Oxford Review of Education

ISSN: 0305-4985 (Print) 1465-3915 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/core20

Gender, toys and learning

Becky Francis

To cite this article: Becky Francis (2010) Gender, toys and learning, Oxford Review of
Education, 36:3, 325-344, DOI: 10.1080/03054981003732278
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03054981003732278

Published online: 09 Jun 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 14520

View related articles

Citing articles: 7 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=core20
Oxford Review of Education
Vol. 36, No. 3, June 2010, pp. 325–344

Gender, toys and learning

Becky Francis*
Roehampton University, UK
Oxford
10.1080/03054981003732278
CORE_A_473749.sgm
0305-4985
Original
Taylor
02010
00
Professor
[email protected]
000002010
&
and
Review
Article
Francis
BeckyFrancis
(print)/1465-3915
Francis
of Education (online)

In spite of continuing patterning of curriculum subject preference and choice by gender, there has
been little recent attention to the argument developed in the 1970s that children play with different
toys according to their gender, and that these provide girls and boys with (different) curriculum-
related skills. The article describes a small-scale empirical study that asked parents of 3–5 year old
children to identify their child’s favourite toys and viewing material, and analysed responses accord-
ing to children’s gender. The most frequently identified toys and viewing materials were subjected
to content and discourse analysis, with the intention of identifying both educative aspects of
content, and the gender discourses reflected. The article explores conceptual issues around categor-
isations of ‘education’ within toys and entertainment resources, positing the notion of ‘didactic
information’ to delineate between overtly educational content and other social discourses. Analysis
reveals toy preferences to be highly gendered, with boys’ toys and resources concentrated on tech-
nology and action, and girls’ on care and stereotypically feminine interests. Didactic information,
and aspects developing construction and literacy skills, were identified in the selected toys and
resources for boys, and were lacking in those for girls. All the toys and resources could be read as
implicated in ‘gendering’: the various gender discourses, and other discourses around aspects of
social identity reflected in the toys and resources are identified and analysed. The analysis presented
suggests the value of reinvigorated attention to children’s toys and entertainment resources in terms
both of the education they afford, and their role in the production of social identities.

Introduction
Curriculum subject preference and choice remains strongly gender-differentiated, in
spite of the introduction of the National Curriculum (Arnot et al., 1999; Francis,
2000, 2002; EOC, 2001, 2004). Although girls have largely caught up with boys in
terms of achievement at maths and science during compulsory education, science
remains unpopular among girls (Francis, 2000; Francis et al., 2003; Calabrese Barton
& Brickhouse, 2006), girls are more likely than boys to take generalised Double
Science than specialist subjects, and girls are less likely to be among the highest-
achieving at maths and science (Boaler, 2002; OECD, 2007). They are also far less

*School of Education, Roehampton University, Roehampton Lane, London, SW15 5PJ, UK.
Email: [email protected]

ISSN 0305-4985 (print)/ISSN 1465-3915 (online)/10/030325–20

© 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/03054981003732278
326 B. Francis

likely to take up ‘hard’ science subjects at ‘A’ level and beyond (EOC, 2004).
Conversely, there is a profound gender gap favouring girls for literacy.1 Girls tend to
outperform boys in humanities subjects, and continue to dominate uptake in these
subjects in post-compulsory education (Francis & Skelton, 2005).
There are many explanations for these gendered patterns of curriculum preference
and uptake (Paechter, 2000). However, one aspect, identified by feminist educational
researchers in the 1970s and early 1980s, has received little recent attention. This is
the impact of children’s toys and play. Early research showed how children were
directed towards certain types of play, and provided with certain kinds of toys, which
afford opportunities for girls to develop communication skills and ‘emotional liter-
acy’, and for boys to develop technical knowledge and skills (see, e.g. Hart, 1979;
Delamont, 1980; Block, 1982; Miller, 1987; Dixon, 1990; Lloyd & Duveen, 1992).
Research showed how young children do not initially understand toys as gendered,
but that they rapidly learn that certain toys are ‘for boys’ and others ‘for girls’ (Fagot,
1974; Miller, 1987; Lloyd & Duveen, 1992)—and hence that some toys are out of
bounds to them (Francis, 1998).
Later research has moved away from ‘role theory’ perspectives that conceive chil-
dren ‘learning’ their gender roles through play with gender typed toys. Instead,
there has been attention to the ways in which children actively use toys and other
play resources to delineate their gender identities (Davies, 1989; Kirkham, 1996).
Bronwyn Davies’s (1989) important poststructuralist study of children’s readings of
‘feminist fairy tales’ influenced a move away from analysis of the straightforward
content of children’s resources to a focus on the discursive constructions produced
by these resources, and the ways in which these may be drawn upon by children to
perform themselves as feminine or masculine. Such poststructuralist accounts have
further moved to understandings of materials such as toys as technologies via which
gender and other aspects of social identity may be performed, and hence subjectivi-
ties brought into being (Butler, 1997; Davies, 2006; Nayak & Kehily, 2006).
In this sense, the notion that toys and children’s resources might be ‘teaching’ them
gendered lessons has perhaps become rather unfashionable. However, I would argue
that a revisiting of such ideas is timely—especially given that children’s toys, clothes
and resources now appear to be more gender-delineated than ever (Delamont, 2001).
There has been a great deal of media commentary on aspects of this trend: for exam-
ple, the way in which pink, sparkly clothes have become ubiquitous for girls (Guardian,
2008); and the sexualisation of clothes and toys marketed at girls (Guardian, 2005;
Daily Mail, 2006; BBC News 2008). Toy companies are aware of gendered consumer
preferences, and develop and market their toys to these trends, hence closing down
broader (non-gendered) options and perpetuating the gendered toy market (Williams,
2006). Contemporary feminist work recognises the ways in which discursive construc-
tions produced by children’s resources may inculcate gender identities, foreclosing
some possible ‘ways of being’ and opening others. And there has been attention to the
educational aspects of computer gaming and other non school-based IT resources
(e.g. Buckingham, 1993; Plowman, 1996; Buckingham & Scanlon, 2003). However,
there is a lack of contemporary research on educational aspects of young children’s
 Gender, toys and learning 327

