Google Slides Link: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1zOSc_ZYksz5ZaOCgRIJbWjNCd7yMuHzlGkjDw_vEXws/edit?usp=sharing
Part 1:
My group members, Steve, Echo, Layla and I chose to research deeper into the category of toys for real-life work. After a group discussion about our main concepts from the 4 readings, we each went on to our own separate toys from the large selection of real-life work. I for one chose to research toys related to the role of the chef, most specifically, kitchen sets for children. Why I made this choice, was due to how I personally believe the full physical kitchen set provided the most ‘lessons’ into the works of a cook as compared to a single LED-based oven or magic smoothie maker.
It was, however, as I agree with all my group members, fairly difficult to investigate the history of these toys due to their vast variety, as well as a lack of monopoly in toy production, alluding to a long list of designers, creators, manufactures and retailers that provide such a set; With products from huge companies like Little Tikes, Hasbro, Toys R Us, KidKraft and many more. All of their products, while ranging in sizes and price were and still are targeted towards kids between the ages of 5 and 12. The content that is included in these replicative sets can consist but is not limited to: cupboards, ovens, sinks, stoves, microwaves, utensils, plastic food, etc.
Though it was difficult to pinpoint the exact pioneer of this dominant toy in the children’s toy category, I can speak with confidence that these kitchen sets made their debut for the public during the 1950s. In which, as presumed, were mainly marketed towards young girls, teaching and preparing them to fulfill their future responsibilities as the loving housewife, in which their purpose was to cook and clean at home to fulfill a misconception of past domesticity. Kitchen toys came in an array of bubbly pink and hot pink, catered towards girl’s liking. However, during the 1970s, a rise in gender-neutrality within all major toys saw a significant increase, as more and more companies learned to advertise their products towards the greater demographic, both boys and girls. It is difficult to say however, that they had truly learned their lesson with gender-neutrality, as by the end of the decade, the rise in progression slowly waned, resulting in the phenomenon we discuss in our readings, a sea of pink vs blue. In the world of cooking toys, pink dominated every surface and fabric, once again catering towards the stereotyped preferences of younger girls. The kitchen set has seen ups and downs in its fight with gender-neutrality and has only been able to rise against the problem once more in recent years. Since as early as 2007, companies once again completed a 180 spin and returned with stronger and better products for both genders. The colors of each set no longer sported pinks or blues, but in fact, gradually leaned towards the realm of realism. With such design, the companies catered the sets for both female and male cooks alike. I believe that this trend of progression is here to stay.
As our group continued to discuss we came across many questions that we eventually asked in our class presentation. The questions, which are located on the google slides file, include our speculation of the kitchen set and its purpose. We find this category interesting for how it is, very heavily, marketed as educational toys. We questioned their true educational value, as well as play percentage/purpose, and agreed that these toys, aside from profit, are made to simply grant little players the opportunity to grow aware of certain roles and responsibilities in the larger society outside their local communities. We believe that this reason and purpose best fits the concerns we discussed beforehand.
Part 2:
The discussion question I have chosen today comes from my classmates’ presentation, in which they ask, can pets be considered toys?
As all of us had discussed in class, I believe the vote was unanimously a no, in which pets can not be considered toys to humans.
The definition of a toy, is in my perspective, an object that is inanimate in which you play with for leisurely fun. A pet, be it a dog, cat, lizard, fish, bird, so on, is very obviously a living breathing animal that also has a mind of its own. I wholeheartedly agree with Professor Godoy’s remark in regards to the argument. In which, when an individual views their pet as a toy, they are fundamentally objectifying their pet, degrading them to the status of a mere lifeless object. A toy can range from a tablet to building blocks to a Nintendo Switch, it fully submits its purpose to your amusement and time of play. The toy does not have a mind of its own, it has only limited functions and each ‘response’ to the individual’s actions are predetermined and ultimately fixed, meaning they can not and are incapable of change. A pet on the other hand, with a mind of its own, is unpredictable and can act according to their own thoughts and desires. They are capable of feeling, in many forms, they are very similar to humans. As I mentioned during the discussion, I compared the animal, to a human friend, to someone that I play with, someone whom I spend time with for amusement. When I think about the question under this circumstance, no one, with the right vocabulary and respect for life would consider their friend, a mere object. I do not believe that there should be any disparities between how we view our human friends with our animal ones, as our pets can also be considered companions, friends, and confidants. That is why I strongly believe that animals can not be considered toys.