Legos, spaceships, breasts.(katebachus.com) |
Legos, spaceships, breasts.(katebachus.com) |
From a previous article when 'girl Lego' was announced: "The company embedded researchers with families around the world, to shadow girls and boys and watch how they play. Based on this research, it came up with Lego Friends, a line that features five characters with back stories similar to those of the wildly popular American Girl dolls."[1]
Lego did some actual research and is making something that fits the market as it is today. Who should we be pissed at and why?
[1] http://www.npr.org/2011/12/15/143724644/ith-new-toys-lego-ho...
But then just because it's researched doesn't mean it's good. Why do girls now prefer the narrative form of a previously creative toy? Why do lego blocks need a back story? Is that something that girls have always wanted; is it something that's created by changes in society; is it beneficial to girls? Is it possible harmful to boys to not have the narrative toys? (Although, with all the ROBOT BATTLE IN SPACE stuff hat lego has done for years I suppose they're just re-balancing an existing skew).
There's a lot of research about the "princess phase" which is why most toys for girls are boxed in that disgusting pink - purple combination.
This book is quite good. The biases are clear.
(http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Real-Toy-Story-Consumers/dp/0552...)
The questions you pose are excellent research topics in their own right (if reworded slightly). I really hope there are people out there looking into them. I remember reading some autism-related research that described how even newborn babies exhibited male/female differences (very contentious at the time and I don't know how the field developed).
I've been wanting to stock up on Lego kits for when my boy is old enough to enjoy it. I'd prefer to buy from a real local toy shop.
I want big box sets of mixed bricks; mixed sizes shape and colours. I'd only need a few kits with plans, the rest I'd prefer to be free-form play.
It's much easier for me to buy this stuff second hand and then wash it than it is for me to buy it new. I don't think I'm an unusual edge case.
I can buy this stuff online. But I feel a bit sad that local toyshops are dying. I do tell them what I'm looking for. None of them have offered to order the stuff in for me.
Is it wrong to allow/encourage a child to develop an interest in fashion and beauty?
I wish the authors of articles like this would state exactly what moral principle they believe is violated.
Identifying yourself by your gender can be harmless and doesn't need to be detrimental to society or equal treatment. But the premise of the blog is "the virtues of Legos for teaching math and engineering concepts to children."
If this premise is taken as true, this particular distinction in gender is harmful to equality of the genders. It's not just that the particular pink set reinforces certain stereotypes, but also that it's simpler and requires less abstract thought to put together.
That said; I'm sure the people at lego have done their market research, and have found that girls (or their mothers) find the "girly" sets more pleasant. Also the people at the outlet will have their reasons for a "blue isle" and a "pink isle".
I guess the morale of the story is for the parents. To not let themselves fall into the trap of the largest common commercial denominator, but to drag your daughter/son at least once through the "wrong isle" when buying toys in an unbiased manner.
Also, why are those feminists only lamenting the lack of female engineers? There are many fields that require that kind of analytical thinking, albeit on lower levels. Heck, why not start a, "Get more girls into plumbing!" campaign? Of course, the feminists are only after the cushy office jobs.
The situation here is similar. It's not exactly wrong that a company decides to sell two different kinds of toy. What's wrong is the cultural mindset that dictates that girls should be more interested in fashion and beauty than engineering (for example).
The moral principle being violated is that men and women are equal. That girls and boy can grow to be whatever they like. Because when you build different toys for girls and boys, you are clearly stating otherwise.
But the themes they chose seem to be more informed by stereotypes. Vet Surgery! Hairdressing Salon! Horseies! Surely for true role-playing they should be giving alternative roles. Default offices are great play spaces. You can play with secretarial works OR CEO stuff. What's wrong with Computer labs or Retail? They're all fairly genderless, flexible environments, but instead the sets seem to be firmly targeting the stereotypes. I half expect the bigger set to be a castle, or maybe a day-care.
Perhaps we've (the social we) selected stereotypes that express themselves naturally, or are re-enforced strongly, or perhaps the designers took the research as a challenge but added all the themes themselves. Maybe, too, they're exactly what will be most popular even in a social vacuum, but surely catering to a more general level is the best place for a toy to be? No-one should be prevented from role-playing stereotypes if they want, but neither should they be forced to make greater allowances if they want to violate them.
(Violate. Huh. It's telling that that's the word often used to describe not complying with stereotypes.)
"Cultural mindset" isn't an action, it's a concept that lives at an abstraction level well above morality. What specific action is being taken that you believe is immoral?