toys, and the potential impact on girls’/boys’ learning and future curriculum subject
preferences.
Addressing hypotheses concerning links between children’s play resources and
school curriculum preferences are beyond the scope of the small-scale study
reported here, which rather sought to begin by identifying which toys are most popu-
lar among young children, and to analyse these choices according to gender. A post-
structuralist theoretical framework is maintained, whereby the toys and resources
identified are viewed as texts (Burman & Parker, 1993), and gender (and other
aspects of subjectivity such as ‘race’ and social class) are seen as constructed,
ascribed and performed through discourse (e.g. Butler, 1990, 1997). Hence I share
the view of Davies (1989) and others that toys are used by children as an aspect of
what she calls ‘gender category maintenance’. But following Butler’s (1993) discus-
sion of the performance of ‘girling’, I am also interested in the ways in which the toys
and resources themselves interpolate children as gendered (and ‘raced’ and
‘classed’), and in the nature of the information discursively provided by such toys.
Hence, on identification of favourite toys and resources among young children,
these were analysed to discover a) what content is specifically educational; b) what
broad activities/subjects they address; and c) what social discourses they perpetuate.
These endeavours are innovative in the sense that poststructuralists have not been
closely engaged with notions of pedagogy and/or learning (except to deconstruct
them). They have attended to the ways in which discourses produce, position and
interpolate subjects,2 rather than the subject as processing and gaining knowledge
(learning). I seek to apply a discourse analytic position that develops Butler’s notion
of ‘girling’ (and ‘boying’), but also incorporates analysis of the ‘educative’ aspects of
toy texts. Hence one of the aims of this article is to discuss how far such analyses
may be convincing and/or useful.
However, this raises an immediate challenge with regard to the conceptual founda-
tions for the data analysis, in articulating the different kinds (if ‘kinds’ there are) of
educational content. Buckingham and Scanlon (2003) remark on the dilemma of
what ‘counts’ as education, noting how distinction between ‘education’ and ‘enter-
tainment’ has become increasingly problematic.3 However, my study sought to go
even further, identifying ‘educational moments’ in toys and resources geared prima-
rily to entertainment. Works published in the wave of attention to toys, curriculum
materials and learning in the 1970s and early 1980s tended to distinguish between
development of social and cognitive skills (see e.g. Miller, 1987 for a review), but
such distinctions are deconstructed by discourse analytic approaches, which expose
discourses as producing subjects in a range of ways: from this perspective all toys
constitute text, via which discourses work to produce objects in different ways. All
these discourses may then be seen as ‘educative’, or involving ‘knowledge transfer,’
in the information and ‘truths’ they convey. Within such an approach it becomes
difficult to distinguish between ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ education; and yet one of my
aims was to look at the ways in which these toys and resources could directly educate
or develop their users’ skills in ways that might relate to aspects of the school curric-
ulum. Moreover, as Buckingham and Scanlon (2003) assert, there is a ‘significant
328 B. Francis

difference’ between what they term ‘everyday learning’ and ‘learning that arises from
explicit instruction’ (p. 9).
Toys and DVDs may be more or less ‘authorial’, as we shall see, but debates in
reader response theory around the limits of authorial intention and/or construction of
text by the reader/consumer4 are somewhat tangential to my purpose: it is not inten-
tionality that I seek to identify, but more to delineate the educative content. For
example, the gift of a Meccano box to a little boy may be highly educative in terms of
the gendered discourses to which he is being inculcated, yet I wish to distinguish these
generalised gender discourses from, say, instructions that directly inform how to
construct vehicles (and hence which may develop skills of literacy and construction
relevant to, and beneficial for, the school curriculum). For this reason I have opted to
apply and develop the notion of ‘didactic information’. ‘Didactic’ is taken to mean
explicitly instructive—as the Concise Oxford English Dictionary puts it, ‘Meant to
instruct; having the manner of a teacher’ (1964, p. 339). In this sense I am using the
notion of ‘didactic information’ to allude to overt instructions or explanations that
may be identified within my analysis (as in the latter example of Meccano instruc-
tions), as distinguished from less overtly pedagogic discourse. Further, my applica-
tion of the term ‘didactic information’ relates specifically to content which has
potential connection to the school curriculum.

Methodology
The article draws on data from a small-scale study, funded by the Froebel Research
Institute. The study focused on 3–5 year old children (nursery and reception class).
According to Davies (1989), these children are undergoing a heightened period of
gender category maintenance, wherein they increasingly understand the social impor-
tance of gender differentiation and hence seek to find ways to demonstrate their
gender identification (see also Lloyd & Duveen, 1992). Children in this group will
also be beginning to distinguish toys as gendered (Lloyd & Duveen, 1992).
The first stage of the study involved distributing a brief questionnaire to parents of
children in full-time nursery and reception classes at a socially diverse, urban case-
study primary school (that incorporated a nursery). There were 17 children attending
nursery full-time, and 51 in reception, totalling 68 children. There were 32 question-
naire responses. Parents were asked the sex of their child, their child’s favourite toy,
and their child’s favourite DVD/video. DVDs (reflecting either television series or
film) were included as well as toys as they have become such an ubiquitous feature of
children’s leisure, and often overlap with toys; with toys increasingly based on televi-
sion/movie characters, and sometimes television shows derived from best-selling toys
(Williams, 2006). Clearly the questionnaire data comprise parents’ constructions of
which are their children’s favourite toys, although some parents informed me that
they had directly asked their children what their favourites were, in order to respond.
Once the most popular toys and DVD/television programmes for boys and for girls
were identified, the three most popular toys were identified for each gender group,
and the two most popular DVDs. Examples of these items were then purchased and
 Gender, toys and learning 329

closely studied in order to apply the content and discourse analysis. DVDs were each
viewed repeatedly and observation notes taken at each viewing. Discourse analysis
(Burman & Parker, 1993) identified the various discourses produced around gender
and other facets of social identity, and content analysis was applied to identify the
various instances of ‘didactic information’.

Choices of favourite toys

Tables 1 and 2 set out the responses concerning children’s favourite toys and DVD/
television programmes. A few trends are immediately identifiable from the tables.
First, how very gender-differentiated the toy preferences are. The vast majority of
these toys are clearly delineated ‘girls’ or ‘boys’ toys, and chosen as preferred by a
child of the gender to which the various toys are marketed. The exceptions are the
Spiderman identified for a girl, and the Little People identified for a boy.5 Otherwise,
the choices for boys are characterised stereotypically by action, construction and
machinery; for girls by nurture, and other stereotypically ‘feminine’ interests (ponies,
hairdressing etc). This appears to confound findings in the late 1980s of an emerging
trend towards gender-neutral toy choice (Freeman, 1995).
The choices of viewing material however show a rather different pattern. While the
choices for boys remain stereotypically gendered masculine, there is far greater diver-
sity among girls’ choices, many of which might be considered ‘androgynous’ choices
in that they are marketed at girls and boys alike (for example, Shrek, Tom and Jerry,
Home Alone, A Bug’s Life, Jungle Book). It is, however, notable that while virtually all
of the viewing materials on the list for boys have males as the central character, or

Table 1. Favourite toys

GIRLS BOYS

Cuddly toy (6) Toy cars (5)

(bunny x2; cow; monkey; cat; elephant)
Bratz dolls (3) Power Rangers models (3)
Toy doll (baby) (3) Thomas the Tank Engine engines and set (2)
Princess books (2) Thunderbirds models (2)
Skipping rope Star Wars lego
Rag doll (‘Mrs Queenie’) Toy jet plane (HMS Belfast)
High School Musical microphone Mario DS Lite (Nintendo game console)
Dora the Explora computer A football
Barbie horse Light sabre
Hairdresser’s kit Building bricks
My Little Pony ‘Little People’ (any figure)
Spiderman figure Transformers
Ben 10 figures
Barney the Dinosaur
Lego
330 B. Francis

Table 2. Favourite television programmes/films

GIRLS BOYS

Mary Poppins (3) Power Rangers (5)

Tom & Jerry (2) Ben 10 (2)
Bambi Spiderman (2)
Surf’s Up Thomas the Tank Engine (2)
Shrek 2 Harry Potter
Jungle Book Cars
Home Alone 2 Star Wars
High School Musical Superman
Barney the Dinosaur The Princess and the Goblin
Barbie: The Twelve Dancing Princesses Thunderbirds
Beatrix Potter ballet Scooby Doo
Scooby Doo Barney the Dinosaur
A Bug’s Life ‘Tall Boy’
Going on a Bear Hunt Dr Who
Fifi Forget-me-not Motor racing
Dora the Explora
Sponge Bob
Charlie and Lola (never watches television/films [2])

preponderance of central characters, the majority of the girls’ choices do so also.

