An Equality Authority report says toy marketers reinforce gender stereotypes, but it is looking through PC-tinted spectacles, writes Kate Holmquist
Certain institutions seem to be cryogenically frozen in 1979 - Status Quo, AC/DC, the Equality Authority. The strident, hectoring tones that the feminist movement wisely grew out of are revived in the Equality Authority's report, An Introduction to Gender Equality Issues in the Marketing and Design of Goods for Children, published this week.
It uses eye-glazingly academic phrases straight out of a wimmins' collective - "emphasised femininity" and "hegemonic masculinities" - to argue the case that TV advertising is bad for girls because it narrowly defines their genders.
There are lots of reasons why advertising is bad for kids, but gender-branding is hardly the worst. OK, so the Yorkie bar people took a risk and put "Not for Girls" on the label, consequently losing a lot of girl customers and perhaps gaining a few boys (though not if they have big sisters). Nobody knows what children think about their gender and how they want to be portrayed better than advertisers - who react to attitudes, rather than forming them. The notion that Barbie marketing should suddenly become gender-inclusive in an attempt to make boys think more like girls and vice versa is political correctness gone madder.
If children's voices were actually included in the report, we might take it more seriously. Yet the report not only ignores what children actually think, it also fails to mention a fairly major factor: DNA. Boys and girls are born different - so why should toy manufacturers that aim toys at either gender be expected to advertise to both? The report casts an adult eye on a child's world, stereotyping the child as a naive consumer whose vulnerable blankness can be imprinted by advertisers who seek to programme their genders by marketing Bratz dolls and tea-sets to girls and Lego and action toys to boys. If they'd actually watched the ads in the company of a typically cynical group of under-10s, they might have learned a thing or two.
Instead, the evidence collected by the authority comprises a literature review from 1979 through the 1990s; a visit to the toy, games and stationery aisles; a viewing of the 2006 Late Late Toy Show and an analysis of four hours of Saturday morning TV.
Scanty or not, this evidence is seen through the authors' own gender-sensitive, PC-tinted spectacles.
When the report says that, in the Yorkie bar packaging, "the stereotypical definition of male is suggested as being tough and chunky, sturdy perhaps, which in turn implies that women are weaker and less solid", one is tempted to add, so girls are Flakes then, are they? T-shirts that state "Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them" are blunt, but if you've been on a children's playground lately, you'll know that hating the opposite sex is a stage that children go through, because figuring out what gender they're not is as important to them as comprehending what gender they are.
THIS IS WHY we have pink dolls and Bratz with huge heads and exaggeratedly feminine features and clothes. They're imaginary, not real. Bratz dolls are assertive, multi-racial characters who take part in adventure sports and won't take nonsense from anyone - isn't that a good thing for children to be encouraged to imagine? But the authors find only what they're looking for, even attacking that sacred cow of family telly, the Late Late Toy Show. The report states that, in the 2006 programme, Pat Kenny "persistently reinforced stereotypes of gender in his short introductions and comments on the products shown. For instance, when looking at a particular children's product, in which a human skull is shown to 'ooze' slime, the presenter exclaimed, 'made for boys, I think'. This contrasted with his assertion that a dancing ballerina was 'going to be a big hit for girls'." Kenny is condemned for this banter -but just you try keeping a gender-correct conversation going while surrounded by toys and children in front of a studio audience. He is accused of representing "widespread stereotypical and limiting use of language, which creates clear distinctions between the genders, limits the potential and possibilities of girls and boys [ and] serves to undermine the objective of promoting gender equality."
RTÉ has roundly rejected this accusation, pointing out that in most cases the children who appear on the programme choose the toys that they want to demonstrate. This is, indeed, the entire point.
Boys and girls are hard-wired to be male or female; at least 50 per cent of our personalities, including our sexuality, is genetic. As any parent knows, the daughters in one family can be polarised into Barbie-lovers and pink-haters. Give a little boy a magic fairy wand to play with and he's likely to turn it into a sword in a millisecond. Boys' and girls' brains are different, points out best-selling family therapist Steve Biddulph in his books, Manhood and Raising Boys. Our failure to acknowledge this difference and celebrate masculinity is what's bad for boys. An advertising industry that encourages children to base their self-esteem on acquisition is bad for boys and girls, in his view.
The last thing boys need is to be given tea-sets and ironing boards - they'll get those soon enough when they grow up and realise that women don't serve dinner and iron men's shirts anymore.
WHAT DOES THE Equality Authority want? An amorphous, gender-free zone where children can pick and choose their gender identities? Children have probably never been more aware themselves of the fluid nature of gender-identification, as the popularity at Hallowe'en, earlier this week, of boys dressing as drag queens and girls dressing as pirates showed.
Speaking of pirates, Johnny Depp and Pirates of the Caribbean is so popular because it plays with children's increasingly flexible notions of gender in an inventive way. Captain Jack has long curly hair, jewellery, ruffles and a good heart - even though he can act like a pirate when necessary. Keira Knightly as Elizabeth Swann is a tomboy trapped in a dress, fierce when she wants to be and wearing leather breeches as often as not.
Toys and games increasingly reflect these ironies. The day that little boys start demanding Baby Borns for Christmas - rather than being content to play with a sister's dolls or dress up their favourite teddy - the manufacturers will surely respond.
The report does have a valid point in highlighting the disturbing popularity of the Playboy label for girls. Why any parent would buy a child a porn-related toy is hard to fathom and this complex issue of the sexualisation of children deserves further research - but not the sort that's stuck in the past.