and operates her own business. I like to point out how fantastic that is. She also dances ballet in her free time.  But my little one, Mason, said, “ I love dancing - but not ballet.”  “Why not ballet?” I ask. He says, “because ballet is for girls.” I promptly pull up a picture online of Mikhail Baryshnikov dancing ballet. Whenever either of the kids say anything like, “That’s only for girls," or "that’s only for boys,” I quickly find an example for them that puts that notion to rest.   

Recently, I  asked Linden what he thought about girls and boys in general. He told me this: “Crazy commercials make you think that stuff like dinosaurs and super heroes are only for boys.  But girls can play with whatever they want, even dinosaurs and super heroes.  It’s a choice you make--not something someone chooses for you.”  

Mason added, “... and farts. Farts are not just for boys--you are a girl and you fart.” (It’s true. I am and I do.)

Linden continued, “Girls are really important because they have babies. Without girls, none of us would be here.” I made sure to explain that boys are just as important because girls can’t have babies without boys, and just as important--girls and boys both raise children and take care of them.  I emphasize the fact that boys and girls are both important.  Not one over the other.  

I asked the boys, “What would you say if I told you that some people don’t think that girls are as important as boys?” I told them that some girls don’t think they are as important as boys. "Did you know that?” I asked.  

Linden said, “That is very sad. We should try to change that. Everyone is important.”

Mason chimed in, “Houses are important because boys and girls need them to live in.” Then he pinched my nose and skipped along his merry way.  

I am doing my best to raise boys that will turn into positive, confident, healthy, well-adjusted, compassionate, intelligent, happy men that contribute in a positive, healthy way to society. I don’t want my kids to grow up looking at the world through a hole in the fence.  I am going to tear down the fence and make sure my kids grow up with a panoramic view. 

Lisa Budish Boggs is 38 years old.  She earned her bachelor's degree in psychology from Worcester State College in Massachusetts in 1996.  She worked for ten years as a social worker in Mass. and in South Florida before she became a stay at home mom in the suburbs of Atlanta, Georgia.    

As so many of you know, there has been a massive movement to help Lego see how their attempt to reach 50% of their market (girls) by developing the now familiar Lego Friends line has possibly ...probably...definitely missed the bullseye. 

Spark (Sexualization, Protest, Action, Resistance, Knowledge), the amazing activist group and watchdog for girls, now has 51,000 signatures on a petition that they started in order to send the message to Lego that there are many, many people who are dissatisfied with the gender status quo that Lego Friends represents. 51,000 SIGNATURES! That just seems like too many to ignore, doesn't it? As has been pointed out, this number is well beyond the amount of signatures that precipitated the pulling of JC Penney tee (within two hours of the petition going up) that said "I'm too pretty to do homework so my brother does it for me"), as well as the "Allergic to Algebra" Forever 21 tee.

Spark, along with other contributors, has sent letters and requests to meet with Lego to discuss these issues. Specifically, "SPARK is asking LEGO to move forward in its gender representation instead of backward. By including more equitable gender representation across its line of products, instead of aiming marketing campaigns only at boys or only at girls, LEGO can increase the number of kids playing with its products, reduce the likelihood of gender-based bullying and inspire more girls to pursue STEM fields." [my italics] Gee, wouldn't that be great? Doesn't this seem like a win-win proposal? However, to date, Lego has not responded. 

Everyone is now left asking, why are they engaging in avoidance? Why does Lego refuse to meet with those who actually believe in and purchase their product? What is the issue? Posing these questions, I thought I'd go deep and think about some of the possible reasons why Lego has not agreed to a meeting:

1) They simply hope that by ignoring all of us, the whole thing will go away (the old "stick your head in the sand" ploy).

2) They are self-centered and narcissistic and believe they are right, no matter the cost.

3) They think that 51,000 is a teeny tiny number.

4) They believe their sales are just fine and don't care about about whether they see an increase or not.