Girls’ preferences as represented on Table 2 are far broader than those of boys in
terms of genre: the choices for boys are almost entirely focused on action, and char-
acterised by the ‘hero’ genre and technical wizardry (by contrast, such technology is
absent as content in girls’ viewing preferences).
I turn now to qualitative analysis of the discourses and didactic information
conveyed by some of these toys and resources that facilitate the reproduction of
gender difference, and other aspects of social distinction. But in order to do so I first
provide a brief description of the various resources (and their packaging) selected, to
familiarise the reader with those analysed here.

The toys and DVDs analysed

Cuddly toy: Self explanatory. Cuddly toys are usually sold as they are, without pack-
aging.

Baby doll: The baby dolls on sale in the high street vendor from which I purchased the
toys were all White, female, and characterised by pastel pink packaging. The endur-
ingly popular ‘Baby Annabell’ was selected. Baby Annabell has a white playsuit and
hat, the playsuit embellished with a pink sheep holding a heart, among pink flowers,
on the front. As accessories (sold together) she has a pink, flower-shaped dummy, a
pastel blue packet of tissues with pink flower decoration, and an elaborately patterned
 Gender, toys and learning 331

feeding bottle. Baby Annabell looks like a real baby, and much is made of this ‘real-
ism’ on the packaging: ‘Baby Annabell is like a real baby with realistic features.’ The
pictures on the box show a (White, blonde, female) child nurturing Baby Annabell.
A feature of ‘Baby Annabell’ is that she ‘responds to your voice’ (as advertised on the
box), emitting gurgles, chuckles and cries.

Bratz doll: Bratz dolls represent a contemporary alternative to Barbie and Cindy dolls,
but with a greater emphasis on fashionability and ‘urban cool’, and arguably (in their
ostentatious makeup and ‘bling’ jewellery) sexualised hyper-femininity. Pinks and
pastel colours, glitz and sparkle, mark out Bratz packaging. Like their Barbie compet-
itor, Bratz are divided into a range of genres: examples at the time of writing include
‘Pop Divas’, ‘Rock Stars’, ‘Beach Bash’, ‘Fashion Stylists’, and ‘Passion 4 Fashion’.
And as in the case of Barbie’s ‘Ken’, there are a small minority of male Bratz (with
‘bling’ accessories such as necklace and shades). The majority are White; Black and
other minority ethnic Bratz are available, but no evidently minority ethnic Bratz was
on sale in the outlet concerned at the time of purchase.
A Bratz ‘Passion for Fashion 2 Pack’ containing two Bratz dolls (‘FiannaTM’ and
‘DanaTM’) was selected for study, as indicatively representative. These two dolls are
White, with copious make-up and long, highlighted hair. They are extremely slender
but with curves for hips and breasts, and outlandishly large heads. Their faces have
huge be-lashed eyes, lipsticked mouths and tiny noses. Fianna and Dana wear denim
jeans, belly tops and jackets, all with glittering trim. Both wear high-heeled shoes and
large detachable earrings. Additionally, an extra outfit (party dress and bracelet) is
provided for each.

Toy cars: Packaging for toy cars is generally very ‘busy’, denoting action and speed,
with strong primary colours; flames or explosions are a common motif. Packaging
often includes pictures of vehicles hurtling at speed, and any weaponry or technical
features of the toy concerned being operated with blasting action. Vehicle names
conjure both action and machismo, including for example ‘Speed Racer’, ‘Rapid
Assault’, ‘Roadmaster’, ‘Rapid Reaction Team’, and often evoke the action to which
they are to be put to use, such as ‘Crossroad Crash’. Their frequent multiple func-
tions are listed on the packaging (often with exclamation marks to convey the excite-
ment), as are onomatopaeic words such as ‘Crrraaassh!’ (e.g. Hotwheels Bumper
Buster, 2008).

Power Rangers models: There are multiple different models, as well as Power Rangers
accessories. In all cases boys are featured on the packaging, either modelling the
‘dress up’ clothes and accessories, or operating the models. Two ‘Power Rangers,
Operation Overdrive’ packs are selected as indicatively representative of the action
figures available. The packs contain a Power Rangers figure, along with various vehi-
cle parts that can ‘morph’ (according to the packaging) from Ranger armour to
Ranger vehicle. They also contain additional weaponry for the Ranger to hold. The
sex of those Rangers available is indicated male via their bulging muscles and ‘six
332 B. Francis

packs’, and the colours of their costumes as representing male Power Rangers in the
television series. Significantly, the Power Rangers photographed on the packaging are
all male in the television series (red, blue and black suits): the female Power Rangers
from the series are not represented. They are shown in martial arts stances, with the
closest (Red, ‘alpha’ Ranger) wielding a gun.

Thomas the Tank Engine train set: Thomas packaging is all regulation ‘Thomas Blue’.
The official Thomas merchandise wooden train set includes jigsaw-like pieces of track
to assemble; and individual wooden engines with plastic smiling faces and a magnetic
‘coupling’ at front and back for potentially linking other engines or carriages. The
engines are gendered: most are male, having male-appropriate names (Thomas,
Percy, Gordon, etc. For those who might not know the names from reading the books
or watching the DVDs, the appropriate name is painted on the bottom of each
engine). There are a few female engines (e.g. Emily, Daisy, Lady), and of course
Thomas’s coaches Annie and Clarabel. These are delineated as distinct from the male
engines in the television series by their having eyelashes, but are not easily identifiable
as female in the form of wooden models, except via their names.

DVDs: Those purchased were: Power Rangers The Ultimate Rangers (an anthology of
different Power Ranger episodes); Thomas the Tank Engine The Chocolate Crunch (an
anthology of different episodes from Thomas and Friends); Mary Poppins (the Disney
film); and Tom & Jerry, Collection Volume 2 (a collection of Tom and Jerry cartoons).