It's hard for me to see how the moral principle that men and women are equal [1] is being violated here. Any child is free to play with any lego (as the article demonstrates) and the company selling them has no control over what the children do 18 years later or even what toy they use now.
[1] I assume you mean equality under the law. But if you mean some different sort of equality it would help to state which.
[edit: not sure why you are being downmodded. I don't think your explanation was complete, but it's certainly helpful.]
Yes, girls and boys can grow up to become whoever they like, but most girls just don't like technology, just as most guys have little interest in playing with dolls. Blame biology but not society.
I'm sorry that you group all feminists together, but if you had bother to search for women in plumbing you would have found a lot of women and men who call for more women in that area. For example: http://www.my-plumber.co.uk/userfiles/file/Winter%20Newslett...
I was not referring to men and women being equal to the law, but being equal as humans. Black people and white people are biologically different too, but no one says that black people eat fried chicken because their brains are different. So, until a scientific study proves that women's brain account for them liking dolls instead of Lego, I will still think that's society that makes them that way. In fact, I think many sociological studies have proven that differences between men and women are different between different cultures, but I have not seen one article that stated that women tend to like accessories because of their brain.
Supposing hypothetically that this were true, would it still be immoral?
So, until a scientific study proves that women's brain account for them liking dolls instead of Lego, I will still think that's society that makes them that way.
So it's immoral to make decisions based on people's actions if those actions are not proven to be driven by brain chemistry?
Suppose a scientific study said Lego would make more money by selling pink cars to girls and aliens to boys, with no reason given. Would acting on this be immoral?
Or, suppose there were no study, but Lego merely tried out 20 different product lines. Of those product lines, the pink cars sold very well (purchased mostly by girls) and so did the aliens (mostly purchased by boys). Would it be immoral for Lego to continue a sales strategy based on these two successful lines?
What I meant is that it's immoral to make decisions based on ideas you have of people that have not been proven. (It does not matter if it's driven by brain chemistry.)
Doing those things is not immoral per se, but if you do it by thinking that those things are natural to the gender, the become immoral.
In this case I think it's quite complex, like you point out with your questions. I do not think that Lego's action are immoral because of their ideals, but because they are propagating stereotypes and sexism that worsens, at least in my opinion, the lives of many men and women in this society. For example, because there are still separating women with pink and dolls, and men with blue and robots, girls who like robots may be bullied, as well as men who likes dolls.
In that case, it sounds like most startup founders are immoral by your definition. The vast majority of startups make decisions based on ideas they have about people which are not proven, i.e. "people would like to rent out their home to strangers".
...but if you do it by thinking that those things are natural to the gender, the become immoral.
What if you don't know whether those things are natural to the gender or learned, but make decisions based solely on predicted (or demonstrated) consumer behavior? I.e., "these pink cars sell really well, mostly to girls, I have no idea why. Lets make more and market them widely."
Or what if you are just testing hypothesis? "Lets try out pink cars, aliens, babies, pirates and zombies, and then see what sells." Would that be immoral? It certainly lacks the certainty you seem to want, but it is how many businesses make decisions.
I am sure about your second part. If you make decisions on predicted consumer behaviour, most of the time you are OK. The same happens when you are testing an hypothesis or something like that. What makes it immoral is propagating the stereotypes and probably worsening discrimination. So, it isn't a problem if you assume all men want to clean their hair or don't want to have dandruff. It's not OK if you assume all men don't know how to cook, even if it has been predicted (or demonstrated) by consumer behaviour.
It's not that these actions are always bad, is that they are bad in the current society we live in.
I'm sympathetic to the idea that there are differences between girls and boys which drive behaviour. Hormones in adolescence are the clearest example to me.
But then, I used to think that "Girls just don't like chess." It turns out that this very much depends on the age of the girls. Why do numbers of male and female chess players start equal, and then drop off as people get older? It's not related to skill either.
The BBC Radio Four 'popular statistics' programme "More or Less" has a short segment. (They also ask "Are CEOs worth it?" and come to the conclusion that payment for CEOs isn't associated with performance of the company).
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01h7cf2#synopsis)
I don't know if this is downloadable outside the UK. I very much hope so.
> just as most guys have little interest in playing with dolls.
GI Joe / Action Man?
The issue about CEO compensation has absolutely nothing to do with this argument.
The "just" in that line needs a [citation needed], and a pretty good one at that.
"There are differences between male and female brains, and this is why they prefer different activities."
That might be true, but unless it's shown that these differences lie in the mental faculties that govern the skills for math and engineering, these differences are moot.
"Read up on science before making your absurd statements."
Not to sound too smarmy, but it should be easy for you, all read up on the relevant science, to cough up the relevant citations then eh ?
