Feb 3
Hey everyone!
Just thought I would share this funny video with you all considering the debate about Fight Club and its content being male vs female appropriate. I find it hilarious that it is almost word for word from the actual Fight Club trailer.
As a child growing up in a lower- middle class Mexican American family I quickly learned that the expensive and popular toys from televised commercials and magazines were rarely in our reach. From the readings in this course thus far, I find the arguments and excerpts to be guided towards an upper class audience. The first reading was a chapter by Peter Stearns entitled “Anxious Parents: A 20th Century History,” outlining anxieties by parents to keep their children happily entertained. Stearns argues that to keep anxieties low parents would compromise boredom for the newest toys, summer camps, and even family vacations. I never attended camp during the summer and I can only remember taking one family vacation. The popular toys my siblings and I played with were usually hand me downs given to my mom from people she worked for. This is not to say that I had a sad, boring childhood. My memories of growing up are filled with fun and crazy stories about building “club houses” out of blankets and playing hide and seek until it was dark out. I even remember having a blast taking turns pushing each other around in a battery operated pink corvette that was given to us without the battery.
Club house made of covers
As a child it never seemed to matter to me what I was playing with, as long as I was playing I was having fun. I grew up in a household where parental anxieties were based around paying bills and putting food on the table rather than worrying about my siblings and I being bored. Because of this, I find that not only the issue of “parental anxieties” to be based on socioeconomic status but also the idea of gender favored toys and their regulation by parents explained in “Modern Childhood, Modern Toys” by Gary Cross to rarely apply to lower income families.
There is a short story titled “Barbie-Q” by a well known writer/poet named Sandra Cisneros that I believe has a strong connection to my post. You can read the short story by clicking the pdf link below.
When Gary Cross proposes that Christmas has sequestered from a time of celebrating the “nuclear family” (59) to a display of “vicarious consumption” through gift giving, I have to disagree. This view is vastly too cynical of the American people. A people that donated $290.89 billion to charities in 2010 (nps.gov), has companies such as Macy’s with their “Make a Wish, Believe” campaign, and that are emotionally moved by commercials that epitomize the “giving” Christmas spirit (tear jerker warning.) The underlying motivation around Christmas is not to display how well off one is financially. The underlying motivation is too make those around you, and especially children, happier. Witnessing the jubilance in children around Christmas is guaranteed to make your life more blissful. This eagerness to make one’s children joyful may seem to accumulate in the form of “vicarious consumption” but that is because in some instances to make younger children happier it requires buying the most up to date gadget or toy. Therefore, the end result of the gift is a display of proof, that yes, you can provide your child with happiness but the primary motivation was not to “peacock” your wealth, it results as a byproduct. A good analogy would be when you drive your car. The intentions are good. You want to go to work and add to society. However, the result of fossil fuels going into the air still occurs. You cannot stop this end result and you accept it without conscious thought. The same is true with the byproduct, of providing your children with merriment, being produced as “vicarious consumption”.
This argument is hard to see today sometimes because the advertisers try too engulf us into this competitive “buy everything before everyone else” mindset around Christmas. From Targets “Black Friday Holiday Sales” commercials, to Best Buy’s “Game On Santa” campaign, it seems as though the media wants us competing for all that is consumer goods. Say you are persuaded by these ads, is it even a bad thing? We have to remember, that Target and Best Buy are not just abstract companies. Companies are made of people. When the company sales go down, employees get laid off and then those employees cannot provide a Happy Christmas for their children. It is the companies job to drive sales in whichever way they feel is best for this purpose.
To conclude, I post one last link of a kid going nuts over receiving a new Nintendo 64. After watching this video, if you still believe “vicarious consumption” is the main motivator in Christmas purchases, send me a PM. I would love to engage in some insightful discussion.
(*Final Note-in the first paragraph I state that kids want the newer, up to date gadgets and toys. This is not a bad thing. This is a natural phenomenon in humans. Without it we do not have WordPress as a medium to even discuss such issues. The desire to want newer and better materials leads to innovation that in the end will help everyone for a “rising tide raises all boats”)
Read more
As a child, one of my most memorable toy favorites would have to be the Hot Wheels toy line. Hot Wheels was made in 1968 by American toymaker Mattel. This would be the same toymaker responsible for several of American childhood favorites such as: Fisher price, Barbie Dolls, American Girl Dolls, and various board games. The typical, current Hot Wheels toy vehicle could cost anywhere from $5-$50; with older, and more classic models, sometimes be worth much more money. This particular brand of toy cars was created after toys had become an acceptable means of entertainment for the American child, and not necessarily a personified teacher of practical jobs associated with rigid gender roles.
The fact that I am a female who took a particular interest in playing with Hot Wheels challenges a common gender stereotype perpetuated in toy lines: only men drive fast cars and big trucks. This plays into the discussion held during Week 2 of class when talking about the history of toys in America. Although, I did play with Barbies as well, I liked Hot Wheels and other toy cars much more. My interest was also fostered by my mother who, as the mother of an only child, was more interested in me being happy than in what was that create that happiness.
In the Cross article Modern Childhood, Modern Toys, the author discusses in further detail the heavy distinction made between girl and boy toys throughout the course of toy history. One of the most current examples being the fact that nearly all girl toys are made in the color pink. Associating pink with femininity, and essentially saying that only girls should be allowed to play with THIS toy.
1967 Purple Chevy Camaro, Hot Wheels, Wikia.com
Christmas spirit has been lost, and in turn replaced with feelings of competition and greed. The joys of Christmas are now dependent upon the types and amount of gifts children receive on Christmas morning. Of course, parents want nothing more than to make their child happy, but in order to achieve such in today’s world, one must be prepared to empty their wallets and hope for Christmas bonuses. Christmas is also a time of year for families to display their wealth, and hope that their gifts can compete with, if not trump, those of their neighbors.