Didactic information provided (potentially related to the official school

curriculum)
Of the choices from the ‘girls’ list’, I could identify little potential learning/skills devel-
opment that relates to the official curriculum. Neither the cuddly toy nor Bratz dolls
appear to offer any such information or skills, didactic or otherwise. The film Mary
Poppins is fantastical, and offers virtually no information as related to official curricula
(though is saturated with moral discourses, see Kenschaft, 1999). It includes tenuous
information on the operation of a bank, and on the state of British society in the early
part of the twentieth century, but this (scant) information might be argued to be
misleading. And the Tom & Jerry collection is likewise fantastical. On the other hand,
analysis of the Tom & Jerry cartoons did identify instances of information provision:
this information was often relatively ‘adult’, and hence potentially intriguing for an
early-years audience. For example, that if one drinks copious quantities of cider one
will become drunk, and this drunkenness will alter one’s usual behaviour (‘Part Time
Pal’); and precisely how to light a match—and that matches can cause a fire (‘The
Invisible Mouse’). These instances are fleeting, and limited to visual presentation, but
nevertheless analysis does reveal information conveyed that potentially relates to a
science curriculum. For example, if you shake a fizzy drinks bottle it may explode
from the top (‘Salt Water Tabby’); putting a match to gas will cause an explosion (‘A
Mouse in the House’); and the power of magnetic force (‘Old Rockin Chair Tom’),
 Gender, toys and learning 333

although arguably there is also provision of false information (e.g. that invisible ink
makes items covered in it disappear: ‘The Invisible Mouse’).
However, while opportunities for curriculum-related learning appeared absent or
tenuous in a majority of those resources analysed from the girls’ list, the exception was
provided by the Baby Annabell doll. Interaction with Baby Annabell provides well-
developed information on the needs of a baby, and how to meet these needs. Such
information is communicated by the accessories provided (bottle, dummy, wipes),
the ‘life-likeness’ of the baby, and of course the response of the baby when she is cared
for or neglected (gurgles or cries respectively). This latter—the ‘interactive’ responses
of the baby to the treatment conferred by the child-owner—provides an opportunity
for ‘learning by doing’ for the child-owner. Such pedagogy is of course quite distinct
from the notion of ‘didactic information’ developed above.
In contrast to the resources targeted to girls, of the resources selected from the list
for boys, didactic information and opportunity for curriculum-related skills develop-
ment was only absent from one item; the Power Rangers DVD. Most of the informa-
tion concerned was of a technical nature, providing knowledge and skills
development around construction and technology. Some of this was very basic: an
example would include the construction skills required for building track and manip-
ulating the trains in the Thomas Trainset (although some of the optional accessories
for the train sets are more technical). The skill involved in playing with toy cars
depends both on the model of car and the purpose to which it is put. Many of the
vehicles on sale do have movable or removable parts (aside from wheels), operable
features, or construction elements, which demand technical skills of construction and
manipulation, and sometimes require the following of written or pictorial instructions
(hence involving literacy skills). This also applies to the Power Rangers models and
accessories. Although clearly geared to creative play, these toys further require exten-
sive manual dexterity in constructing and manipulating the various vehicle/armour
parts, and some literacy and numeracy skills in following the instructions for
construction.
These technological themes were often represented too in the DVDs identified
from the list for boys. Arguably the very premise of Thomas the Tank Engine
(focused on trains and their operations and functions) illustrates a technological
focus, but beyond this there are some very specific explanations in the DVD compi-
lation concerning the workings of technical mechanisms, vehicle or mechanical
functions, and the operation of health and safety. For example, in ‘The World’s
Strongest Engine’ the viewer is taught about the methods and mechanics of moving
trucks and their loads, via both oral and visual explanations. In ‘Dunkin’ Duncan’
the nature and mechanism of an ‘incline railway’ is similarly visually and orally
explained. A particularly vivid example is provided in ‘Thomas the Jet Engine’,
where the principles of jet engine function are explained to viewers (indicatively 2–5
year old boys):
‘What’s a jet engine?’ asked Percy. ‘A jet engine goes forward by pushing hot air out of its
back’ the Fat Controller said. ‘Just like when you blow up a balloon and let it go’, added
Thomas. ‘It’s very fast’.
334 B. Francis

In addition to such scientific explanation, we are frequently reminded about health

and safety when working with mechanics and technology (e.g. ‘Percy was not allowed
to cross the loading ramp until the tipper had been turned off’ [‘Middle Engine’]; ‘We
can’t move without a whistle, it would be too dangerous’ [‘Faulty Whistles’]). And
the narration is peppered with technical terms for engine and railway parts, as well as
the names of different types of railway line.
Although didactic information was absent in the Power Rangers DVD, weaponry,
robotics, explosives and vehicles are staple fare of this series. Arguably of even more
significance than the actual skills and knowledge developed by watching the Thomas
DVD, or constructing and playing with the vehicles, is the message that technical
subjects (trains and other vehicles, weaponry etc.) and construction/technical play
and knowledge is appropriate for the child concerned. This child, as my responses
affirm, is almost always male. This inculcation to a world of machinery and technical
detail (including vehicles, weaponry, robotics, explosives and so on) is effected by all
the most popular resources identified for study from the boys’ list. I shall explore this
point further below in relation to gendered discourses perpetuated by the toys.

The gendered discourses evident in toys and film/television

Although the discursive productions discussed in this section did not comprise didac-
tic information, they interpolate children as gendered, and provide strong messages—
and resources—for the construction of gender identities. Indeed, from a Butlerian
perspective (e.g. Butler, 1993, 2006) these children’s subjectivities are brought into
being via the signification of gendered technologies such as toys: such technologies
render the subject readable, or ‘possible’. A key discourse perpetuated by the toys is
that of gender difference. Many of the resources analysed perpetuate predominant
binary social constructions of distinct male and female entities and as different from
each another. The suits of the Power Rangers provide an example: there are many
different teams of Power Rangers, but in all cases there are just two females, and these
two are always dressed in pink and yellow suits respectively. In the anthology episodes
from the original ‘Mighty Morphin Power Rangers’ I was struck that the suits
appeared (coincidentally or otherwise) ‘raced’ – the East Asian female wearing a
yellow suit, and the Black male wearing a black suit! However, this pattern is not
maintained in other series, where Black male actors sometimes play the Blue Ranger
(and in one distinctive case the ‘alpha’ Red Ranger), and the ethnicity of the female
wearing the yellow suit differs. Hence Power Rangers explicitly elevates the signifi-
cance of gender difference over ‘race’: gender fixity is maintained where racial fixity
is not, and there has never been a female Red Ranger (leader). Although the female
Rangers are adept at martial arts like their male counterparts, this overt exclusion
from Ranger leadership cements their relative marginality and ‘supporting’ roles.
Moreover, their behaviour further genders the female Rangers: they are sometimes
shown ‘scared’ (e.g. Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers: White Light Parts 1 & 2
[MMPRWLP1&2]), and in two discrete episodes on the single anthology analysed,
females are shown fainting (MMPRWLP1&2; and Power Rangers Lightspeed
 Gender, toys and learning 335

