Target, and Lauredhel’s Toy-Catalogue Annex of the Bechdel Test

by Lauredhel on July 15, 2008

in consumerism, education, fun & hobbies, gender & feminism

I finally got around to reading the bumper Target Toy Sale catalogue.

And it’s just as pinkly sickening as you’d expect.

I suppose this toy was inevitable after Dora’s Princess Makeover: the pink Dora Vanity set, by Fisher Price.

“CRIMP, CURL, AND STYLE! Be your own special hair stylist! Interact with Dora as you crimp, style, and curl her hair. Create a new look for Dora with over 10 styling accessories. She even magically recognises the styling tool that you use and has over 100 interactive phrases and songs.”

Have you noticed that no one calls her “Dora the Explorer” anymore?

targettoys 2

Then there’s the Rose Petal Cottage, by Playskool.

“Give your little girl a place of her own with these fabric covered playhouses.”

It comes with optional add-on accessories! A washer or sink, a nursery set with rocking cradle and change table. Or choose the completely pink cottage with oven and chimney. Get those domestic slaves rehearsing early.

targettoys 3

Ah, but there’s a token boy in the not-completely-pink toy kitchen! You have to give half a point for that, right? Not so much. The boy and girl in the toy kitchen reside under a shiny lolly-pink banner trumpeting “GIRLS’ TOYS”!

targettoys 4

I searched through the headings looking for something for girls that wasn’t pinkified and domestified. I spotted a castle in the “girls” section! Neat, I thought! Will it have siege engines and dragons and such?

… sadly, no. There’s a pinkified castle ghetto now, too. It’s a dollhouse rebadged as a “castle”. By Baby Born. With a sleeping pink baby in it. Kinda like Sleeping Beauty.

And it comes with a bed, wardrobe, table, tea set, and vanity, all for the special introductory offer of $249.

targettoys 1

The “Girls Toys” section also included Hannah Montana and High School Musical merchandise. Oh, and a pony.

Feel free to flick through to the “Boys’ Toys”. A Batman Mega-Cape, Transformers, a Tribot robot, K’Nex construction toys, and a toy microscope, all under a blue banner.

I can’t be the only one to notice that the “Outdoor Toys” have a blue banner, too; there’s a boy on a scooter, another boy on a scooter, a ?boy on a low-riding trike, a boy on a trailbike – and two girls on the pink scooter page, along with a boy on a blue scooter. There are both girls and boys on the playground equipment, but the trampoline has a boy. Under “Games”, there are two boys playing pool. Not one Outdoor-Toys page or Games page has a girl or girls on it with no boys present.

So I guess this one fails Lauredhel’s Toy-catalogue Annex of the Bechdel test[1], no?

1. One or more girls, playing;

2. with no boys around; and

3. with something that is not related to domestic work, mothering, being sexy, or ponies.

Can you find a catalogue that passes? For extra points, find a page that fulfils all of the above, and isn’t primarily pink or that new girly-aqua that people use for teh chick stuff when they’re shying away from pink[2].

[1] Also known as the “Bechdel-Wallace test” (or sometimes the “Mo Movie Measure”). To pass:

“One, a movie must have more than one woman in it, who, two, talk to each other, about, three, something besides a man.”

2. Cf: the glittery Daring Book For Girls.

Similar Posts:

{ 3 trackbacks }

Corporate Babysitter » Blog Archive » Sitter’s Checklist: Sounds Like Something I’d Say Edition
July 18, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Bratz versus ‘My Scene’ « The Radical Radish
July 20, 2008 at 9:40 pm
What with a toddler in the house
January 3, 2009 at 8:23 pm

{ 16 comments }

1
lyndal July 16, 2008 at 11:17 am

to be honest i don’t have much to say to this depressing post (the optional accessory of a washing machine in the ‘Rose Petal Cottage’ makes me want to cry), so i thought i would just point you to this recent kmart catalogue featured in Photoshop Disasters that i quite enjoyed.

2
Beppie July 16, 2008 at 11:34 am

You know what the really sad thing is, lyndal? When I read “toys for children slashed” in that link, my first thought was “Thomas the Tank Engine/Bob the Builder”. :P

Seriously though, I can see now why it was always my parents’ (particularly my mother’s) preference to give us lego wherever possible. I mean, I had dolls and teasets, etc, but also lots of toys geared towards building things, including technic lego and tonka trucks.