5) They think any publicity is good publicity.

6) Crisis management is not their thing.

7) They don't want to admit that four years of "research" may not really have told them what they needed to know about girls and they do not want to go back to the drawing board.

If you couldn't tell, I believe number seven (7) may be a large part of the reason. But I have some good news for Lego--the drawing board is not that complicated at this point, and will not require another four years of intense research because the research has been done for them. I repeat--fifty-one thousand signatures! In addition, there have been hundreds of articles in syndicated newspapers, blogs and tons of media attention in general. Too much work and thought has gone into this movement for Lego to ignore what's happening and there is too much at stake. 

If Lego is savvy (and I know they are), they will look at this as an opportunity to GAIN sales. To tell the world that they recognize that girls should naturally be a part of their ENTIRE marketing strategy along with boys. Of course, they should keep the Lego Friends line, but not make it the center piece of their "get girls interested in Lego" plan. Some girls will like it. I know that some boys will like it. It should simply not be the only path for girls to choose.

I started Princess Free Zone because of my own daughter who did not fit into the specific gender box everyone wanted to put her in. I wrote a book that addresses bullying based on gender stereotypes. Lego needs to know that, while their initial intentions may have been pure and innocent--hoping to do the best for girls--they have simply added to the already numerous mixed messages kids absorb about gender by promoting existing stereotypes. Sadly, even Lise Eliot, author of "Pink Brain, Blue Brain," in the intial article from Business Week that introduced the new product for girls, said, “If it takes color-coding or ponies and hairdressers to get girls playing with Lego, I’ll put up with it, at least for now, because it’s just so good for little girls’ brains.”

Perhaps this is the most frustrating thing of all--that girls are being underestimated and consistently thrown into the pink box. There is so much more to girls, but we need to show them that we believe that. Let's give them equal opportunities--to build, create, and imagine. This is the crux of the issue that must be addressed--and must be changed. So the message to Lego is a postive one: You CAN do this! Rest assured, we are not going away until you do.

Lately, I've been thinking a lot about language and how it has so much influence with respect to gender expectations and perceptions. Much of what I discuss and am concerned with has to do with allowing children the freedom to make their own choices. That can be difficult when the language they hear is restrictive. If I could, I would completely delete certain sayings/phrases from our lexicon. Specifically, I'd be happy to never hear or see again:

• Girls just like princess/pink.
• Boys are better at math and science.
• You can't play with that--that's a boy/girl toy.
• Boys don't wear, and shouldn't like, pink.
• Boys don't cry.
• Girls are more emotional than boys.
• Girls who play sports are tomboys.
• Boys who play with dolls are sissies.
• To a boy: "Be a man." or "Man up!"
• To a girl: "Let me do that for you."
• Girls are sweet. Boys are strong.
• Girls are pretty. Boys are smart.
• You can't do that because you're a girl/boy.

Not only are these phrases spoken, but they're blatantly implied everywhere you turn. Take a close look when you're in toy aisles, for instance, and you'll see these messages reinforced on product packaging, advertising, and signage. My colleague, Crystal Smith, of Achilles Effect created "word clouds" based on marketing language used for girl and boy products. Here's what she came up with--note the differences between words related to boys (above) and girls (below).

The differences are jaw-dropping. According to this, boys are active and girls are passive. From a marketing perspective, it's not difficult to see how Lego's research found that girls prefer "beauty" over "mastery" when we look at these collections of words. Children become what they see and hear. If this is what they are exposed to on a daily basis, it's not surprising that they quickly learn what boys and girls can and can't do, as well as what they like and don't like.