Rescue: Tekeena’s Revenge, Parts 1&2 [PRLRTRP1&2]). Whereas male Rangers are
not depicted in these ways, they may express anger or frustration (for example, Red
Ranger Andros kicks a pillar in frustration at being outnumbered and forced to
retreat, while Pink Ranger Ashley is shown sweeping her hair back and looking at him
with anxious concern; ‘Power Rangers in Space: Countdown to Destruction Parts 1
& 2’ [PRSCDP1&2]). Female Rangers are often presented undertaking ‘caring acts’
(see below), and when not suited, engaging traditional feminine pursuits (such as
organising a ‘surprise party’; MMPRWLP1&2). The male Rangers, in contrast,
engage in activities such as American Football (MMPRWLP1&2).
Kenschaft (1999) maintains that the children in Mary Poppins are not overtly
gendered beyond their pink and blue dressing-gowns, being rather ‘lumped together
as “the children”’ (p. 237). However, some constructions of gender difference
remain: Michael is presented as ‘cute rascal’ in Jane’s wish list song, and, although
Jane (older than Michael) is often presented as more knowing, it is Michael and Bert
who gallop ahead of Jane and Mary Poppins on the fairground horses, and Michael
who holds the money and is pivotal to events in the Bank Scene. Yet Mary Poppins
contains discourses that are apparently contradictory (Kenschaft, 1999),6 and such
contradictions to some extent extend to gender: for example, Mary is always in
control of events, and actually plays sergeant major to the male sweeps in the rooftop
scene. Moreover, Mr Banks’ criticism of the ‘slipshod, sugary female thinking they
[the children] get around here’ undermines the notion of femininity as trivial and
inane even as it invokes it, due to the comic lack of understanding being portrayed by
Mr Banks. A few such potentially disruptive narratives are also discernable in
Thomas: for example, in ‘The World’s Strongest Engine’ it is Diesel’s competitive
machismo (‘“I’ll push you all at the same time”, he said …“That’s me, the World’s
Strongest Engine”’) that allows him to be tricked into over-extending himself by the
Troublesome Trucks. In contrast to Power Rangers, masculine bravado is often
explicitly rejected in the rather Lutherian moral ethos of Thomas, where humility and
work ethic is prioritised.
These exceptions aside, productions of gender distinction are generally overt in the
resources analysed, and many of the resources normalise the centrality of males,
maintaining the powerful dualism of Subject (male) and Other (female) in their
marginalisation of females. This subjectification and Othering arguably applies to
‘race’ as well as gender: although it is possible to purchase BME baby dolls and Bratz
dolls, their relative scarcity (and lack of availability at the point of purchase in this
case, even in a store in an ethnically diverse urban area) produces them as minori-
tised, for ‘specialist’ interest; perpetuating the dualism of White-Subject, Black-
Other. In terms of gender, marginalisation may be via exclusion (e.g. Power Rangers
figures, see above), or via presentation of females as peripheral (Power Rangers televi-
sion series, Tom & Jerry, Thomas the Tank Engine television series and train set).
Clearly this mainly relates to the resources identified from the ‘boys’ list’: in the case
of the toys from the list for girls these norms are sometimes reversed (Baby Annabell’s
packaging represents females and excludes males; ‘boy Bratz’ comprise a small
minority; and Mary Poppins is hero of her film). However, as noted above, Tom &
336 B. Francis

Jerry, and many other DVDs from the list for girls (e.g. Shrek, Home Alone) have male
central characters.
Within this production of gender duality, toys and resources position children as
having different interests and attributes according to gender. One discourse active in
such positioning is that of female care, which is signed in the resources in a variety of
ways. In Mary Poppins, Mrs Banks’ prioritisation of her work for ‘Women’s Lib’ over
her spending more time with her children is implicitly questioned via the ridiculing of
her beliefs, and the exposition of the superficiality of her commitment to these beliefs
(revealed in Mrs Banks’ deference to Mr Banks, see Kenschaft [1999] for elabora-
tion). Mrs Banks’ use of her ‘Votes for Women’ sash for the tail of the children’s kite
at the film’s conclusion specifically symbolically establishes the ‘correct’ prioritisation
of care for her children’s needs over ‘selfish’ (and perhaps ‘erroneous’) political action
for gender equality.
Discourses of female care are maintained in the Power Rangers series, wherein the
two female Rangers are often shown helping bystanders out of danger while fighting
continues (e.g. PRSCDP1&2). Consideration and care for others are exemplified in
the concerns of the Pink Power Ranger in ‘Takeena’s Revenge’ (PRLRTRP1&2):
‘We can’t just storm in there: there are innocent people in there!’7 Such ‘caring’ may
also be reflected in the frequent choice of a cuddly toy as a favourite toy for girls. The
production of the cuddly comforter toy as a point of emotional attachment is likely to
be made evident especially to girls by adult providers/observers, and such attachment
and/or expression of ‘care’ understood as ‘girl-appropriate behaviour’. It is likely that
many of the boys in this study sleep with a cuddly toy, yet crucially they/their parents
do not ‘hail’ this toy as their favourite. It is not an appropriate technology for the
production of their subjectivity. The prioritisation of the cuddly toy for many girls
and their parents, then, constitutes an aspect of gender category maintenance
(Davies, 1989), or ‘girling’ (Butler, 1993). The same can be said for Baby Annabell:
both the doll and her possessor are produced as female via materialised narratives of
softness and care (e.g. the cuddly sheep holding a heart embroidered on the baby’s
suit, and of course the needy baby itself). Information on the packaging explains of
Baby Annabell, ‘If she is woken by noise she cries—and real tears roll down her
cheeks. But singing soon hushes her.’ As this text indicates, play with Baby Annabell
is expected to involve her being nurtured and cared for (hence the feeding bottle and
dummy). Indeed, Zapf Creations’ ‘Baby Annabell’ website asserts, ‘The loveable
baby doll … demands some basic social requirements, such as love, care and respon-
sibility from her doll mummy.’ Hence the girl owner is overtly interpolated as nurtur-
ing ‘mummy’. Of course, we know that girls do not always play with dolls in the
envisaged ‘caring’ ways (see e.g. Beavis & Charles, 2007). However, arguably even
when resisting ‘care’ in play with dolls, girls are nevertheless aware (via these
discourses) that they are expected to care. This contradiction is observed by Butler
(1997) when she observes how acts of resistance inevitably simultaneously ‘presup-
pose and reinvoke’ categories/practices of subordination (p. 12).
Boy consumers, conversely, are propelled via their toys and DVDs into a world of
action, as well as of technology. Power Rangers are indicative here: the theme tune and
 Gender, toys and learning 337