In Gary Cross’s article “Modern Childhood, Modern Toys”, Cross states: “But in the nineteenth century these celebrations of indulgence were increasingly focused on the family, in parents pampering children. The shower of gifts became a way of demonstrating personal affluence” (59). Many children today seem to get whatever they ask for, resulting in a generation of spoiled children, and parents are the ones to blame. Competition drives parents into a shopping frenzy, and it seems that most families believe that overspending on your child is better than being out-shined by your neighbor.
The amount and quality of the gifts given to children today has increased in comparison to previous years, as seen by this 10-year old girl receiving a cell phone for Christmas. This girl is one example of the many kids that are now getting cell phones, ipads, and other gadgets at such young ages. Through this gift exchange, the girl is happy, and her parents are able to maintain their reputation within the community, for they are able to keep their child up-to-date with the latest trends and technologies.
Jimmy Kimmel challenged the previously discussed trend of overindulging your children with gifts on Christmas on his late night show. He asked parents to give their kids a gift they would not want for Christmas, and to record their reaction upon opening the present. As one could guess, the kids’ reactions were a combination of upset and anger. This experiment effectively portrayed the expectations children hold in regards to the types of gifts they receive, and the disbelief they have upon not getting what they want.
The vicious cycle of consumerism and competition dominate our society, and it is made especially apparent during the holiday season. It will be interesting to see the buying patterns of kids today once they reach adulthood and have to then shower their children with gifts.
According to the article Parents Under Pressure in Films (Rebecca Keegan, Los Angeles Times, Jan. 2012), “parenting – specifically parental guilt and anxiety – is the subtext of a surprisingly large number of the year-end and awards-season movies”. Parents have always been a subject of interest for filmmakers, and the resulting movies have always spoken of the time in which they were created. The “hyper-self-critical, stressed-out parents” of today’s movies reflect a “culture of self-conscious child-rearing”. This is, of course, because of a societal shift in ideas of parenting. Back in the day, parents based their techniques on their own upbringing and on instincts. Today people think, analyze, and worry much more about parenting. In today’s movies, often mothers are out of the picture and fathers are portrayed as inadequate. In one such movie, 2011’s “The Descendants”, a father has to deal with his problematic daughters while his wife is in a coma. Kaui Hart Hemmings, author of the novel “The Descendants” says of parenting,
“My grandfather would come home and have his martini hour and engage with his kids, but then he clocked out as a parent. You don’t do that anymore. I joined this mothers group, and it was just sort of this absurd culture to me. I was overwhelmed by parenting…. The focus on having the right things and what are they eating … lactation consultants, crib consultants, I swear to God there are curtain consultants. Parenting has become this whole other culture.”
Other recent movies speaking of failed parenting or parent/child relationships include “We Bought A Zoo”, “Carnage”, and “We Need To Talk About Kevin”. The main emotion that can be gleaned from these movies is guilt over parenting and how it should (or should not) be done.
This article connects to the “Anxious Parents” reading (Peter Stearns) in the course reader in that both talk about the shifting views on and anxiety around parenting. Stearns writes that the 20th century was “a century of anxiety about the child and about parents’ own adequacy”, a phenomenon which is clearly reflected in these recent films (2). Stearns also writes that children were seen as more vulnerable, fragile, and in need of protection (3). Parents feel that they have little control over who and what influences their children, and often believe that children will act out the images they like or are influenced by, which generates more concern about parenting (10). Also, issues such as new technology/consumer products, fears of diseases, and changes in family structure have caused parents to feel guilty about the environment in which they are raising children (3). Parents feel a huge sense of responsibility, and thus have anxieties about how they should treat their children.
These movies play to parents’ fears of bad parenting, but simultaneously alleviate guilt by showing that other parents are also not perfect.
(Below, Trailer for “The Descendants”, 2011)
My Size Angel Barbie (1998)
Growing up I would have to say one of my favorite toys was the My Size Barbie. My parents bought me my first one for my birthday when I was around five or six. I named her Kimberly after the Pink Power Ranger and I played with her practically everyday. Like normal size Barbies, My Size Barbie was produced by Mattel. Now I didn’t play with Kimberly the way that Mattel probably envisioned for little girls. I would play gymnastics with her and I eventually broke one of her legs off. My parents sent her back and I got another one and still played with her rather roughly. I tried researching when the first My Size Barbie came out but I could not find the exact year. However I ran into some people selling their My Size Barbies dating back to as early as 1992. My Size Barbie was 36 inches tall and came with two outfits so the little girl and Barbie could wear and trade outfits. Mattel no longer makes My Size Barbie so I am not aware of the exact prices especially during the nineties. On eBay currently they range from $70-$200 depending on the model. Growing up I was not aware of the gender roles and stereotypes that My Size Barbie was pushing on little girls, which is probably why I played with Kimberly so unconventionally. Barbie was and still is the icon for what the “ideal woman” should be, which is beautiful, skinny, social, and mainly just concerned with her image and nothing else. As Gary Cross points out, toys throughout the centuries have been made to reflect “conventional work roles” for both girl and boy toys (Cross 49). Cross also states that the rise of dolls for girls to play with happened due to families having less children which resulted in doll play that taught “child-care skills necessary for future maternal roles” (Cross 54). Almost all my friends who were girls growing up had a My Size Barbie and whenever they played with her they would either be princesses or mothers. In conclusion gender stereotyping of toys may not effect every child in the same way, but they continue to instill the mainstream social constructs of gender.
Linen Theme by The Theme Foundry
Copyright © 2025 . All rights reserved.
