Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1694859408607.pdf (Australia)
Play Unlimited Submission to the Inquiry into Domestic Violence and Gender Equality We would like to make a submission to the above inquiry with particular reference to point b: “the role of gender stereotypes in contributing to cultural conditions which support domestic violence, including, but not limited to, messages conveyed to children and young people in: i. the marketing of toys and other products.” Play Unlimited was founded in 2013 by Julie Huberman and Thea Hughes.
As parents we felt horrified by the consistent gender stereotyping we were confronted with when shopping online and in stores for children’s toys.

The aim of our organisation and the campaigns we have run (‘No Gender Stereotypes December’), is to work towards eliminating the segregation of toys along gender lines and to promote the idea that children should be encouraged to learn through the widest possible range of play experiences regardless of their gender.
We are also working to raise parents’ awareness of the narrowing impact gendered marketing can have on children’s perspectives about the toys, colours and activities that are acceptable to engage with as a ‘boy’ or a ‘girl’.
Children’s awareness of the separateness of ‘boy’s toys/books/activities/colours’ and ‘girl’s toys/books/activities/colours’ becomes absorbed as ‘knowledge’ and influences the choices children (and others) feel are socially acceptable to make, which in turn impacts their developing attitudes, emotional and cognitive development – as children and later as they grow into adults.
The World Health Organisation recognises the link between gender inequality in the community and violence against women and children.

Promoting gender equality is a critical part of violence prevention.

Children learn through play, and toys (and their marketing) are an important influence on their early development – including ideas of gender norms and stereotypes.

According to Wendy Varney, ‘Toys are among the earliest and most influential technologies with which children come into contact.
As such, they transmit to children, in concert with other cultural apparatus, particular views of gender relations, examples of appropriate behaviour, and character models.

Domestic violence and gender inequalitySubmission 35 They can also be a windows to broader phenomena extending beyond the toy-box.’ (Varney) The link between strong gender stereotypes in certain communities, and the prevalence of violence within those communities, has been well documented elsewhere, so we will not address it here.
Instead, we will focus on the role of toys and the marketing of toys in reinforcing gender stereotypes.

What do we mean by the term ‘gendered marketing’?
Gendered marketing intends to divide toys and other products into separate categories of ‘boys’ and ‘girls’ either explicitly by the use of labels on packaging, in printed catalogues and instore signage; as separate menu items on websites or implicitly using colour coding, product placement; repeat and consistent use of gender specific imagery (showing only girls/boys playing with the item) on packaging and in product advertising on television, in printed catalogues and online; in combination with use of ‘gendered language’ (beautiful, magical, dreams vs powerful, attack, explore for example).
Corporations and retailers are placing an emphasis on gender differences from birth when they begin separating toys and consumables, marketing them as being either ‘for boys’ or ‘for girls’.

Everything from nappies, bibs, ‘baby care’ kits to bedding, clothing, body wash, toothbrushes, vitamins, pencil cases, and money boxes - too many items to list – are being sold using gendered marketing.

Research shows that gendered marketing is now occurring at unprecedented levels.
Even in the 1950’s when gender roles in the adult world were more separate, toy marketing was far less gendered (Sweet).
Considering the impacts of gendered marketing We’ve all heard a child – or an adult – tell someone in the playground, park or shopping centre that ‘Star Wars is for boys’ or ‘Pink is a girl’s colour’ or any number Domestic violence and gender inequalitySubmission 35 of other stereotyped notions about what boys and girls like, can be, or do… Any actual differences seem to have been amplified as if on steroids, if we are to believe what the marketing presents to us.
Anecdotally parents tell us they’ve observed that boys and girls spend less time playing together than in the past.

Some parents believe it’s because they are taught they can’t share the same toys or interests, so they diverge more readily than in past generations, believing boys and girls are very different.

Boys distance themselves from anything ‘girly’ for fear of being teased, sometimes calling one another ‘girl’ as an insult – an expression of the belief that girls are in some way inferior.
What are the implications of this way of thinking?

And what message does this send to girls?

Retailers limit the options for everyone when they divide toys into categories of ‘boys toys’ and ‘girls toys’.

Worse than that, they use gender stereotypes reminiscent of the 1950’s to decide who gets what – anything to do with domesticity, beauty and nurturing is allocated to ‘girls’ while the ‘boys’ section contains toys which encourage action, violence, building and construction.
It is clear from observing gendered marketing over time, that there is a marked difference between the toys marketed to boys and those aimed at girls.

The experiences of children playing with ‘boy toys’ and with ‘girl toys’ will therefore be different.

This idea is also supported by research.

For example, in ‘Characteristics of Boys’ and Girls’ Toys,’ Blakemore and Centers state ‘We can see that toys do provide gendered experiences.
Girls are likely to have experiences with their toys that emphasize the development of nurturance and domestic skills… Girls are [also] likely to have experiences that emphasize the importance of attractiveness and appearance… Boys are more likely to have experiences with toys that are violent and aggressive and that involve competition, danger, risk, and excitement.

Indeed, violence in particular was one of the defining features of strongly masculine toys.’ (Blakemore and Centers).
The idea that there is an increasing ‘division of play experiences’ is also supported by the recent research undertaken by Let Toys Be Toys, a UK based organisation pursuing similar goals to Play Unlimited.
According to their research, ‘the language in ads featuring only boys was dominated by themes of mastery (control, power, build, explore) and conflict (battle, attack, weapons, kick, Domestic violence and gender inequalitySubmission 35 smash)…’; in contrast ‘key words used in ads featuring only girls focused on appearance and beauty (fashion, hair, style, accessories) magic and fantasy (magic, dream, make believe), and relationships (love, friends, friendship).’ (‘Who Gets To Play?
What Do Toy Ads On UK TV Tell Children About Boys' And Girls' Play?’).

