A feature in the Times about the booming ‘playhouse’ construction business, that’s taken off despite the recession:
Mr. Dwyer has installed playhouses that look like pirate ships, windmills and castles at the homes of several film and sports stars who asked not to be named to protect their children’s privacy.
“Only a certain kind of clientele can afford what we offer,” he said. And few have backyards big enough to hold it. Red Beard’s Revenge, for example, is a $52,000 playhouse in the shape of a 12-foot-tall, 18-foot-long pirate ship, complete with a crow’s nest, upper and lower decks made of mahogany and leather benches in the captain’s quarters that double as beds. […]
Barbara Butler, an artist and playhouse builder in San Francisco, said her sales are up 40 percent this year, and she has twice as many future commissions lined up as she did this time last year. Not only that, but the average price of the structures she is being hired to build has more than doubled, from $26,000 to $54,000.
It’s probably easy to see the ludicrousness in all of this – but let’s take a stab at it, shall we? Real imaginative play is almost directly antithetical to predesigned, adult-built structures, which lack all of the opportunities for a child’s agency and control over the environment that, say, a plain stack of scavenged wood, a bucket of nails, and a little paint might offer that child. In fact, while the obligatorily-quoted psychologist in the article, Dr. Steven Tuber of City University of New York, notes that “over-the-top playhouses may do something for the parent’s sense of grandeur, [but] certainly are irrelevant to the child’s needs and desires for a play space,” I’d go further and say they’re not just irrelevant but are directly obstructive to children’s play – adulterating it with preconceived expectations about what that play should be, to say nothing of shifting the control and maintenance of the environment over to adults.
What strikes me as more ludicrous, though, are the dominant reasons people seem to be buying – and builders seem to capitalize on while selling – these expensive playhouses:
“Childhood is a precious and finite thing,” Ms. Butler said. “And a special playhouse is not the sort of thing you can put off until the economy gets better.”
Not to go on an Old Sociologist Guy rant here, but – well, yes, to go on a rant… Let’s just be clear on something. “Childhood” = not about how fancy of stuff you had growing up, while “being a good parent” = not about simply outspending your neighbors on fancy playhouses and Baby Einstein DVDs. And there’s nothing “precious” about childhood; that’s just you being stupidly drunk with nostalgia. To the point: while some of these playhouses might look cute, and even be fun for children (for a while), they ultimately only undercut children’s independence, creativity, and control over their play – whereas these kids might just be better served with a bike and a summer of free afternoons where they can do whatever they like, and scavenge for spare materials and loose parts to build their own playhouses.
If there’s one silver lining to all of this, it’s that I think kids see through all this BS quite clearly. The kids from the families featured in the article might be too young now, but it won’t be long before they’re 10 or 11 years old and taking a hammer and saw to the playhouse because they know that can build something that’s better.
Last October, a group of sixth-graders in Sweden filed an official complaint with their country’s advertising regulatory agency against the Toys”R”Us corporation. The reason for the complaint? Because the kids felt the toy company’s catalogue was gender-discriminatory.
According to the youngsters, the Toys”R”Us Christmas catalogue featured “outdated gender roles because boys and girls were shown playing with different types of toys, whereby the boys were portrayed as active and the girls as passive”, according to a statement from Ro [Sweden’s regulatory agency].
The group’s teacher explained to the local Smålandsposten newspaper that filing the complaint was the culmination of more than two years of “long-term work” by the students on gender roles.
Thumbing through the catalogue, 13-year-old Hannes Psajd explained that he and his twin sister had always shared the same toys and that he was concerned about the message sent by the Toys”R”Us publication. “Small girls in princess stuff…and here are boys dressed as super heroes. It’s obvious that you get affected by this,” he told the newspaper. “When I see that only girls play with certain things then, as a guy, I don’t want it.”
Classmate Moa Averin emphasized the importance of children being able to be who they want even if “guys want to be princesses sometimes”.