In a fantastic post on Role/Reboot, Ray Watterson discusses how language is practially synonomous with who we are and how we perceive the world around us: "...we learn to be ourselves from our relationships, first with our parents and family unit and then with the rest of the world, through language." In other words, we cannot separate language from who we are. We all know that language is directly related to social and psychological development. Language is powerful and has the capability to hurt, destroy, devastate, isolate, alienate, and separate. But it can also be a positive force enabling self-confidence and self-esteem. I don't need a linguist or psychologist to tell me that. I have a little girl who understands gender language and often wonders how it does and/or doesn't apply to her. I've seen her confusion when kids have asked her, "Why do you play with boy stuff?" or "Why do you dress like a boy?" I don't want that for her--or for any child. 

So, what would happen if children grew up without such strict definitions of what it means to be a girl or boy? Do you think they would be more or less likely to reach their true potential? I'm sure we all tell our children that there are no limits to what they can achieve, but we send mixed messages by engaging in specific gender speak that tells them otherwise. With language comes responsibility--I mean, you wouldn't tell your child, "you're stupid" everyday, would you? Because you know that eventually they would believe it. This is not about taking away what it means to be a girl or boy. It is about realizing how words can make a difference. And that starts with us.

It was only a matter of time before I wrote about Shiloh Jolie-Pitt. You see, when I first saw the photos of Shiloh in her ties, hats, and high tops, I was thrilled. Shiloh was one of the first kids I identified with regarding my own daughter, Gabi, who seemed to be the spit and image of this little girl. And it truly made me see that girls like Shiloh and Gabi are not anomalies. In fact, I have discovered countless girls who are just like them. 

But take a look at the articles that come up when you do a Google search for "Shiloh Pitt":

"Shiloh Pitt...from a doll to a boy?

"The Real Reason Shiloh Jolie-Pitt Wants to Be a Boy"

"Shiloh Pitt - the tomboy girl"

"Shiloh Jolie-Pitt Wants to Be a Boy!"

"Are Angelina Jolie and Brat Pitt Turning Shiloh Into a Boy?"

We can certainly deduce from these titles, that there is, in fact, a tremendous amount of cultural angst related to anyone, especially children, who do not adhere to preconceived ideas of what each sex should look and act like.  But take a look at these girls:

Yes, they are girls. Not tomboys, not girls trying to be boys. Just girls--being who they are. They knew who they were before anyone had the chance to tell them that they weren't supposed to wear these kinds of clothes, or dress up like warriors with swords and shields instead of princesses with tiaras and wands.

But it's a good thing they have their swords and shields because they face situations in which they have to defend themselves; now, and especially as they get older, they will have to continue to fight the notion that somehow they are not being girls. We know because, from the very second that Shiloh was seen in public, she became a media target for dissecting gender--mostly, from a negative perspective. Fortunately, Angelina Jolie made it quite clear that she will allow her daughter to make her own choices: "I would never be the kind of parent to force somebody to be something they are not. I think that is just bad parenting... Children should be allowed to express themselves in whatever way they wish without anybody judging them because it is an important part of their growth. Society always has something to learn when it comes to the way we judge each other, label each other. We have far to go."

We do have a long way to go--on many levels. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who think that boys and girls are preternaturally determined to have very specific roles, likes, and dislikes. If I had a dollar for every time I heard, "girls just like princess," I would probably have enough money for my daughter's college tuition (and an eternally clenched jaw). But what does that say to girls like my daughter? If "girls just like princess and pink," how is my child supposed to process her uniqueness? Her unbelievable individuality? When we, as a society, make those kinds of statements, we put children in very vulnerable positions because they internalize those messages and, in-turn, begin to act upon them. Undoubtedly, how we discuss gender in terms of language is problematic. For instance, when a magazine article focuses on a father's (Brad Pitt's) worry that his child might be "ridiculed" for cutting her hair short (whether it is true or not), it is only corroborating those stereotypes making it that much harder for kids to be who they are without fear of being ridiculed or bullied.

