It has become a chestnut tree during the holiday season: can you still give a doll to a little girl and a fire truck to a little boy? And what about blue or pink toy boxes? And " girls ' departments" that turn their backs on " boys '" departments? And why does the little niece dress up as a princess and the little nephew as a superhero ?
Is it a real problem, by the way, gendered toys ?
The editorial staff of the EVE web magazine takes up the elements of the debate one by one to help you form an opinion that is perhaps a little less polarized...
Tearing stereotypes from the root of childhood
As we know, stereotypes are inscribed in people's minds very early on. Not because children are totally deprived of the ability to decide for themselves and for themselves, but because the stereotype responds to the need for classification of the world that presides over a system of landmarks that is quickly accessible to ensure safety, well-being and comfort.
In other words : the brain of a vulnerable little human creature weighing less than 10 kilos doesn't care if moms are better at changing diapers, bottle-feeding or singing sweet songs than dads; What he has to guarantee is a clean buttocks, a full stomach and the feeling of being loved. So, if it is more often mom or what looks like her (a nanny, a childminder, a neighbor...) who cares about it and takes care of it, the brain of our vulnerable little creature is shameless: it makes sure that the signals of need are addressed primarily to this category of adults who have a higher voice, the hairless chin and the soft chest.
But mom and the real ladies who look like her are not the only influences of this pragmatic brain: he interprets what the eyes see, what the ears hear, what the senses perceive, and he is only reinforced in the validity of his classification system when he receives all kinds of messages that tell him that girls, It's good to do things and boys to do other things.
From this angle, avoiding putting gendered toys in the hands of our cherubs is working to clean up their environment of what anchors and re-anchors the stereotype... And this would be all the more important since the toy being an object of pleasure, it activates the brain areas of the reward !
But why does the child raised without a gendered toy dream of a fashion doll or a gun ?
If it were enough to remove gendered toys to anesthetize stereotypes, the fight for equality would (almost) be won. But the parents who removed the pink/blue distinction from the trousseau, offered dolls to the guys and miniature cars to the bitches may have had disappointments.
The chouquette raised in this way without a gendered toy would hang herself for sequined mules in size 27 and give all her handyman's workbench for a flashy cook; The jackdaw despises cute teddy bears and snubs the perfect dad-to-be's manual with his cute little taupe-colored diaper bag (matching the designer sofa in the living room) and clamoring for a plastic gun and a beautiful soccer ball.
Is it serious, doctor (of psychosociology)? First of all, it should be noted that we are not the only ones to raise our children : advertising, the media, cartoons, life as it is observed elsewhere than strictly within the family cocoon also influences the appetites of young (and old). Secondly, a whole current of psychology considers that the gender binary is an essential benchmark ( !) for the construction of identity. Children need to distinguish the feminine from the masculine in order to experiment with their own identity and their relationship with others. They would have to refer to a clear schema to perform gender identity, in order to adhere to it and/or pose as a counter-to constitute themselves as subjects.
Gender polarization as a conservative ideology that goes against the grain of children's open-mindedness?
The theories of the necessary polarity of the sexes for the construction of the individual in early childhood are today quite disputed. Some see this as a post-rationalization of the conservative fact, all the more questionable since children are not so caricaturally focused on their bearings.
Indeed, at the same time as they are attached to the established order in that it gives them a sense of security, the little ones are naturally curious and inclined to discovery before judgment.
Thus, we observe that what they are used to very early on does not frighten them; that what is an early part of their daily life, in a banal and blissful way, does not disturb them; that they develop all the more adaptability and diversified skills as they are the subject of multiple and varied solicitations. Open-mindedness is sown from the first days of life and it is cultivated incessantly afterwards.
So, putting dolls in a girl's hands but also construction toys, spaceships, superhero figurines, little robots, mini-computers and balloons, can only help give her access to a vast horizon. And this would contribute to infusing in her the idea that many fields are allowed to her, many open activities, many possible vocations. All these authorizations can count when it chooses its orientation.
Liberating little boys : when the differential valence of the sexes gets involved
Yes, for girls, it works ! But for boys ? It's apparently more complicated to put a plastic doll, a stove or a " unicorn care center" (yes, yes, it exists) in the hands of a little guy.
This is because the " differential valence of the sexes " is involved : since the sexual order gives more value to what is attributed to masculinity than to what is reputed to belong to femininity, a girl is valued when she goes towards activities that are supposed to be " boyish " while a boy is denigrated when he shows an appetite for " girlish " things.
A trap for both sexes, to paraphrase the subtitle of Olivia Gazalé's book: little boys and little girls are limited in the field of discovery and in the expression of their tastes by the subversive charge represented by any deregistration of the assignment to a gender.
Of course, they do not most often confront the formal opposition of those around them when their hearts lead them to be attracted to activities "of the other kind ", but this is not considered trivial.
There is an exception in the fact that a girl has something of a " tomboy " ; There is strangeness in the fact that a boy has something of a girl... Strangeness or even scabrous suspicion, when we immediately question our sexual orientation (even though we know that gender identity and sexual orientation are not systemically linked), we question our emotional balance, we worry about our future and even we assiduously encourage us to become more virile... Is all this really relevant ? Listening to the song " Xavier " by Anne Sylvestre again will provide some answers, very gently...
What kind of toys to reconcile positions and offer children a wide horizon ?
But let's get back to our toys. How could we escape overly gendered assignments without putting our children at odds with the social norm at the age when they are said to need to rely on reference points ? Two avenues to explore : that of " neutral " toys and that of reinvesting in the universe of different toys so that they mark less of the difference between girls and boys.
As for the first track, let us begin by highlighting the qualities of creative hobbies, which stimulate in girls and boys the sense of creativity and the " maker " spirit, strengthen the ability to concentrate, lend themselves to cooperation and bring deep feelings of satisfaction. The same goes for educational games that allow you to learn while having fun.
Not to mention the games of skill that facilitate coordination, set the body and mind in motion simultaneously. Let's also remember the virtues of board games that exercise tactical skills, provide material for the deployment of a host of soft-skills and teach the art of losing... To bounce back better! And let's salute the rise of the market for toys inspired by personal development that aim to awaken emotional intelligence and relational ecology (introduction to yoga, meditation ; games dedicated to self-knowledge and strengthening self-esteem...).
As for the second avenue, namely the reinvestment of playful universes by giving precedence to the needs of the child over gender considerations, we can first recommend avoiding packaging deliberately marketed to exclude one gender or the other (such as unambiguously pink boxes to wrap simple articulated figurines or staging showing only boys in action).
We can also think about collectively telling another story around the most marked toys today : what if a baby was no longer a baby to play with as a mother, but a little one that should be cared for as an NGO doctor?; What if a loom was no longer presented as a machine for making small garments but as a technological tool designed to manufacture industrial canvases? ; What if the little cook became the workshop of a future great chef (or at least a star of a culinary reality show)?
Because in the end, what else is a toy than the beginning of a story to be told, on the scale of a child's imagination as well as that of the mentalities of an entire society ?