credits for the television series comprise loud rock music underscoring the ‘Go, go,
Power Rangers!’ lyric, and the various Power Rangers performing martial arts moves
and stances. In addition to martial arts there is an array of weaponry that the Rangers
use, including their ‘transformer’ robotic vehicle/fighting machines. The battles that
feature in all episodes are always frenetic and usually punctuated by huge explosions.
The production of male as Active Subject is particularly overt in Power Rangers,
which celebrates heroics and machismo. Cries such as ‘You guys go, I’ll keep ‘em
busy up here’ (White Ranger Dave, in PRSCDP1&2) and ‘You got that right, Carter!
Ha ha! Let’s show this freak what Red’s all about! … I’ve had enough of your big
mouth Triskull! Battle-booster, Full Power!’ (Red Ranger Leo to Red Ranger Carter,
as they kill Triskull, in PRLRTR1&2) are typical.
A further discourse delineating gender difference is the importance of appearance and
aesthetics for girls. This is of course closely coupled with other discourses around gender
and sexuality supporting the heterosexual matrix (Butler, 1990; Renold, 2006; Renold
& Ringrose, 2008), which I elaborate below. Yet, in the resources analysed, the concern
with appearance is almost exclusively projected to females. An exception is the Thomas
stories: the engines ‘love being shiny and clean’ (‘Percy’s Chocolate Crunch’;). But
where this narrative of the importance of cleanliness and smart presentation appears
linked to moral discourses of personal responsibility and ‘cleanliness as next to
Godliness’ when applied to the male engines in Thomas, the application of such narra-
tives around personal presentation to females in other toys/DVDs relates directly to
heterosexuality and ‘attracting a male’. For example, in the Tom & Jerry story ‘Solid
Serenade’, the female feline object of Tom’s affections is presented plucking her
eyebrows in the mirror. Seeing Tom serenading her, she hastily takes out her hair rollers
and applies more makeup. Wearing bows on her head and collar, red lipstick and
blue eye-shadow, she lounges in a feminine pose while Tom continues his serenade.
Likewise, Mary Poppins is introduced to us applying powder in a mirror (sitting on a
cloud), and the narrative of her care for her appearance and pleasure in male admira-
tion at this is maintained throughout the film. This preoccupation with aesthetics is
evident in Baby Annabell’s decorous accessories, but is especially evident in Bratz,
where their ‘passion 4 fashion’ and reproduction of hyper-femininity is delineated via
their copious make-up, numerous accessories and glitzy, ‘sexy’ clothes, as well as via
the themes by which they are marketed (‘Passion 4 Fashion’; ‘Fashion Stylists’ etc.).
This projection of concern for aesthetic presentation and ‘mastery of submission’
(Butler, 1997) to a male gaze, to females, is clearly an integral aspect of the heterosexual
matrix, to which a child audience is interpolated. As Renold (2005, 2006) has pointed
out, the production of oneself as a ‘normal’ girl or boy demands active investment in
hegemonic heterosexual identities and relations. I turn next, then, to explore the
specific discourses of heterosexuality emerging in the resources analysed.

Heterosexuality
Although as we have seen there maybe some disruption to dominant gender
discourses in Mary Poppins, this is certainly not the case for discourses promoting and
338 B. Francis

normalising heterosexuality, which are at work throughout the film. For example,
‘wooing’ is done by men, to women, perpetuating the binary of male as active, female
as passive (Bert dances and clowns with the penguins for Mary, while she looks
passively on. This narrative of male active wooing of a passive female object is also
established in the case of Tom & Jerry’s ‘Solid Serenade’).
That ‘sexiness’ is embodied by females for the gratification of males is affirmed
repeatedly in the Tom & Jerry stories (for example, in ‘Salt Water Tabby’ the sight of
the sunbathing female cat distracts Tom sufficiently that he crashes in to a rubbish
bin). And at the end of PRLRTRP1&2, a male Power Ranger puts his arm around
the two female Galaxy Rangers and jokes ‘Y’know, maybe I’ll stay for just a little
adventure!’ (all laugh). ‘Sexy’ femininity is ‘raced’ in Tom & Jerry: the attractive
female cat who appears in a number of stories is white. She is slim and curvaceous,
and wears fashionable ‘sexy’ clothes and copious makeup. The only other female to
appear in the cartoons is Tom’s Black female owner, whose face we never see.
However, she is portrayed as entirely devoid of glamour or femininity: she wears
baggy clothes, darned socks, and a headscarf, and is fat with big hands. Her lack of
femininity (masculinity?) is underscored by her ‘unladylike’ language and physical
disciplining of Tom. Hence this text appears to diverge from Western presentations
of Black Female sexuality as ‘wild’ and excessive (see Gilman, 1985; Read, forthcom-
ing) to rather deny the possibility of the Black female as sexually attractive and to
locate such attractiveness exclusively in the White Female.
Power Rangers presents numerous examples of ‘bad female’ sexuality: there are a
host of female ‘baddies’ (all seemingly with names ending in ‘a’, e.g. Astonoma,
Trekeena, Seppentura, Rita Repulsa, Vypra), and these usually wear garb reminiscent
of S&M queens: thigh boots, heavy make-up and armour corsets with breast delinea-
tion are recurring motifs. Like other female ‘baddies’ in comic books and cartoons,
these women wield great power of the totalitarian kind, but they are always defeated
by the Rangers. They are consistently sexualised—for example, my notes on
‘Takeena’s Revenge’ include ‘Leo explains how Tekeena has mutated. She is shown:
she now looks like a grasshopper with boobs!’ Hence overt female sexuality is
presented to the (young male) audience as dangerous, bad, but also titillating and
potentially seductive.
Themes of heterosexual romance run through various of the resources, and not just
those aimed at girls (such as Bratz with their male counterpart): several of the Power
Rangers stories include romance narratives, usually involving the Pink Ranger and
one of the (‘alpha’) Red Rangers (e.g. Tommy in MMPRWLP1&2; Andros in
PRSCDP1&2). Presumably due to the age of the audience to which Power Rangers
is marketed, these couples never get further than hugs and hand-holding, but these
are affected with passion. These storylines invariably focus on the emotional commit-
ment and concern of the female, rather than male, Power Ranger. Indeed, in one of
the stories heterosexual relations are held up as a point of macho competitive banter
by the Red Rangers: Jason asks, “Are you kidding me? I was the one doing all the work
while he was in the juice bar kissing on Kimberley!” (Red Rangers: Wild Force:
Forever Red).
 Gender, toys and learning 339

And there are frequent representations of, and happy allusions to, heterosexual
marriage (see, for example, the performance of the ‘Supercallifragilistic’ song in Mary
Poppins). Mary Poppins concludes with the Banks family standing together as a
tableau, with Michael flying the kite, and Mr Banks with his arm around Mrs Banks
and a paternal hand on Michael’s shoulder. Nuclear family values are affirmed when
Mary Poppins approves that the children’s caring for their father more than her is ‘as
it should be’. Hence assumptions of the normalcy and totality of heterosexuality are
deeply embedded within these entertainment resources aimed at young children,
facilitating their inculcation into a heterosexual matrix which, as Davies (2006)
observes, they may be too young to fully understand, but which is already informing
their productions of gendered selfhood. As Alldred and David (2007) have observed,
children report learning more about sex and sexuality from resources external to the
school and a sex education curriculum, and my findings here highlight how
profoundly conservative this ‘unofficial’ education may be.

