Pink vs. Blue: How Toy Stereotypes Shape Our Future.

A Call to Redefine Gendered Play.

Every child learns, around preschool age, that blue is for boys and pink is for girls. At least that's what adults, their friends, the media, the clothing market, and the toy market tell them. But why exactly do we do this?

From birth, we dress babies in pink or blue to make identification easier, but this is a relatively new practice. For centuries, the fashion was to dress babies in white gowns until they were six years old, whether they were girls or boys. Gradually, clothing manufacturers and sellers, following what they perceived as consumer preferences, standardized blue and pink to differentiate boys from girls in the mid-19th century. These insights come from the book Pink and Blue – Telling the Boys from the Girls in America by American researcher Jo B. Paoletti, who has studied gender differences for over 30 years. According to her, the choice of pink and blue has nothing to do with hidden meanings in the colors; in reality, it is a completely arbitrary choice, no matter how natural it may seem to us today. Emerging from the textile markets in the United States, the pink and blue trend eventually spread worldwide, branching out into other markets that also offer products aimed at children.

The toy market is no different and helps to perpetuate the stereotype. It's true that toy stores don't display as many blue colors in the boys' aisles, but the girls' aisles are predominantly pink. The video rant by little Riley has been viewed by more than 5 million people on YouTube since it was posted in 2011, in which she questions, "Why do girls have to buy pink things and boys can buy things in different colors?" According to her, girls also want to buy superheroes, not just princesses.

But why do we manufacture and sell toys this way? Why do we encourage it and assume it as a truth that boys and girls have these color preferences?

The leading marketing books explain: it's market segmentation. The rule is quite simple: by dividing the consumer market into different subgroups and approaching each one in a personalized way, we achieve a higher number of sales, regardless of which colors we're talking about. This way, it's even possible to sell the same product twice, just by changing the way it's communicated or simply by swapping a licensing agreement.

The issue goes far beyond colors; it's also possible to identify different play patterns in toys aimed at each gender. Girls' toys tend to provide pretend play, role-playing, beauty care, domestic activities, or motherhood, while boys' toys denote action, adventure, exploration, construction, heroism, among others.

Of course, there are innate differences in how boys and girls behave and play. Just as a child is not a sponge that absorbs everything we teach them, they are also not genetically programmed to behave in a specific way. According to Steven Pinker, author of the book The Blank Slate, the reality is that a child is a mixture of innate characteristics combined with what they learn as they develop. "The things children experience while they are growing up are as important as the things they are born with," says the psychologist.

However, many critics question whether we are limiting children's experiences by offering only certain play patterns and not others to boys or girls.

Recent studies show that these patterns are universal and can be divided into five major categories: physical play (sensory, interactive, motor coordination), creative play (building and creating), fantasy play (pretending, role-playing, scenarios, and behaviors), cognitive play (words, puzzles, educational games), and collection play (collecting, trading, organizing, and displaying). But if we carefully evaluate, some of these categories are still underrepresented in the toys offered to each gender.

The toy industry and society have been discussing this controversial scenario for some time, but it's unclear what exactly should be done or how to promote change in a healthy and marketable way.

It is clear that for years girls' aisles have suffered from a lack of toys in the areas of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Girls were simply not included in this type of play. Could this absence have any relation to the low representation of adult women in these same fields, both in universities and in the workforce?

"Wanting to be a doctor, or architect, or cook, that really begins when you’re young and walking around with a stethoscope or playing with an Easy Bake oven."

This is what says Richard Gottlieb, CEO of the consulting company Global Toy Experts. For some people, this lack of options for children of one gender or another causes them to develop a distorted view of their limitations and the expectations we place on them.

In a world where men vastly outnumber women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, girls lose interest in these subjects very early, usually before the age of 8. Only 14% of engineers worldwide are women. Construction toys develop an early interest in these subjects, but for over 100 years, they have been considered "boys' toys." The data comes from the website of GoldieBlox, a company that makes constructive and interactive toys for girls, launched in 2012, which went from a prototype on Kickstarter to over $1 million in pre-orders in less than a month.

You might wonder, if the issue is just market segmentation, and it makes the toy trade and industry grow, then what's the issue? Any department store divides its aisles and clothing into male and female categories; pharmacies sell deodorants, razors, and other products specific to men and women; even cars are manufactured with male and female audiences in mind, and no one is questioning these markets. So, what's the problem?

The problem is that a child is a developing human being, and we must be mindful of what kind of message we convey to them, even unconsciously. Playing is experimenting, testing different roles, exploring a world that is still unknown to them. By suggesting that girls try one type of play and not another, we are depriving them of the full experience, and they will have only a limited view of the world, and the same goes for boys. Why not encourage a boy to play with a pretend kitchen? Or to play at taking care of a baby? Isn't it true that boys become cooks and fathers? Why not include girls in racing and construction games? Obviously, girls become drivers and engineers.

Do we really need to be stuck in outdated gender stereotypes in the 21st century?

We need to take a fresh look at the topic, which will certainly open up different commercial perspectives through products with greater differentiation on the shelves and acceptance of new consumers who are constantly changing. This is a time to seize these new opportunities and increase the chances of success in such a competitive market. The important thing is to encourage boys and girls to always play with whatever interests them, regardless of the themes, licenses, or colors.

Originally published in “Espaço Brinquedo” magazine n.74.