revisiting gender identity.

It hasn’t been too long since I posted about the social roles of gender in our society, but the topic was brought up again in my Child Development lecture today. This time, however, the focus was more on toys and interaction. My professor put a toy magazine on the digital projector and we sifted through the pages as she pointed certain facts out. The first discussion regarded the label of tool sets and train toys as “male-oriented.” While it was obvious that society views tool sets as male toys, I found it interesting that among the many train models advertised, there was not a single girl model within the pages.

Turning the magazine further, we reached pages of cooking toys and sets. Not a single boy model among the toys. While tools and princesses are viewed more heavily as male and female toys, respectively, I had trouble understanding why trains and cooking sets would be marketed in this way. It’s a shame that children are subjected to this kind of “social swaying.” Additionally, while the concept of LEGOs might initially seem asexual, there are very few LEGO sets which might be considered to have a girl theme, if any at all. Same with Erector sets and all such building activity.

Further analyzing the consequences of this social construction, it is easy to understand how this might affect one’s development. Boys and males generally score higher on spatial tasks and show greater such knowledge in hands-on activity. Might this be a result of the types of toys that society deems appropriate for each sex? Perhaps future research on this topic will reveal more information. We shall find out.