girls vs. toys

The above video received a hugely positive response from people who love the idea that girls are getting a toy line that strives to get girls involved in STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) fields. But, with that enthusiasm comes the backlash.

I've seen arguments that the commercial is telling girls it is not okay to be into princesses and dolls.

But that's not true. If you *read the lyrics, or look at what they're doing, or what the girls are wearing, it seems like they are saying girls can be into princesses, dolls, tea parties, AND building awesome Rube Goldberg machines.

I believe this commercial is important. Because marketing toward girls is almost always different than it is toward boys. The same can be said for adults. For example, Skechers markets shoes for boys and men by showing them doing athletic, powerful, sporty things.

However, their marketing for girls and women is decidedly different.

The male ads say what is important is power...and adventure. The female ads say what is important is your appearance...and shopping.

Now, I'm not going to say Goldieblox is perfect. There's still a shocking amount of pink and purple in their product. Some day, people will start to realize that girls can like primary colors, too. But, at least they aren't as bad as Lego, who believe girls should only care about playing house with their Friends line (also pink and purple), instead of building Death Stars and Pirate Ships. Seriously. Look at the top results in a google image search for "Lego Girls" vs "Lego Boys" the color contrast is ridiculous.

Corporations are unnecessarily gendering toys, toiletries, and, as seen above, FOOD in order to make more money. And they've got a lot of people fooled. Girls don't need a special pink and purple version of every little thing. They just don't.

*The original version of the video had lyrics...they re-wrote Beastie Boys "Girls" but then got sued, and changed it.