Even in the enlightened age of 2012, it appears that, for the most part, G.I. Joe still gets to do all of the fun out-of-house work and bad-guy-killing while Polly Pocket stays inside and bakes cakes.

This troubling situation has sparked discussion over the potentially negative implications of gender-based marketing with respect to children’s toys, drawing commentary from experts across a wide range of fields.

Anita Sarkeesian, a Master’s degree-holding blogger, recently posted a two-part video series taking issue with this phenomenon on her website, FeministFrequency.com, with a specific interest in everyone’s favourite multi-coloured plastic blocks.

“Research has consistently shown that playing with LEGO accelerates childhood development,” she says in one of the two videos. “Sadly, as a consequence of LEGO’s decision to design and market their products almost exclusively to boys over the past few decades, girls have been largely left out.”

Sarkeesian goes on to explore the continuing evolution of LEGO’s marketing strategy with respect to gender. She explains that LEGO gradually shifted from a gender-neutral marketing strategy in the ‘50s, ‘60s and ‘70s to a primarily male-focused approach in subsequent years.

Sarkeesian’s video-blog also takes aim at one of the company’s newest product-lines: an expensively researched attempt to capture the female demographic branded simply as “LEGO Friends.”

“The Friends theme sets focus on traditionally female identified tasks including baking at the City Park Café, getting your hair done at the Butterfly Beauty Shop, taking care of pets at the Heartlake Vet or homemaking at Olivia’s House,” she says.

Sarkeesian explains that, while there’s nothing inherently wrong with featuring these types of domestic activities in toys marketed to girls, what’s problematic is the fact that LEGO’s female-marketed sets are so thoroughly devoid of anything that doesn’t appeal directly to unfair gender stereotypes.

She also points out that the female-marketed products tend to de-emphasize the focus on creativity that makes the company’s other toys so much fun.

“LEGO needs to go back to the drawing board and create products that foster creativity and imagination that children of all genders will adore,” she says.

Fiona Green, former chair of the University of Winnipeg’s department of women’s and gender studies and expert in gender socialization, commented on the issue of gender-based marketing with respect to children’s toys.

“Toys are huge in the socialization process,” she said. “(This type of marketing) is actually what I would call the ‘domestication’ of girls and women. It’s about teaching girls how to play a certain role in the household and how to have relationships with men and their families.”

These culturally imposed gender roles tend to be mistaken for natural, sex-based dispositions - a problem which is perpetuated in part by some children’s toys and their respective marketing campaigns, Green said.

Fabrizio DiMuro, a professor of marketing at the University of Winnipeg, provided another point of view regarding the issue.

“As marketers, you kind of have to go with what’s going to get you the best result,” he explained. “If you don’t do that, you’re not going to be able to keep your job. This might sound harsh, but as a marketer, it’s not your job to sort out society’s debates.”

DiMuro pointed out that issues with gender socialization are extremely complex, and that it would be unfair to only implicate marketers in the problem.

“I don’t think that what (marketers) are doing is the definitive thing that casts people in one gender role or another,” said DiMuro. “(Gender-based marketing) might help push things in that direction, but there are so many other components of society working to that end as well.

“Marketers have to deal with a certain reality, and in dealing with that they might also inadvertently create bigger gaps in that reality,” he added. “But, unfortunately, they’re kind of stuck.”

Published in Volume 66, Number 24 of The Uniter (March 21, 2012)