There are some glimmers of hope that a wave of resistance to the status quo is beginning to have an impact. With all of the negative publicity and media attention, there are counter voices being heard as well. Recently, a blog post from the website, The Stir, entitled "Shiloh Jolie-Pitt Wants to Be One of the Boys But That Doesn't Make Her One" caught my eye. In the article, Sasha Brown-Worsham says "...maybe she [Shiloh] does like short hair and maybe she does want to be 'just like her brothers,' but there are hundreds of ways to be a girl and maybe this is Shiloh's. I missed the memo where girls were supposed to wear dresses, have long hair, and only go by uber-femme names in order to be considered female." Worsham points out that labeling girls as "tomboys" continues to perpetuate the idea that girls can't be "girls" if they like sports or short hair. The same goes with boys, of course, who are at risk for being called "girly" or "sissy" if they like pink and sparkly things.

And, while Shiloh and Gabi will probably never meet, I will show Gabi pictures of her. I often show her photos of kids like her so that she won't ever think, "I wish I was a boy," or question being female. She needs to look around and know that she does fit in--that she is not defined by a stereotype or a generalization. In fact, everyone needs to see more kids like Shiloh and Gabi (who, by the way, is having her hair cut next week.) because, put simply, there is no right or wrong way of being a girl or boy. It is important that we start letting kids know this.

There are many interesting points to be made about this ad. First of all, the tagline is very clever. "Chevy Runs Deep" allows for some subliminal meaning and depth particularly in this context. It reminds us of the phrase, "emotions run deep," only the word "emotion" is replaced with "Chevy" allowing for the connection between the two. It seems to me that they have done a good job depicting a father/son relationship and the emotional bond between them. We see how the son's "play" parellels the father's day. The surprised look of joy on the little boy's face as the toys are suddenly dropped upon the realization that "Dad is home" provides that heart tug. (My daughter does the same exact thing-- only she usually squeals.) 

But the father/son thing has been done before in ads. What's different about this is that it takes us on a journey we're not used to seeing with boys. In this commercial, we see a little boy, probably around six-years-old, playing with his big truck, while we get a glimpse of an array of toys that run the gamut from Monkeys In a Barrel to Mr. Potato Head. He is guiding his truck through the maze of toys pretending that he has just left work, saying to the guys, "Great job team!" and "I'm heading home." Along the way home, he encounters a host of obstacles which include his very complacent dog. Within seconds we get a glimpse of the entire terrain. We see that the "home" he refers to is a dollhouse. Then we see a flash of--OMG--PINK, as he hitches what looks like a Barbie trailer to the truck. He passes a cute doll asking her, "You need some help, m'am?" to which she says, "Oh, thank you!" Finally, he arrives at the house where, waiting for him outside, is his wife (who does not appear to have been baking cookies all day)--a Lara Croft Tomb Raider action figure--who says, "Hey Honey, glad you're home."

Not your typical mom

The second I saw this commercial--I thought, "Well, this is different." I don't have any doubt that the creative team for Chevrolet's ad agency really thought about gender when putting this commercial together. They had to know that they were taking a risk by showing a boy playing with "girl" toys--especially given their target market. Reading some of the comments under the video on YouTube support this. One of the first comments was: "What the hell is wrong with that kid? Boys don't play house, not alone at least. When little boys play with cars, those cars fly. When little boys play with dolls, those dolls generally break through walls and stuff. I'm pretty sure this kid will grow socially awkward...kid that cuts himself. He will drive that Chevy off a bridge." Nice, huh? Shows you the mindset that thinks that by introducing pink to a boy, for instance, you'll "turn him gay." But this is often the response when kids, especially boys, are shown doing something that seems counter to what is considered "normal" gender behavior. Remember the J. Crew ad in which a mom is seen painting her son's toenails pink that took to the airwaves likes a tsunami?