Two thoughts here, if I may…
First, how absolutely great is this? That a group of young kids not only took a big political step to advocate for an issue they cared about, but that the issue itself is what they felt was gender discrimination? I see what these kids did as many great things, but most important it was a bold declaration against adults trying to put them into a box – against a corporation trying to exploit them, by playing into and contributing to culturally defined childhood gender roles, all for the purpose of selling cheap toy products. If you don’t think kids are cognizant of the ways society tries to transmit cultural expectations like gender roles, and are fully active in questioning and challenging those expectations, then think again. Kids see the world in a whole new way, one that’s uniquely their own – and they won’t let anyone else dictate it.
Second, leave it to a country like Sweden to not only hear a complaint filed by a group of children but also eagerly embrace and encourage the children’s activism while doing so. Following a review of the case, Sweden’s regulatory agency chose to agree with the children, and they issued Toys”R”Us a public reprimand – echoing the children’s sentiments in it by declaring that the toy company’s catalogue “discriminates based on gender and counteracts positive social behaviour, lifestyles, and attitudes.” Apparently the kids aren’t the only ones who understand and value the importance of them having the freedom culturally to be whomever they want to be.
I’d say that deserves at least two big cheers – one for the group of children themselves and their hard work in making their voice on a topic known, and another for Sweden’s government for taking that voice so seriously.
Adweek offers a special series of articles on marketing to children and families – but from the marketers’ perspective.
Kids want what they want when they want it. The little centers- of-our-universe can beg and plead for their essentials – toys, snacks and TV shows – with unfettered determination. Turns out that parents, television networks and marketers are working double time to oblige.
In our first special issue on kids, we illustrate how companies are advancing their offerings to further get this young consumer demographic to pull harder on the family purse strings.
Sure to disgust many readers – but also perhaps challenge some underlying assumptions about children and economic activity.
Little girls are saying goodbye to their dollies and hello to tech gadgets and computer games. Does this mean they’re missing out on imaginative play?
Wow. If that’s not a patronizing thing to say, I don’t know what is. Girls, boys, dolls, and computers and cell phones everywhere should feel highly begrudged right now. (Yes, I’m including inanimate objects in that list. Hush now.)
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Just to be clear: I do actually get that the author is attempting to make a point about the supposed ‘disappearance’ of children’s imaginative play, and unconsciously presuming this is linked with children’s increasing use of mediated toys and technology instead of physical toys. I’m alright with being concerned about that, even if I think that fear is overplayed. Rather, it’s the wrapping that she surrounds her point in which is just presumptuous and sexist, while unconsciously reinforcing potentially harmful gender stereotypes.
First, there’s nothing necessarily “bad” with girls being interested in technology, nor is imaginative play necessarily inhibited by it. It’s a different topic, but one that should be considered: why is computer literacy still thought of as a predominantly male trait? As far as linking technology with the downfall of imaginative play – that’s a stretch, by far, and doesn’t actually consider the unique benefits that technology may offer to imaginative play. ‘Tis a topic worth it’s own discussion, and the research just ain’t there to make blanket statements at this point.
Second, while the prevalence of dolls has perhaps led us to accept that they’re necessary and beneficial, why should we assume that dolls are really all that important a thing in order for a girl to have a rich, imaginative playlife? As one commenter to the piece mentioned: If you’re concerned about a girl’s creativity and imagination, why not give her a tub of LEGO bricks in response? I should also probably not leave out the other begrudged party here – boys. What? Boys can’t play with dolls? History has shown that children (and adults) of all ages and genders have played with dolls in the past (see Howard Chudacoff’s book, “Children at Play: An American History”), so why have dolls become such a regimented part of the ‘girl’ gender
stereotype?
I don’t mean to hate on dolls – there’s definitely a lot of play value in them, and I know a lot of little girls (and boys) who play with them. Even as the author recounts her own daughter’s doll play, you can get a picture of the richness dolls often add to play. But the real issues with this type of hypothesizing are the underlying assumptions made in the process: first with conflating doll play as a given and natural part of an imaginative girlhood (introducing gender stereotypes in doing so), and then with unnecessarily dichotomising technology against imaginative play (and undermining children’s potential in the process).
Those are some pretty big holes to be standing on when you’re asking about otherwise good topics.
