How Toys Have Grown up, Essay Example

When I was a child, the market for toys was probably more diverse than it had ever been. It was a kind of microcosm of what was occurring in the world of the adults; as the 1980’s merged into the early ’90’s, widely removed cultural elements were tailored for the children of the time.

As I look back now, especially in the difference between toys of my childhood and those marketed today, an immense difference lies in gender roles. The line between toys for boys and girls was still distinct, despite the new rise in electronic playthings. Little girls then had a huge assortment of traditional, feminine dolls to choose from, and these went in two stereotypically female directions: there were the the dolls descended from the “Barbie” model, and there was a massive influx of dolls designed to cater to maternal longings. The former included the “Hot Looks Dolls” and the “She-Ra” set, which was the girls’ version of the popular “He-Man” action figure for boys. These were the hip, sophisticated dolls for fantasy. At the same time, “My Little Pony”, “Cabbage Patch Dolls” and “My Child Dolls” traced their roots much further back. Even in Victorian days, little girls were encouraged to want to nurture “babies” like these of their own. “Magic Nursery Babies” especially sought to convey realistic motherhood, with sex identification and actual nurturing phases marked by changes in the doll’s appearance.

For boys, the situation was also fairly gender-specific. The major exception to this was the “Pokemon” craze, launched in 1996 and incorporating a variety of products under one banner. It was a “PlayStation” experience as a video game, but there were dolls as well, and the foreign nature of them was essentially sexless. It was all about cuteness combined with a little battle and adventure, so it appealed to all children. Meanwhile, the “Star Wars” and “He-Man” franchises in toy production gave boys the sense of heroics other generations enjoyed with “GI Joe” action figures.

From what I gather today, modern toys are running an extraordinary range, with classics like “Easy-Bake Oven” and board games like “CandyLand” enjoying a resurgence, and sophisticated electronics taking up much of the rest of the market. In fact, even the classics are presented with modern twists: the “Barbie” doll can get a digital nail printer, and the “Hot Wheels” toy cars are equipped with complex remote controls. Even “Monopoly” is available as an electronic board game.

The essences of the toys of my youth and of today are the same in that standards still hold, but technology is blurring the traditional lines of gender-specific marketing, and even of age. The “LeapFrog Scribble and Write” and the “Fisher-Price iXL Learning System” are only two of many electronic toys geared for three and four year-old children. Even the vastly popular “Tickle Me Elmo” of the 1980’s and ’90’s now has his own cell phone. Dolls for girls and soldiers for boys are still available, but more in a nostalgic manner, meant to appeal to a parent’s desire to carry on a beloved tradition than foster expected role behaviors.

All of this points to one essential shift in toys as the generation changed, one wherein toys are continuing to shed whatever patina of innocence they once had. The more modern toys get more complex every year, as though to train boys and girls in the computer skills they will require as soon as they enter high school. There is always, of course, the packaging and promotion geared to attract children, with bright colors and splashy graphics promising fun. The fun, however, is not quite the same because the toys of today carry with them a sense of imminent responsibilities different than the simple expectations of motherhood, or of being a strong man, the toys of even my childhood held.