I posted the Chevy video on my FB page as an example of a company thinking outside of the standard gender box. Although many really liked it, there were some who thought either it didn't go far enough in terms of breaking down gender stereotypes, or that it was still adhering to traditional images with regards to girls and women. For instance, the insertion of standard go-to females such as the cute little doll who needs help from the strong man, the wife (who is scantily clad) waiting for the husband to come home, were perceived as negative images...but I think these are small issues compared to the more progressive aspect of showing a young boy mixing up his toys. Some companies have tried, like the Tide commercial that features a prim and proper mother who seems a bit ambivalent toward her rough and tumble daughter, but missed the mark on the gender front. Conversely, Chevy offers something authentic with this ad. 

Nonetheless, I do believe that the underlying message and unorthodox inclusion of pink and dolls outweighs the criticism. Let's remember, the ad is selling trucks to mostly grown men. But don't adults need to see this kind of gender bending just as much as kids? Of one thing I'm certain: Chevy certainly did not have to go this route. Of course, the commercial is not earth shattering in terms of busting stereotypes, but the ad could have simply shown a boy playing with all of his very tough and gritty toys--or perhaps the boy might have shown a rougher side by casting aside the more girly toys. And you can see that this young boy is actually very sweet. Now, if we could get toy companies to take this route and show kids playing with a variety of toys--perhaps girls in race car commercials, or boys in Easy Bake Oven ads--we'd be getting somewhere. But for now, I'll take Chevy's small step, because it does exhibit progress and who knows? Maybe others will take notice and follow suit. After all, small steps are how big change is made.

by Michele Yulo

There are many wonderful organizations that work to improve the lives of women and girls around the world, but I think that, often, as individuals we ask, "What can I do? I'm just one person." It's easy to feel helpless when it comes to these overwhelming issues that require tremendous resources. And so you might also ask yourself: "If I want to help by making a donation, how do I decide which charity?" or, "If I want to focus on service, how do I decide which way is best for me?" 

Sometimes, it takes a spark of inspiration--that one little thing that moves you to action. A few months ago, I posted this picture on my Facebook page that I had shared from SHARE.org's Facebook page. Underneath the picture was written, very simply: "I am a girl. I am important." I was so emotionally struck by the photo of a smiling, seemingly happy, young girl with a beautiful bright smile. But the words had a greater impact. "I am a girl. I am important." To me, this sentiment is at the very core of what has become a global imperative to raise girls up out of extreme situations that not only negatively impact girls and women, but everyone around them. The very fact that it needs to be said is somewhat disheartening, but the message must be recognized and rallied around in order to create the change that is desperately needed to make the world a better place. After seeing this photo, I knew I wanted to do something.

SHARE was founded by an amazing young woman named Shannon McNamara. SHARE stands for Shannon's After-school Reading Exchange. She and her organization are doing incredible things in parts of Africa to empower girls, and all children, by providing reading programs, books, and libraries to communities that lack these necessary links to education--especially for girls. Here is Shannon on the Nate Berkus show speaking about her experiences and why she felt the need to create SHARE.

Sadly, around the world, girls are undervalued, underestimated, uneducated, used, abused, and ignored. Research shows that the plight of girls is directly linked to many of the world's problems like hunger, economic disparity, and disease. Inevitably, helping girls and women in various ways can have a tremendously positive impact; one way to do this is through efforts to improve education.

Indeed, education is one of the keys that can unlock the lives of girls everywhere and bring prosperity and improvement to many global communities. Hillary Clinton, speaking at UNESCO's Global Partnership for Girls' and Women's Education last May, said "...we know opening the doors of education to women and girls is not just the right thing to do; it is also the smart thing as well. The evidence shows conclusively that even one extra year of schooling leads to significantly higher wages for women and girls, which allows them to lift up themselves, their families, and contribute to their communities and countries."

