Sexualize Children

Emma Renold (2005) describes gender in reference to Judith Butler’s theory of gender performativity by saying, “gender is not something that you have, but something that you do and continually do through everyday social and cultural practices” (p. 4). This paper intends to examine the social and cultural practices in which children and young people engage in and also, how these practices solidify their gender identity within the boy/girl binary. I will explain the contradictory notion that “childhood is a time of presumed sexual innocence” (Renold, 2005, p. 17) through my experience at Walmart. Furthermore, this paper will look at how toys gender and sexualize children and young people by examining the differences between White and Black dolls,

hypersexual feminine dolls, and the differences between the boys and girls sections.
The site that I chose to examine was the toy sections at Walmart. I went to the girls section of the store which was covered with pink everything, flowers, dolls, toy kitchen sets and more (see Appendix A picture 3). The first toys that caught my eye were the Lalaloopsey Girls and Bratz Dolls (see Appendix A pictures 1 and 2) because the prices between the White dolls and the Black walls were significantly different. In picture one, the Black Lalaloopsey doll is ten dollars less than the White Lalaloopsey doll – even though they are the same doll and are both on clearance. In picture two, the Black Bratz doll is on clearance and is over ten dollars less than the White Bratz doll, which is not on clearance. According to Deliovsky (2008), Barbie dolls represent a normalized ideal of beauty that summarizes the “dominant of western beauty aesthetic or the countless variations of idealized white feminine beauty” (p. 50). That being said, the emphasis on idealized white feminine beauty devalues the Black dolls in comparison to its white counterparts. In addition, children and young people who see this may internalize the hierarchical notion that white skin is better than dark skin. Butler (1987) states that “to choose a gender is not to move in upon gender from a disembodied locale, but to reinterpret the cultural history which the body already wears” (p. 48). This quote is significant in relation to Walmart’s pricing because the devaluing of darker skin stems from a long history of segregation and slavery, therefore the significant price drop of Black dolls reinterprets the cultural history of racial subordination. In this context, the price differences play a role in gendering children and young people by reproducing racial inequalities, valuing White over Black and making it clear that idealized feminine beauty is not race-neutral. Additionally, these dolls contribute to the early sexualization of young girls.
Renold (2005) argues that childhood is recognized as a time of sexual innocence, therefore when children “engage in consensual or abusive sexual acts” (p.

20) adults would claim that these children have been robbed of their childhoods. However, children are active in the process of producing their own sexual identity within the “limitations of the adult world” (p. 20). According to Renold (2005), the eroticisation and sexualization of young femininities play a role in the ways children and young people are gendered and sexualized. One of the reasons I took a picture of the Bratz dolls at Walmart (refer to Appendix A picture 2) was because the adolescent figured dolls with tiny waists, big breasts, wear a lot of makeup, have plumped limps and model sexy clothing send a sexualized message toward young girls. In a study by Starr and Ferguson (2012), young girls overwhelmingly expressed their interest in looking like the hypersexualized Bratz doll over the non-sexualized doll. That being said, Walmart’s status as a “family friendly” corporation contradicts with the products they sell because they are sexualizing young girls by selling this eroticised adolescent doll, in which young girls would describe as their ideal self. Renold (2005) states that the “eroticisation of innocence and the fascination with the erotic child is deeply gendered” (p. 23). A family friendly store selling sexy dolls eroticises girl-child innocence, therefore creating a paradox between adults’ desire to

