MOUNT: Toy companies need to break away from gender stereotypes

A toddler in a toy store may seem like an unlikely spokesperson against sexism, but in the days since her passionate plea went viral on YouTube, four-year-old Riley Maida has stirred the debate over a phenomenon everyone experiences, yet few question.

"Why do all the girls have to buy princesses?" Riley asked, pacing the toy store aisle with genuine frustration. "Some girls like superheroes, some girls like princesses." Of course, girls hardly need to feel embarrassed carrying a Spiderman backpack, just as plenty of boys rightfully take pride in their Easy Bake Ovens. But Riley's invariably apolitical approach reveals a more obvious question: why is the divide there in the first place? As long as toys are separated along gender lines, boys' and girls' minds will develop in arbitrarily different ways, needlessly continuing social and mental frameworks based on outmoded conventions.

Hamleys, a London toy store and one of the world's largest, recently made headlines when they dismantled their pink and blue sections for a layout organized by types, like "soft toys," and interests, like "outdoors." The gender-neutral switch was praised by many, but would have gone largely unnoticed if not for an unwitting counter-announcement by LEGO that same day. LEGO unveiled plans to roll out an unabashedly girl-specific line of toys, with taller, curvier figures, and accessories like lipstick and hairbrushes. And as if this might not be unambiguous enough, their website advertises outright: "LEGO Friends: The new LEGO theme- for girls!"

Overhauls like this don't come out of whimsical boardroom decisions. To coincide with the announcement, Bloomberg Businessweek published an article detailing the thorough anthropological study LEGO conducted into the way genders play. The study found that "Whereas boys tend to be ‘linear' — building rapidly, even against the clock, to finish a kit so it looks just like what's on the box — girls prefer ‘stops along the way,' and to begin storytelling and rearranging."

At the heart, LEGO's decision is well-meaning. Their blocks are less popular with girls. Meet them halfway, and girls are more likely to develop an interest in subjects like engineering. LEGO versus Hamleys is nature versus nurture.

LEGO believes they are meeting inevitable biological realities, while Hamleys believes those "realities" only seem inevitable because of our deeply entrenched social system.

Like most debates, the reality lies somewhere in between. In two separate studies of primates conducted over the last decade, males gravitated toward cars while females preferred dolls. The differing ways boys and girls talk, cooperate and pretend have been demonstrated over and over in gender research.

At the same time, these childhood years are when children's brains are most malleable and prone to influence. If impulse behavior determined what was fair, greed and violence would be condoned by toddler's toys as well, and parenting would be a much easier job. Every interaction strengthens certain neural pathways at others' expense. At some point, we develop greater self-awareness and control, but not before a specific cognitive framework has been encoded.

Consider, for example, that boys from more egalitarian households are more nurturing toward babies. Or, that in a study of over 5,000 three-year-olds, girls with older brothers had better spatial skills than girls or boys with older sisters.

Boys can choose Barbie, and girls can choose monster trucks, but the damage is already done if society upholds the separation in the first place. Children absorb their environments, and when they stand within whole aisles of pink, they subconsciously deduce that certain behaviors or choices are OK for some and not OK for others. Assuming fair-minded parents, many children may be able to cross gender lines without a problem. But the lines still exist, encoding arbitrary differences for thinking about others.

A quick search for "gender traits" brings a slew of stereotypical characteristics. Words commonly used to describe femininity include "passive," "graceful" and "nurturing," while the masculine list includes "independent," "competitive" and "self-confident." Statistics may uphold those traits, but it is no excuse for toy companies and retailers to actively exploit them. If children's mental frameworks are shaped and molded during this vital period, why not seek to uphold a list of decent human traits, devoid of stereotyped assumptions?

The argument extends far beyond toys. Television shows, Halloween costumes and birthday party themes all reflect prevailing attitudes to the same degree. And as long as they reflect our culture, those products will sell. We all grew into mindsets that see current toys as natural and appealing. The instinct, then, is that future generations will naturally appreciate the same values. But the benefits of a more egalitarian future far outweigh the generational disconnect we would feel as parents if a change were made.

Four-year-old Riley struck a chord because she isn't old enough to care about controversy, political correctness or even how spunky she might appear on YouTube. Like toddlers everywhere, her only stake is as a cultural sponge soaking up her environment. Her earnest observation is a reminder that some of the biggest obstacles to equality line store shelves in glaring pink-and-blue.

Cameron Mount is a junior secondary English education major. Reach him at cameronmount@dailynebraskan.com.