I am an avid reader of Nicholas Kristof, of the NY Times, who writes frequently on the plight of girls and women in parts of the world that many of us have never been to. He relays gut-wrenching true stories of young girls who have experienced things that are just unimaginable. Through his columns, we also learn about girls who are incredibly strong and willing to undergo extreme hardship, often just to learn. An article in the NY Times called "The Women's Crusade" speaks to some of these stories of women who have endured horrifying situations only to rise up and make their situations better. Based on the book Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide by Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn, the article opens by saying that "[t]here’s a growing recognition among everyone from the World Bank to the U.S. military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff to aid organizations like CARE that focusing on women and girls is the most effective way to fight global poverty and extremism. That’s why foreign aid is increasingly directed to women. The world is awakening to a powerful truth: Women and girls aren’t the problem; they’re the solution." [my italics]

So, this is my contribution, inspired by a smiling little girl in Africa--a t-shirt bearing the message "Girls Are Important" that can be worn by everyone; and from which a portion from the sale of each shirt will be going directly to SHARE, so that they can continue their good work. I am hopeful that even this small effort can make a difference and allow others to feel that they are helping as well. Because, as Laurie Mazur says, in her article, "Of Rights and Resilience: Why Women’s Rights are Key to Thriving in the Age of the 'Black Swan,'” "...no nation can afford to squander half of its human capital." Princess Free Zone wants to be part of a movement that makes sure that doesn't happen. And, while we shouldn't even have to say it, until all girls are treated as important--until we can be sure that all girls enjoy basic human rights and are treated with equal respect--the message must continue. Because girls are important. To everyone, everywhere.

Click here to purchase the "Girls Are Important" t-shirt or click on the link under "Shop"

My daughter and her tool beltMy character, Lula, ready to build

IF YOU GIVE A GIRL A TOOL BELT

She will learn what each tool does.

She will learn to take things apart.

She will learn to build.

She will learn to fix.

She will learn how to measure.

She will understand how things work.

She will know that she is capable.

She will be empowered.

She will dream bigger.

My daughter has had her own tool belt since she was three and a half years old. She demanded a real one made of leather. We brought her to Home Depot and let her pick one out. It was way too big for her little body, but we got it for her and adjusted it to fit. When she first started wearing it, the hammer hung down to her knee making it difficult to walk. She didn’t care.

On many days, she says, “I want to build something.” Then she and my husband, who is a carpenter, head to the garage, set up the sawhorse, grab a plank of wood that is always available, and go to work. This last time, she helped to build a shelf for our music studio. She chose the color stain and stained it.

In my opinion, this is one simple way to provide girls with broader interests and skills that can serve them throughout their lives. It doesn't seem a stretch to say that, perhaps, if we encourage girls to tinker from a young age, we might see the problem with a lack of women in STEM careers begin to dissipate. I do know this: I wish someone had given me a tool belt when I was little.

Someone sent me this video. It's a Saturday Night Live skit from 1997 doing what it does best--parody something that is utterly ridiculous and inane. In this case, it is making fun of the way that little girls are marketed to. 

The girled-up chess set has pieces that are adorned in gowns (that open up to reveal a bathing suit for those quick trips to the beach!), the queen has a long, blond, braided ponytail and, of course, there is an abundance of accessories including a van and a baby. As I sat there howling, my daughter, who was also watching, seemed confused. She asked, very seriously, "is it real?" Well...

Unfortunately, the hilarity of the sketch does not outweigh the sad truth, which is that companies think girls cannot be interested in a toy, game, or doll unless it is pinkified, glitzed, coated with sparkles, and entails puppies, cupcakes, or princesses. The SNL sketch was from 1997--perhaps they didn't know how bad things would be in 2012. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a chess set like this on the market at some point. Oops...

When you have a little girl, like I do, who does not like typical girl stuff, but instead longs to have all the Star Wars sabers, Matchbox cars, superhero costumes, and every other "boy" toy she can get her hands on, you gain perspective much like a sixth sense. Once that sense is activated, you never see things the same. It's as if a veil is lifted and suddenly you are privy to just how much specific gender identification drives the various children's industries--clothing, toys, videos, etc. Prior to this, you are like a hypnotized subject who is told, "when you see pink, you will see female," and, "when you see blue, you will think of boys." We have been made to believe this is just a natural expression of each gender. Of course, it is not. But when is someone going to clap their hands so we can snap out of it?