These early experiences of domesticity/beauty vs violence and competition can shape the development of boys and girls along stereotyped lines that will carry on into their adult lives.

Blakemore and Centers go on to conclude that ‘…by playing with strongly stereotyped toys, girls can be expected to learn that appearance and attractiveness are central to their worth, and that nurturance and domestic skills are important to be developed.
Boys can be expected to learn that aggression, violence, and competition are fun, and that their toys are exciting and risky.” (Blakemore and Centers).

These stereotyped beliefs and behaviours contribute to cultural conditions supporting domestic violence.

In addition to perpetuating harmful gender stereotypes, strongly gender stereotyped toy marketing also emphasises the differences between boys and girls, rather than the similarities.
If boys and girls enjoy play experiences, develop skills and share interests together, they are more likely to be able to relate to one another later in life and respect each other as equals.

However, as Wendy Varney points out, ‘that toys carry such different fantasies for each gender ensures separate dreams, separate expectations, and quite different self-identities.
Successes in strong gender demarcation by toy manufacturers who have firm ideas as to what sells best to each gender reinforce for the industry notions that girls and boys are different, but they also promote that precise idea to children.’ (Varney) Academic and author Professor Christia Brown states, ‘Equity and justice are routinely denied to children because of the pervasive ways in which sexism affects children from birth onward across all the domains of their lives.
Sexism is expressed in childhood and adolescence in multiple ways from multiple sources.

Sexism is expressed through gender stereotypes, biased attitudes, and discrimination.

Stereotypes refer to particular attributes believed to characterize boys or girls as a group (e.g., the stereotype that girls can’t throw a ball well).
Although the attributes may be either positive or negative, stereotypes inherently ignore within-group Domestic violence and gender inequalitySubmission 35 heterogeneity and exaggerate between-group differences.

Sexism is also expressed through biased attitudes and prejudice.

This includes beliefs about what a boy or girl should or should not do (e.g., the belief that boys should not be cheerleaders), and the negative reactions directed at group members that violate those rules.
These prejudices can be explicit, such as when a boy is told, “Stop crying, boys don’t cry;” or they can be implicit, such as when a father automatically grimaces when his son picks up a doll.’ Professor Brown’s research publication (co-authored with Ellen A.
Stone) entitled ‘Gender Stereotypes and Discrimination: How Sexism Impacts Development’ includes reporting of research conducted with school students (primary and secondary) who identified and described their own experiences of sexism and gender stereotypes at school and in their young lives, along with describing some of the negative impacts they perceived to be related (Brown and Stone).
Research such as this illustrates that the impact of gender stereotypes is not simply a concern reserved for adults, but also a very real experience for children.

In conclusion, gendered toy marketing has been shown to perpetuate harmful gender stereotypes, which in turn plays a part in supporting the cultural conditions perpetuating gender stereotypes in the broader community.
A recent paper on the ethics and science of gendered toy marketing by Cordelia Fine and Emma Rush concludes that ‘existing data also suggest that GTM [Gendered Toy Marketing] increases stereotype-consistent toy preferences, in line with self-socialisation models and data showing that increasing the psychological saliency of a social category increases stereotyping and prejudice… GTM also emphasizes and reinforces gender stereotypes that contribute to stereotype-consistent interests, self-concepts, performance and self-efficacy beliefs, as well as intended and unintended biases in judging others.’ (Fine and Rush) Clearly, although it is just one piece of a larger puzzle, gendered toy marketing has negative and limiting effects on children and on our broader society in general.
We support the idea that a decrease in (or elimination of) gendered toy marketing would contribute to gender equality in society, playing a significant part in changing the cultural attitudes necessary to help reduce domestic violence.

Domestic violence and gender inequalitySubmission 35 References Blakemore, Judith E. Owen, and Renee E. Centers.

"Characteristics Of Boys' And Girls' Toys".

Sex Roles 53.9-10 (2005): 619-633.

Web.

Brown, Christia Spears, and Ellen A.

Stone.


"Gender Stereotypes And Discrimination".

Equity and Justice in Developmental Science: Theoretical and Methodological Issues (2016): 105-133.

Web.

31 Mar.

2016.

Fine, Cordelia, and Emma Rush.

“Why Do All The Girls Have To Buy Pink Stuff?” The Ethics And Science Of The Gendered Toy Marketing Debate".

J Bus Ethics (2016): n. pag.

Web.

25 Mar.

2016.

Sweet, Elizabeth.

"Toys Are More Divided By Gender Now Than They Were 50 Years Ago".

The Atlantic.
The Atlantic.

N.p., 2014.

Web.

31 Mar.

2016.

Varney, Wendy.

"Of Men And Machines: Images Of Masculinity In Boys' Toys".

Feminist Studies 28.1 (2002): 153.

Web.

"Who Gets To Play?

What Do Toy Ads On UK TV Tell Children About Boys' And Girls' Play?".

Let Toys Be Toys.

N.p., 2016.

Web.

29 Mar.

2016.

Domestic violence and gender inequalitySubmission 35