Barbie – EDUC 342: Child Development & New Technologies

Misc. Barbie: Redesigned Article

apoduval — Fri, 29 Jan 2016 19:48:53 +0000

I saw this article and found it to be very relevant to our class discussions re: diversity!

Check it out: http://time.com/4197499/barbies-new-body-photos-of-curvy-tall-and-petite/?xid=time_socialflow_facebook

Black et al- Reading Response

sandhini — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 08:57:10 +0000

There was a lot that I found chilling in this weeks readings. The Black et al paper and the Kahn et al paper in particular brought to light some disturbing facts and theories.

It was disheartening to read the Black et al paper and seeing that even though politically and theoretically we have achieved gender equality to a certain extent, true equality is still a long way to go. It is surprising how the developers of these games (probably a lot of them male) make assumptions about each gender and proceed to make theses games which leads to a vicious cycle. These games in turn probably influence children which leads them to behave a certain way and develop certain interests. These influences then just propagate stereotypes and seem to legitimize these assumptions.

As the paper showed the websites aimed for boys not only had higher language complexity but also less frivolous content. The names of the newspapers alone (Buzz and Goss for girls and Community News and Updates for boys) demonstrate the rooted gender stereotypes in the minds of these developers which unfortunately go on to influence an entire generation of children.

I looked up to see why the Barbie girls website was taken down. I was hoping that it was because of awareness regarding the content of the website and the gendered stereotypes it promoted but that wasn’t the case. It was taken down because the ‘chatroom’ was becoming dangerous as a haven for pedophiles.

I went on the barbie website after that to see if the website had similar content and was happy to see that the home page had images of barbie dressed in different professional clothing telling girls that if they wanted they could be astronauts, doctors, engineer or ‘anything they wanted to be’. However, the categories for the games were ‘Fashion, Sports, Pets, Fairytales’. (I wonder why certain ideas such as girls like fashion and girls like pink exist. None of the girls I know have pink as their favorite color or are into fashion.)

Week 4 Response

myupa — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 07:54:42 +0000

I was uncomfortable with Pellegrini and Jones’ conclusion that “Children play longer and in more complex ways when they interact in same-gender groups and with gender-preferred toys,” because when I think of gender-preferred toys I think of games like Barbie Girls. This causes me to wonder – what is the deciding factor for a toy’s gender appeal? If all the avatars in Barbie Girls had occupations outside of the service industry, but the avatars remained female, would young girls still see the game as targeted towards girls? In other words, are the games themselves dictating gender roles, or are the societal norms that the girls enter with overriding everything else? If games could be shaped to appeal to a specific gender, while disregarding societal norms (e.g. women in subservient roles) then games could be used as a very empowering tool.

Finally, I was intrigued by the fact that girls used less fantastical language when they were playing in mixed-gender groups and with toys perceived to be for males or gender-neutral. This reminds me of stereotype threat, where despite equal levels of intelligence/talent, someone belonging to a certain group with a perceived stereotype may perform worse because they are scared of confirming that stereotype. It was interesting to see how early on in child development this appeared.