Discussion
The analysis presented here facilitates a revisiting of questions raised at the beginning
of this article. Overt education in the form of ‘didactic information’ is relatively scarce
within the toys and DVDs analysed, yet does occur (sometimes unexpectedly), and
may be located in packaging and instructions as well as within the toys/DVDs them-
selves. It is not the only overtly pedagogic practice: ‘learning by doing’ is also
provided, both in the case of the Baby Annabell doll, and in the skill development via
construction and manipulation of vehicles and so on. Given that the consumption of
toys and DVDs is so overwhelmingly gendered (see e.g. the work of Williams, 2006,
and Kenway & Bullen, 2001, in addition to the findings presented in this study), it is
then likely that such available educational practices will be accessed almost exclu-
sively by either male or female children, depending on the toy/DVD concerned.
Findings from this small-scale study suggest that educational information and skills
development accessed by boys is likely to relate to technological and scientific knowl-
edge and skill, whereas that accessed by girls may relate to care-giving. Moreover,
didactic information was identified exclusively in toys and resources analysed from
the list for boys: further work would be needed to explore the emergent hypothesis
that girls’ toy and DVD preferences tend to contain less didactic information per se in
comparison with those of boys.
Further work may also be needed to refine or refute my application of delineation
between ‘didactic information’ and less overtly ‘teacherly’ social discourses; to
explore both the theoretical validity of such distinction and the empirical, pragmatic
challenges of application. What is clear from the analyses offered here, however, is
that elements of children’s leisure resources do remain directly ‘educative’ (this
would be even more the case with ‘educational toys’ which were not identified as chil-
dren’s favourites by parents in this study). Hence hypotheses that see girls and boys
being prepared for different school curriculum preferences and trajectories via their
dissimilar access to such resources may be lent some credence by these findings. But
340 B. Francis

the message that emerges even more starkly from the analysis of just a handful of chil-
dren’s toys and DVDs is how distinct children’s preferences (or their preferences as
perceived by their parents) are, and how these leisure resources themselves actively
produce and promote gender difference.
These findings offer support to the idea that boys and girls are being inculcated to
different gendered worlds due to their distinctive gendered consumption of toys and
leisure resources; indeed, that these entertainment resources facilitate the production
and reproduction of gender (difference and inequality). As we have seen, a dominant
discourse perpetuated by the resources analysed (though to differing extents in terms
of volume and consistency) is one of binary gender distinction. Other discourses are
mobilised to support such distinction: those identified include a discourse of male as
active subject, of feminine care, of feminine aesthetics and importance of appearance,
and of the normalcy and desirability of heterosexuality. I hope to have shown how
many of these discourses weave together to reproduce and sustain the heterosexual
matrix; as well as the binary dichotomy of Male as Subject, Female as Other (and
how this dualism is also retraced with dichotomies of ‘race’, class and sexuality). Here
I would wish to stress both the agentic and determined aspects of ‘gendering’ in
engagement with toys and viewing materials.
Davies’s (1989) conception of gender category maintenance emphasises children’s
activeness in constructing their gendered identities: from this perspective their taking
up of particular toys and resources, and their ‘hailing’ of these as favourites, can be
read as an aspect of their expression of gender allegiance; their work to produce them-
selves as ‘viable subjects’ (Davies, 2006). Davies’s earlier work has been criticised as
premised on humanist evocations of agency (Jones, 1997). Certainly Butler’s (1993)
elaboration of the process of ‘girling’ emphasises the determinist aspects of discursive
production. She argues that the ‘girl’ is ‘compelled to “cite” the norm in order to
qualify and remain a viable subject’ (p. 232), hence:
Femininity is not thus the product of choice, but the forcible citation of a norm, one whose
complex history is indissociable from relations of discipline, regulation, punishment.
(Butler, 1993, p. 232)

Yet data from my own previous work shows how children may be acutely aware of
the constraints of gender production in self-regulating their own behaviour, and of
the consequences of failure to conform (see, for example, my interview with seven-
year-old Leke, Francis, 1998). Likewise, Davies maintains that processes of gender
category maintenance involve active mutual policing by children. Her recognition of
the point later established by Butler (see, for example, Butler, 2004), that ‘gender
unintelligibility’ is potentially destabilising to the binary gender order, and hence
ruthlessly surveilled for and transgressions punished, foregrounds the determined
aspects of gendering; even though she may conceive a greater awareness of such
processes in individual subjects than does Butler. Indeed, Davies discusses this
point in her reflections on Butler’s work, considering how the achievement of auton-
omy (however illusory) is necessary for the accomplishment of selfhood—the
production of oneself as in intelligible subject (Davies, 2006). She notes that Butler
 Gender, toys and learning 341

does conceive subjective agency, albeit ‘radically conditioned’, given the possibility
for subjects to reflexively ‘examine their conditions of possibility’ (Davies, 2006).
Hence I believe that Davies’s term ‘gender category maintenance’ remains both
relevant and effective to capture the ways in which subjects consciously police their
own and others’ behaviour in order to maintain sex/gender/sexuality binaries. It may
be considered, however, that the term does not sufficiently address the perpetual
unconscious performances of gender, or indeed the impact of spectators—their
impacts in their response to the subject’s performances, and in the influence in turn
of their own performances on the subject-spectator. In the case of toys, this demands
recognition both of the role of toys as a technology in ‘doing gender’ for children, but
also (especially given that it is not usually young children who purchase their own
toys) how the provision of different types of toys to children, and the gendered
marketing of toys, interpolates children as gendered. This article has illustrated how,
once such toys are accessed, the toys themselves provide further information and
resources on ‘doing gender’—resources that differ dramatically according to the
gender of the child.
To conclude, the analysis presented intimates the value of a reinvigoration of atten-
tion to children’s toys and entertainment resources in terms both of the education
they afford, and their role in the production of social identities. In order to facilitate
such work conceptual attention will need to be directed at understandings and cate-
gorisations of ‘educative content’, and the processes via which subjects draw on, or
are interpolated by, discourse. It is hoped that this article has contributed some ideas
to generate such further discussion.

Notes
1. This substantial gender gap at literacy exists for all social groups irrespective of social class and
ethnicity, although social class remains the greatest predictor of educational achievement: even
at literacy, middle-class boys still outperform working-class girls (Francis & Skelton, 2005).
2. And sometimes, to the possibilities of agency within these discursive constraints, see e.g.
Butler, 1997; Davies, 2006).
3. Especially given the rise of what Buckingham and Scanlon (2003) refer to as ‘edutainment’:
out-of-school materials specifically geared to supporting children’s education. It was notable
that no such toys/materials are chosen as favourites in my study.
4. See e.g. debates engaged by Fish (e.g. 1987) and Eco (1990).
5. It is intriguing to note that in these cases, the girl concerned is from a gay-parent family with
two ‘mums’, and the boy is autistic. To consider that these factors may have facilitated ‘non-
traditional choices’ for different reasons—a family environment that challenges traditional
gender-sexuality constructions, and an autistic understanding of the world, respectively—can
be no more than speculation, but interesting nonetheless.
6. Such narrative contradictions pertain to ‘race’ and social class as well as gender: working-class
people are often presented as clowning stereotypes, but also show more wisdom, and some-
times lecture the middle-class Bankses. Soot-blackened sweeps are branded ‘Hottentots’ by the
Admiral, and set up against Mr Banks’ various smug claims to English colonial superiority. Yet,
in spite of narratives that ‘trouble’ the established order, the conclusion of Mary Poppins
supports and reasserts the dominant norm: the restoration of the wealthy White bourgeois
family as the established ideal works to close down more radical readings (Kenschaft, 1999).
342 B. Francis

7. The male Red Ranger is twice depicted as ‘caring’ too in this anthology, as he goes to the aid
of a crying child, but his response is jovially pragmatic rather than emotional—‘Hey, it can’t
be all that bad: maybe I can help?’ (PRLRTRP1&2). Hence Red Ranger Carter’s words
represent a discourse of ‘protection of the vulnerable’ without disrupting the construction of
his masculinity.

