• tiramichu@lemm.ee
        17·
        9 months ago

        The toy is indeed why, but I’d argue the other commenter’s sarcastic take that the boy one contains a firearm was intended as a criticism of that very reason.

        Toys shouldn’t be gendered either.

        • Ilikecheese@lemm.ee
          2·
          9 months ago

          Yes and no. On the one hand, it would be bad to say something like, this is a doll and girls and only girls can play with it, and this is a tractor and it’s only for the boys. At the same time, it would be nice to have some sort of idea if you’re getting a “traditional girl toy” or one aimed at more masculine thought of activities. I don’t know how you would separate those into categories without assigning gender to them though even though that’s outdated by today’s standards. Maybe something like putting “doll” or “truck” or “sports” or something and let people choose from those regardless of their gender identity.

          • tiramichu@lemm.ee
            2·
            9 months ago

            You’re right in that the public has expectations around what sort of toy they want for either a boy or a girl, and manufacturers are satisfying public expectation and demand by gendering things on that basis. But in doing ao they are also perpetuating and reinforcing gender stereotypes.

            To label one ‘car’ and one ‘doll’ would go some way to address this but the question still remains, why do we need to label at all? It’s a surprise egg, why does it matter what is inside?

            The answer of course is that either the child or their parents would be dissatisfied if they got a toy they didn’t like.

            Which then raises the next question; why wouldn’t the child like it? And the likely answer is because society has taught them what to like and what not to like based on their gender.

            And so that’s where we are. Gender norms exist, but we’ll never be free of them until we stop this kind of gendering which perpetuates them.

            The ideal world would be one where a child can open an egg and enojoy the toy that comes out, no matter what it is, but we don’t live in that world yet.

            • Ilikecheese@lemm.ee
              1·
              9 months ago

              I don’t think the world needs to be that black and white. You’re basically describing the opposite extreme to one where only boys can play with boys toys and only girls get the frilly pink stuff. Life should always been about compromise and meeting in the middle. I don’t think there’s inherently anything wrong with having something that is traditionally thought of as masculine or feminine. The problem arises when you have someone who doesn’t fit in that box and you force them to conform to that standard.

              Plus, gender issues aside, there just aren’t that many kids who would be equally exited to get a doll as they would to get a toy truck. Kids have preferences. And preferring one type of toy over another isn’t always going to be because someone forced them to like it, it could just be that they legitimately like them more.

    • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
      4·
      9 months ago

      The weird thing is, Kinderüberraschung actually was gender neutral when I was a kid.

      Not sure when they started doing this, but in the past there only was one version of it and it was a standard kids dessert/toy

  • Ashelyn
    11·
    9 months ago

    I mean, I can see why they did it like that, but there has to be a better way to signal that kind of toy one is getting.

    I propose we do away with these boy/girl genders and replace them with ones based on Pokemon contest types. There should be your choice between Kinder eggs with the following attributes and flavors:

    • Cute Toys (pink, sweet)
    • Tough Toys (yellow, sour)
    • Cool Toys (red, spicy)
    • Beautiful Toys (blue… dry…)
    • Smart Toys (green… bitter? could work with matcha idk)

    There might be some workshopping to be done there, but it’s a strong start towards improving the situation