If you’ve been on this earth 4-5 years or longer, you’ve no doubt heard of Barbie Doll or G.I. Joe. . .many of you probably even own(ed) one. Perhaps for some, your country doesn’t(didn’t) actually have the “official” Barbie or G.I. Joe, but undoubtedly it has(had) something very similar in concept: A young, hip, beautiful female or a strong, tough, “bull-dog” of a warrior-male.

 You are all intelligent; you can see where this conversation is going.  And it begs the question: Do these toys, a reflection of overall society, represent an unattainable persona, both physical and otherwise, that children are socialized to believe they need to achieve in order to fit in ?

One view of things is to say, “No.”  These are simply toys.  Yes, when toys are created they do to tend to follow certain gender characteristics and usually support cultural gender roles to some degree, but ultimately, they are just toys for entertainment, not some deviant plot to brainwash children.

If this be the case, these toys offer many positive “lessons.”  Barbie and similar dolls appear to be successful, put-together, capable of social interaction and of a cheerful disposition.  G.I. Joe and other related action figures offer confidence, leadership, and a “can-do” attitude. It could be fair to say that these are universally beneficial attributes, even if they take on their own nuances in different cultures.

 Another response is to say, “Yes.”  While these are toys for children to play with, they send obvious messages.  When a little girl plays with a doll, she enjoys making her look beautiful, perhaps even playing dress-up, standing in a mirror, and pretending to be a princess.  The obviousness is that young girls are seeing that Barbie is the way a female should be; perfect physically, emotionally, socially, and otherwise.  As for action figures, young boys are seeing they need to be aggressive to have control over their environment, that power is something to be used for one’s personal “mission,” and that a tough, non-emotional exterior is a true sign of maleness.

 In this situation, these types of toys are encouraging a mental mind-frame that is removed from reality.  Its a mind-frame that says young girls need to grow up and maintain balance in all aspects of their lives.  They need to be beautiful, watch their weight, successful, independent,  be the definition of a woman to men and a lovable “sister” to other women and so on.  Its also a mind-frame that says young boys should grow up to be a”man’s man.”  Life should not be able to shake him, and if he does, he shouldn’t show it.  He should be a leader, virtually unstoppable and someone all the other guys wish they could be (i.e. “cool”).

In other words. . .

At this point, perhaps the most reasonable answer is that both views have something to say. So instead of letting one’ s view swing to one side of the pendulum, perhaps its the middle ground that offers some insight. . .

The obviousness is that these are toys.  To say that toys have a mesmerizing power over children to the point that they have no control to resist them and their “hidden” sociological codes would be irrational.  At the same time, it is equally foolish to think that toys do not communicate some degree of a social message to children.  Many of the ways that males and females act as adults reflect some of the characteristics, both positive and negative, that our childhood trinkets mirrored.

Perhaps most of all then that is where the true core of this lies.  It is not enough to pin-the-entire-gender-role-tail-on-the-toy-donkey.  After all, it is not as if toys send messages on their own, but rather it is the influence of culture and society that sends the messages, which we then incorporate into the physical portion of life, in this case toys.

Regardless of your view on the whole toy complex, one cannot simply stop there.  After all, whatever it is we think about Barbie and G.I. Joe is still a reflection of the sociological mirror that our own culture has created.