Notes on contributor
Becky Francis is Professor of Education at the School of Education, Roehampton
University. Her expertise centres on the production of social identity (with
particular attention to gender, ethnicity and social class) in educational
contexts, and the relation of these constructions to educational achievement,
and she has published widely in these areas. Her recent authored books include
Feminism and ‘The schooling scandal’ (Routledge, 2009), Reassessing gender and
achievement (Routledge, 2005), both with Christine Skelton, and Understanding
minority ethnic achievement: race, gender, class and ‘success’ (Routledge, 2007),
with Louise Archer. She has also co-edited several readers on theory and prac-
tice in gender and education, including the Sage handbook of gender and educa-
tion (2006). Becky Francis will take up a new post as Director of Education at
the RSA from April 2010.

References
Alldred, P. & David, M. (2007) Get real about sex: the politics and practice of sex education (Maidenhead,
Open University Press/McGraw Hill).
Arnot, M., David, M. & Weiner, G. (1999) Closing the gender gap (Cambridge, Polity Press).
BBC News (2008, 1 February) Woolworths withdraws ‘Lolita’ bed. Available online at:http://
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7222008.stm.
Beavis, C. & Charles, C. (2007) Would the ‘real’ girl gamer please stand up? Gender, LAN cafes
and the reformulation of the ‘girl’ gamer, Gender and Education, 19(6), 691–706.
Block, J. (1982) Psychological development of female children and adolescents, in: P. Berman &
E. Ramey (Eds) Women: a developmental perspective (Bethesda, MD, National Institute of
Mental Health).
Boaler, J. (2002) Paying the price for ‘sugar and spice’: shifting the analytical lens in equity
research, Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 42(2), 127–144.
Buckingham, D. (1993) Children talking television (London, Falmer).
Buckingham, D. & Scanlon, M. (2003) Education, entertainment and learning in the home (Buckingham,
Open University Press).
Burman, E. & Parker, I. (1993) Discourse analytical research (London, Routledge).
Butler, J. (1990) Gender trouble (New York, Routledge).
Butler, J. (1993) Bodies that matter: on the discursive limits of ‘sex’ (New York, Routledge).
Butler, J. (1997) The psychic life of power (Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press).
Butler, J. (2004) Undoing gender (London, Routledge).
Butler, J. (2006) Response, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 27(4), 529–534.
Calabrese Barton, A. & Brickhouse, N. (2006) Engaging Girls in Science, in: C. Skelton, B. Francis
& L. Smulyan (Eds) The Sage handbook of gender and education (London, Sage).
Daily Mail (2006, 24 October) Tesco condemned for selling pole dancing toy. Available online at:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=412195.
 Gender, toys and learning 343

Davies, B. (1989) Frogs and snails and feminist tales (Sydney, Allen & Unwin).
Davies, B. (2006) Subjectification: the relevance of Butler’s analysis for education, British Journal
of Sociology of Education, 27(4), 425–438.
Delamont, S. (1980) Sex roles and the school (London, Routledge).
Delamont, S. (2001) Changing women, unchanged men? (Buckingham, Open University Press).
Dixon, B. (1990) Playing them false (Stoke on Trent, Trentham Books).
Eco, U. (1990) I limiti dell’interpretazione (The limits of interpretation) (Bloomington, Indina
University Press).
Equal Opportunities Commission (2001) Sex stereotyping: from school to work (Manchester, Equal
Opportunities Commission).
Equal Opportunities Commission (2004) Plugging Britain’s skills gap: challenging segregation in
training and work (Manchester, Equal Opportunities Commission).
Fagot, B. (1974) Sex differences in toddlers’ behaviour and parental reaction, Developmental
Psychology, 10, 554–558.
Fish, S. (1987) Interpreting the Variorum, reproduced in: R. Rylance (Ed.) Debating texts
(Buckingham, Open University Press).
Francis, B. (1998) Power plays (Stoke-on-Trent, Trentham Books).
Francis, B. (2000) Boys, girls and achievement: addressing the classroom issues (London, Routledge).
Francis, B. (2002) Is the future really female? The impact and implications of gender for 14–16
year olds’ career choices, British Journal of Education and Work, 15, 97–110.
Francis, B., Hutchings, M. & Archer, L. (2003) Subject choice and occupational aspirations
among pupils at girls’ schools, Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 11(3), 423–440.
Francis, B. & Skelton, C. (2005) Reassessing gender and achievement (London, Routledge).
Freeman, G. (1995) Linking gender-related toy preferences to social structure: children’s letters
to Santa since 1978. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Psychological
Association, Savannah, GA, 22–25 March 1995.
Gilman, S. (1985) Difference and pathology: stereotypes of sexuality, race and madness (Ithaca, Cornell
University Press).
Guardian. (2005, 15 August) ‘It’s porn, innit?’. Available online at: (http://www.guardian.co.uk/
media/2005/aug/15/pressandpublishing.genderissues).
Guardian. (2008, 29 March) The tyranny of pink, Guardian Family Section, 4.
Hart, R. (1979) Children’s experience of place (New York, Irvington).
Jones, A. (1997) Teaching post-structuralist feminist theory in education: student resistances,
Gender and Education, 9, 261–269.
Kenschaft, L. (1999) Just a spoonful of sugar? Anxieties of gender and class in ‘Mary Poppins’, in:
B. L. Clark & M. R. Higonnet (Eds) Girls, boys, books, toys: gender in children’s literature and
culture (Baltimore, John Hopkins University Press).
Kenway, J. & Bullen, E. (2001) Consuming children (Maidenhead, Open University Press).
Kirkham, P. (Ed.) (1996) The gendered object (Manchester, Manchester University Press).
Lloyd, B. & Duveen, G. (1992) Gender identities and education (London, Harvester Wheatsheaf).
Miller, C. (1987) Qualitative differences among gender-stereotyped toys: implications for cogni-
tive and social development in girls and boys, Sex Roles, 16, 473–487.
Nayak, A. & Kehily, M. J. (2006) Gender undone: subversion, regulation and embodiment in the
work of Judith Butler, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 27(4), 459–472.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2007) PISA 2006: science competencies
for tomorrow’s world executive summary. Available online at: www.pisa.oecd.org.
Paechter, C. (2000) Changing school subjects: power, gender and the curriculum (Buckingham, Open
University Press).
Plowman, L. (1996) Narrative, interactivity and the secret world of multi-media, English and
Media Magazine, 35, 44–48.
Read, B. (forthcoming) Britney, Beyoncé and me: primary school girls’ role models and construc-
tions of the ‘popular’ girl, accepted for publication at Gender and Education.
344 B. Francis

Renold, E. (2005) Girls, boys and junior sexualities (London, RoutledgeFalmer).

Renold, E. (2006) ‘They won’t let us play…unless you’re going out with one of them’: girls, boys
and Butler’s ‘heterosexual matrix’ in the primary years, British Journal of Sociology of Education,
27(4), 491–511.
Renold, E. & Ringrose, J. (2008) Regulation and rupture: mapping tween and teenage girls’ resis-
tance to the heterosexual matrix, Feminist Theory, 9(3), 313–338.
Williams, C. (2006) Inside toyland: working, shopping and social inequality (Berkeley, University of
California Press).