What irks me the most is how easy it would be for companies to make very small changes that would allow kids (and adults) to see that there is no such thing as a "girl" or a "boy" toy. For instance, my six-year-old daughter decided to buy an Air Racer X car. It is a remote control hi-tech car that works from an app that can be downloaded to any Android or iPhone. The app allows the phone to become the steering device. Pretty cool, huh? She thought so--and decided that was what she wanted to buy with some of the Christmas money she'd received. I went online to check out their site and found this video that shows two boys playing with the cars. As my daughter and I watched, I wondered why they simply could not include a girl in the video. I thought about my daughter who constantly sees only boys in commercials and ads playing with the toys that she often plays with. I've often wondered what effect this has on her in terms of how she places herself in a world that tells her she is excluded from such play. According to all that she sees, she should, instead, be playing with something like the Easy Bake Oven. This becomes clear when you see the commercial which consists of six young girls dressed in pink shirts with pink aprons dancing and being cutesy while having fun happily baking cookies as their approving mother (also in pink) looks on.

Even the Easy Bake Oven itself is pink--let's face it, no boy is going to want to play with a pink oven. We have made sure of that. 

Take a look at commercials for Bakugan and Lego Ninjago--both of which my daughter owns. Not a girl present in either. Not one!

And the latest brouhaha over Lego's latest decision to appeal to girls by adding girly mini-figs (short for mini-figures) in a host of overtly feminine options like building a hair salon just shows that we are simply traveling deeper and deeper into a land in which there is a severe line drawn between boys and girls. [While Lego continues to say that their products have always been available to girls, they have openly admitted that they have only marketed them to boys.] 

Even science kits for kids have become separated by gender. I think this is one of the saddest examples of gender stereotyping out there. The one for girls is called the "Spa Science Kit" and focuses on those things that supposedly interest girls...you know, like perfumes, and oatmeal masks, and bath gel--because this is the only way to get girls interested in science. Janet Stemwedel, a blogger for Scientific American, put it best in her article, "Some reasons gendered science kits may be counterproductive". She says, "Here, the folks marketing science kits for girls are making the assumption that all girls are the same. Assuming that young females are a monolithic group — especially one whose interests you perceive to be so narrow — means you are bound to alienate the girls who don’t fit your stereotype."

However, not only is all of this marketing problematic because it assumes sweeping generalizations about boys and girls, but because it ultimately affects how children interact with each other. My daughter has often been asked why she likes to play with boy things and has caused her, at times, to question her identity--all because she'd rather dress as a fireman than a princess. This is what we are doing to children.  

Company's marketing departments and ad agencies want us to believe that boys battle and build and girls bake cookies and make soap. But my little girl prefers to battle and build. And I know for a fact that there are plenty of other kids out there who defy these stereotypes because all girls and all boys are not the same. I just cannot believe there isn't a single person at any of these companies who doesn't think that a girl might want to race a car or a boy use an oven. Is it too much to ask that they simply insert a boy in a baby doll commercial and a girl in a Bakugan or Lego commercial? I want my daughter, and other girls, to see themselves playing right alongside the boys. The same goes for boys who should see themselves happily baking right alongside the girls. There is no reason I can come up with that this can't and shouldn't happen. Even the idea that profit has been the motivating factor behind gendered marketing doesn't seem like an impediment. The only difference would be in how sales are distributed; it wouldn't necessarily have to mean less in terms of profit.

Perhaps the most recent phenom, Riley (who by now you've probably seen many times), the little girl who angrily rants about how companies just don't understand that girls can like superheroes and boys can like princesses, will actually have some affect--maybe it will break the hypnotic spell we're under as a society. Because there's absolutely no reason for it and no reason we can't change it. We just need to snap out of it.