"just as most guys have little interest in playing with dolls."
We just call them 'robots'
"Blame biology but not society." The larger point is not to assign blame, but to improve the situation if possible.
Re.: brain differences: it's called spatio-relational reasoning. Another issue is, and this is a highly non-pc one, that the female IQ distribution doesn't reach the same highs (and lows) as male IQ distribution. This isn't some arcane knowledge I am referring to, so I'll leave it up to you to fire up your search engine of choice and type in a relevant combination of nouns and adjectives to unearth the answers to your concerns yourself.
True but irrelevant. It's the "just" in "most girls just don't like technology" I object to, like it's an innate aversion against technology that can't be overcome.
"Another issue is, and this is a highly non-pc one, that the female IQ distribution doesn't reach the same highs (and lows) as male IQ distribution."
Irrespective of being true or not, engineers, for example, would mostly be placed in the higher ranges. If any difference in the distribution of intelligence could account for the gender imbalance in technical occupations, the difference would be markedly less than would be expected from a potentially deviating IQ distribution.
Regarding "brain differences: it's called spatio-relational reasoning."
Seeing how there are, in absolute numbers, even if not in relative numbers, many women who excel in highly technical occupations and environments, this does not account for any differences, unless it could be shown that this particular subset of women have a different "male spatio-relational reasoning" part of the brain, as opposed to other women.
I do not agree or disagree that biology might have part in a difference in interest in technology in men and women. The point is to identify which part if any. And even if it is ultimately shown that there are biological limits to technology adoption by women in the high ranges of (say) 75%, that still means there are 25% who might be persuaded to become involved in technology by a change in societal behaviour instead of being "sucked into" what at this time is a stereotypical profession for a gender.
You are discussing a positive question, namely why individuals might have certain preferences.
If you think that we should only do or act as biology dictates us, and that trying to change biology doesn't lead us anywhere, you should probably stay away from medical research and sociological studies. Those are two areas where although biology is important, changes in them are also important too.
http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/luigi.zingales/papers/resear...
Also, did it ever strike you as slightly odd that there was never a woman speaking for herself who came forward and said something like, "Geez, I really would have loved to study advanced algorithms, and functional programming, and later on work in Big Data." The women seem perfectly content with their choices. It's only feminists (of both sexes) who think that they have to speak up for some allegedly silent majority of women who are kept out of technology for whatever reason. If they want to get into the field, they can acquire all the knowledge they want. It's available online, and for free. Let me tell you something: I am a man, and there never was a day when someone rang my door, shoved some programming tutorials into my face and told me, "Go, and work through that." No, instead I had to sit down and find my own sources, and people I could learn from. All of this is hard work.
Oh, and let me tell you another non-pc truth that is so unpalatable for you: technology and sciences are, even for most guys, not necessarily a ton of fun, and if we had the option of simply looking good and marrying a millionaire, we might be less inclined to go work hard as well. Or why do you think there are so few hot women in tech? Surely Elin Nordegren would have had no use for a CS degree.
I'm sorry but that's religion, not science. There's an observable difference, which is maybe related to biology, society, or maybe something else completely. What's it's not is magic. Things don't "just" happen; they happen for a myriad of reasons.
"Two years ago feminists said that girls are "too smart" to go into IT."
Whatever alleged feminists (of both sexes) have said at some point in time, is not that relevant. The blog posts we're discussing gives an experience and a data point. It points out that in this case, the prevalent gender-schism as perpetuated by commercial interests, might not be in the best interests of her child. And if she had not "investigated" this, her daughter might have (over time) closed of a route of development (not just by this one incident of course), that, large and by, is considered to be an accomplishment. To what degree remains an open question, but it should be clear to even the most casual observer that it cannot simply be ascribed to "biology" and be done with it. I'm sure the girl can later on in life decide to pursue her heart-felt wish to become a hairdresser, or a nurse, if she so desires. Or maybe she will be flogged into pursuing a career in science by her "feminist" mom. But either way it is not that relevant to the question.
"Oh, and let me tell you another non-pc truth that is so unpalatable for you:"
It is neither unpalatable nor palatable for me. I don't understand why you would assume so, or whether that particular truth would interest me.
I will leave you to your thoughts.
What about this angle: given that men are apparently quite superior to women when it comes to abstract thinking, then why don't we do our best to improve male performance even more? By the time women will have caught up (if ever), we've probably lost a few centuries of progress. This concept is called "opportunity costs." I am not sure it's taught in Gender Studies.
Note that I'm playing devil's advocate to make you realize how incredibly shady your argument is.