Kids Toys OnlineChildren's toys online
Toys should be toys - sex-neutral learning toys
The toys aren't choosy. Indeed, we have it from good source that toys lorries are okay when girl drive them, just like boy. We' ve also been told that games rooms are ok when young people cook - even when they wear a light rose aprons. They can probably see where we are going with it: if the toys don't take sex into account, why should the grown-ups who make the same toys sell and buy?
Breaking it down, it seems strange that different toys should be suggested for different sexes and thus labeled in toyshops and on the Internet. Looking at it that way, it seems rather laughable, and many argue that the gender-specific identification of toys is similarly misleading, needless and even harmful to children's playing and growth.
Launched in 2012, the LTBT initiative calls on retail outlets to eliminate the gender-specific identification of toys in their shops, thus assisting in the management of the fee. You' know this; you go into a toyshop and see half of them full of characters, scary giant monsters and sci-fi kit, all of which are helpful labeled: "For Boys".
"It'?s for girls," and lots of magenta. What makes Let Toys Be Toys want to get it out? It' s up to the kids to choose what they enjoy. So why put these boundaries on the game? Playing is important. Kids need a broad spectrum of games to be able to learn different abilities. It'?s important to market.
The orientation of the consumer in this way restricts the playing of child. Most of the participants in the programme were parent families - all of whom were not paid to volunteer - who were disappointed with the kind of split sexual identification they saw their kids through. To date, 14 retail outlets have changed the way their produce is labeled - or pledged to do so - after being approached by the marketing and asked to stop advertising toys, as it is intended only for young people.
It should be noted that education toys shops generally use less gender-specific characters and images - but that does not mean that they do not coexist in some of these shops, as a fast online quest will show. Online-commitment play a big role at Let Toys Be Toys.
Looking briefly at the many public postings on the campaign's Twitter and Facebook newsletters, despite the good campaigns of some retail outlets, we still have a long way to go; the gender-specific way of promoting toys is still vibrant and good in today's global market. Fortunately, Let Toys Be Toys is not a lonely voicemail on this issue.
Let's not ignore the powers of the individual: in 2011, after a Twitter marketing drive run by blogger Laura Nelson, Hamley's British toyshop already discarded its separated floor for young people. There has also been an enormous increase in recent years in press reporting on gender-specific toys and the broader sex stereotyping of childhood, as well as in popular debate on these issues.
Why stop with "only" toys? The Let Book Be Book campaigns were started in March 2014 on World Book Day. Is it as much gender-specific in children's literature as in toys? It seems possible with tracks like "The Gorgeous Girls' Cookery Book" (with a lid adorned with heartshakes, cups and - yes - a great deal of pink) and "The Big Brilliant Colouring Book for Boys" (complete with large, brightblue cover pictures of starships, soccer balls, lorries and dinosaurs), which are widely used.
Ever since the introduction of Let Book Be Book, ten publisher have declared their willingness to eliminate the label "boys" and "girls" from their list. This includes big stars in children's and education publications such as Usborne, Egmont, Buster and Ladybird series. However, it is crucial that Let Toys Be Toys is not only based on guesswork or intuitive reasoning; there are many research papers and academics that suggest that labeling toys in this way can have harmful outcomes.
Judith Elaine Blakemore - Assistant D eean of Arts and Sciences and Assistant Dean of Psychology for Faculty Development at Indiana University-Purdue University in the United States - speaks to NAEYC (The National Association for the Education of Young Children) about a research paper on the effects of toys on children's game. Toy associated with ''for boys'' was considered violence, competition, excitement and danger in the survey, while''girl toys'' was associated with bodily appeal, care and home skills.
Brown says that when young women are similarly timid about building toys (an "avoidable consequence" of labeling such toys "for boys"), they miss out on the space literacy needed in later childhood schooling, such as mathematics classes. Maybe a few "boys" and "girls" label in toys tales will not influence how your kid is playing and developing?
For The Guardian, in an essay entitled "Transforming rose toy girl into sassy princess? When looking at the overall image, it is not only the children's game that could be influenced by gender-specific toys. It is argued by some that this kind of marking can also have long-term adverse consequences during a child's later years.
Fine also mentions in her paper a British parliamentary controversy on the gender-specific commercialisation of toys. Much of the focus of the discussions is on how this type of branding discourages young children from using natural and technical toys - which is not exactly contributing to increasing the small number of female students in SEM ( natural sciences, technical sciences, Engineering and Mathematics).
And she continues to say that if young women don't get the sense of perfection, the boy will always get it through designs and building-oriented toys, the same young women will find themselves less self-confident, which can make them "assume" that they are simply not good at subject STM. Acceptances and prejudices about girls' skills and interests - the notion that certain topics, just like certain toys, are simply "not for you" - influence the decisions girl makes in schools.
Part of the answer is, of course, exactly what Let Toys Be Toys has been working for: the abolition of gender-specific marking of toys and textbooks. Toyshops, web sites and booksellers all over the world should not have the feeling that they need to use these non-helpful guides to "suggest" or advise which kids are playing with which toys.
Of course, the other is to give kids toys to help them explore and evolve without limiting or integrating the aspects of sex (or anything else). Education toys are the keys here, but let's keep in mind that "boy education toys" look just like "girl education toys" - especially because they are exactly the same toys!
There is no way around believing that a kind wood robotic that can help kids get to know computer coding is a good example of an exhilarating learning game. If you haven't yet guess, Cubetto will come into play here.
Cubetto almost goes without saying that it wants to help both men and women teach programming. There is no sex marking here, because - well - the last times we looked at it, kids of both sexes loved robot. It is no mystery that early childhood education in the use of technologies is useful for all kids, young women and young people.
We have already pointed out that we need more female workers in working for STM, and the provision of STM toys for infants of both sexes to help them find out about these issues is a good move forward. Think of how toys for small kids have developed over the years. We are now at a point where many parent want STM toys specifically for infants to help their kids while they are creative and playing from an early age to learn.
For Cubetto, this imaginative game doesn't mean stare at the screen either; this robotic system will help children get to know the technology with little more than colorful pads, a easy panel and a cheerful grin.