3
Lauredhel July 16, 2008 at 12:04 pm

PhotoshopDisasters are always on-topic, Lyndal.

4
Rebekka July 16, 2008 at 2:03 pm

This is just… ugh. I don’t suppose there’s any point complaining to Target about it, it’s more the fact that toy manufacturers make everything domestic pink, so coding it as for girls’ use only.

Perhaps a letter to Mattel…

5
EvilGod July 17, 2008 at 12:06 pm

Correct on all points but the blame should be spread a little wider. Have you seen the ads during cartoon shows on TV? Shamelessly sexist.
It makes little sense to blame the manufacturer or retailers only for this as parents are more than willing to pay for it. Unfortunately the vast majority of the blame goes to the backward thinking mothers who buy for their kids newer versions of what their mums bought for them. I distinctly remember getting a plastic lawnmower and a racing car the same year my twin sister received a Doll with variable hairstyles and a ‘play’ kitchen, it seemed weird then, and that was ‘69, it seems absurd today.
Excellent blog btw.

6
Lauredhel July 17, 2008 at 1:27 pm

EvilGod – yes, we spread the blame plenty wide here. We certainly don’t focus it on “mothers”, though. I suggest reading this blog a bit more widely before trying that on again.

Alternatively, you and your ableist, classist, eugenicist asshat self can fuck right off.

7
EvilGod July 17, 2008 at 2:57 pm

If that’s your opinion of people who agree with your article and like your blog I’d hate to see how you speak to those who aren’t so agreeable. “Ableist, classist and eugenicist” You got all that from my comment? Wow! Not bad considering nothing touching on any of those three subjects was mentioned.
I refuse to lower myself to name calling.

8
Lauredhel July 17, 2008 at 3:32 pm

Not from the text of your comment, no. You placed a link to your blog, so you brought all that baggage with you. All your comment revealed was your sexism and corporate apologism.

9
Karrigan July 18, 2008 at 3:31 am

That baby in the roof thing seems fairly nightmarish to me. Like life at the castle goes on fairly normally, until one day someone discovers the horrifying secret of the giant pink baby in the attic.

10
Klaus K July 18, 2008 at 8:22 am

Karrigan, do you mean like this one?

11
Lauredhel July 18, 2008 at 12:09 pm

Like life at the castle goes on fairly normally, until one day someone discovers the horrifying secret of the giant pink baby in the attic.

So I wasn’t the only one!

12
blue milk July 19, 2008 at 10:33 pm

We get catalogues from a rather expensive toy shop that specialises in educational toys – their range of products are fantastic and beautifully made and designed and I regularly shop from them.. but do you think their toy catalogue was any different to Target’s? Nup. Boys toys and girls toys all labeled as such on the pages, lots of pink stuff for girls and lots of variety and outdoor stuff for boys. Sooooooooo irritating.

13
richaldis July 22, 2008 at 7:12 am

Lego catalogues, in the UK at least, meet all your requirements, especially the schools ones.

14
Lauredhel July 22, 2008 at 11:43 am

richaldis: That’s cool about the Lego catalogues.

I’ve also noted that the Lego characters, while they could be read as default-male (they’re straight-up-and-down, which no doubt makes them easier to manufacture and fit into the various widgets), aren’t particularly male-marked.

My son still reads them as male (personal identification?) so I make a point of using female pronouns for the knights and astronauts and aliens 90% of the time, as a balancing act.

15
Mirthful January 3, 2009 at 8:37 pm

This stuck with me, and though most toy catalogues around here are as gender divided as can be, I did a double take before Christmas when I saw this image in an ad in the papers. (Blogpost about it.)

16
Lauredhel January 8, 2009 at 5:20 pm

Mirthful, that is WAY cool!

Comments on this entry are closed. If you wish to re-open this discussion, please leave a comment on the latest Open Thread.

Previous post:

Next post:

  • Random Quote

    An agreeable opinion is accepted as true: this is the proof by pleasure (or, as the church says, the proof by strength), that all religions are so proud of, whereas they ought to be ashamed. If the belief did not make us happy, it would not be believed: how little must it then be worth!
    Nietzsche
  • The Quintessential
    Hoyden About Town


    Emma Peel - Hoyden About Town

    Read more

    Affiliate Program

    How smart is your Theme?  How good is your support? Check out ThesisTheme for WordPress.