maintain the sexual innocence of children and sexualizing young girls through consumer culture. With that said, young girls are gendered and sexualized within their consumer culture because when parents provide young girls with these eroticised dolls that are sold by Walmart and other large corporations – they are not only playing a role in the gender and sexual identity development of their child, but they are also exposing their child to unrealistic ideals of femininity – therefore, ignorantly challenging the presumed sexual innocence of childhood. Nonetheless, Walmart’s gendered and sexualized products does not stop at the girl’s section, the boy’s section was filled with toys, images and colours that attempt to show what it means to be masculine.
Walmart’s toy sections solidify the boy/girl binary by making it easy for consumers to distinguish between the boy and girl sections through colours and types of toys. The boys section (refer to Appendix A picture 3 and 7), had toys such as dinosaurs, police cars, Tonka trucks and superheroes. The colours green, yellow and blue were the most prominent in the boys’ section. In comparison to the girls’ aisle (see Appendix A picture 3, 4, 5) which had toys such as babies, strollers, tea carts and princesses along with the prominent colours pink, purple and yellow. Firstly, it is worthy to note that the boys’ toys listed above are considerably more active and aggressive objects, which are characteristics that are typically associated with masculinity. According to West and Zimmerman (1987), “children’s play activities are routine occasions for gender-appropriate behavior to take place and construct our view of ‘essential natures’” (p. 142). That being said, Walmart’s shelves in the boys section encourages more fantasy play and removes boys from domestic life. On the contrary, the girls section which includes babies, strollers, tea carts and kitchen supplies symbolizes the domestic women (see Appendix B field notes). Therefore, boys can use their toys to pretend they are working, protecting, and creating (i.e. police cars, superheroes, construction vehicles) whereas girls can use their toys to pretend to serve food and take care of babies. West and Zimmerman (1978) state that these activities produce and reproduce “wifely and husbandly roles” (p. 144), which constructs our ideas about the nature of women’s engagement in household labour and men’s lack thereof. In addition, when I was at Walmart I took a picture of to specific toys from both toy sections – the Flutterbye Unicorn and the Nerf Gun (see Appendix A picture 5). It is in the general images of how girls are portrayed versus how boys are portrayed that reiterates presumed gender roles and in turn, genders children and young people. In this case, the boy on the Nerf Gun box is showing an active, competitive, aggressive role whereas the Flutterbye box image represents how girl’s toys are more passive because they are objects to be looked at – in this case, the flying unicorn is pretty, docile and manipulable. Walmart plays a role in normalizing the boy/girl binary because they are reinforcing the notion that a child’s gender must coincide with their assigned sex category. As a matter of fact, while I was walking through to boys section – there was a princess toy placed on the shelf amongst toy cars and trucks. I heard a young boy say to his mother, “Mom this doesn’t belong in the boys section” as he pointed at the princess toy (see Appendix A, picture 6 and Appendix B field notes). In this case, the young boy believes that the princess toy has crossed into the boys section because Walmart has grouped their toys that are typically for girls in the pink section and toys that are typically for boys in the blue section. That being said, if a young boy wants to get a baby doll and stroller, he would be made to feel as if he is crossing into the girls section and may get taunted by others for carrying a baby doll around. My first-hand experience shows that from a young age, boys and girls are socialized into their gender roles vis-a-vis the toys they play with.
My experience at Walmart opened my eyes to the ways children and youth are gendered and sexualized within their consumer culture.

First and foremost, it is easy to differentiate between which aisle is for girls and which aisle is for boys. The girl toy aisle contains babies, strollers, tea carts and kitchen sets – which are all mostly the colours pink and purple. The boy toy aisle contains nerf guns, superheroes, Tonka trucks and police cars covered in green, blue and yellow. Furthermore, the toys that are sold at Walmart provide young girls with images of unrealistic ideals of beauty and what it means to be feminine, for example: the hypersexualized Bratz dolls, toys representing domestic household work and toys which enforce the nurturing “nature” of girls and women. Moreover, the prices that Walmart valued (or devalued) the Black Bratz and Lalaloopsey Girls dolls reveals to young people that White lives are cherished over Black lives, and also sending the message that idealized femininity is not race-neutral. Additionally, the toys in Walmart’s boys’ section were of a more competitive, aggressive and violent nature in comparison to that of the girls’ section where the toys were characterized by nurturance, physical appearance, and manipulability. In the case of the young boy and the out of place toy, it is situations like these that highlight how Walmart’s gender-based toy sections can foster bullying. I propose that one of the simplest things Walmart could do is change

the colour of the boards (i.e. from pink and blue to white) behind the toys so that children can choose the toy aisle they want to look in.