Internet Outrage Of The Day: Gender-Based Spider-Man Toys At McDonald's

There must be some sort of internet bet to see who can make the biggest mountain out of the smallest molehill. The latest nontroversy? McDonald's, the fast food burger chain best known for causing childhood obesity and scalding people with lava-hot coffee, has introduced a line of toys tying into the release of Amazing Spider-Man 2. Sounds pretty innocuous, I know, until you learn that the toys have are being marketed to Boys and Girls separately. Check out the images here.

Image from hm.toysaffair.com

Image from hm.toysaffair.com

Popular comics blog ComicsAlliance posted a rather short-sighted response to the revelation of the toys. In their defense, they did recognize a valid counter argument concerning the toys however their main beef with them is that they perpetuate the divide between genders. I find this not only to be ridiculous but also just brow-beating for the sake of being angry.

Am I the only one that considers this a win?

McDonald's has, for years, been pretty much adamant that boys and girls be treated differently. From the time the started offering different gender based toys, they've pretty much been completely different licenses; Ninja Turtles/Furby. Strawberry Shortcake/Hexbug. Skylanders/My Little Pony. But now they are recognizing that little girls like Spider-Man and are actively marketing to such. Does it really matter that half of the toys they are giving out are glittery pink and purple? Can't we just take away that McDonald's is sending the message that it's OK to like this stuff?

If I took my daughter to McDonald's and she wanted the little pink clutch with Spider-Man's face on it then goddamn it, she's getting the clutch. If she said to me "Daddy, I want the Spider-Man mask," then guess what? I would request the mask. No where in the McDonald's toy guideline does it specify that girl's have to have the pink toys. Yet reading the Comics Alliance post I linked to earlier, one would think that's exactly the case.

Take this for example: A cosplayer designs a Boba Fett themed ballgown.

From Fashionably Geek

Impressive, right? Takes a lot of talent and imagination to do that. The dress is hailed as "fancy" and "elegant".

Meanwhile, McDonald's plasters a Spider-Man logo on a clutch purse and some bracelets and the internet flips the fuck out. Aren't these two things sending the same message? That pop culture heroes can appeal to both males and females and still maintain their charm.

Yes, the dress is an extension of someone's hard work and creativity while McDonald's is looking for cheap toys they can give away with cheaper hamburgers, but in the end, the message is the same. If that pink headband gets a little girl interested in Spider-Man, opening doors to other forms of pop culture, isn't that all that matters?

This reminds of the petition on Change.org a few years ago which called for a boycott of LEGO over their creation of the "LEGO Friends" line, a pink and purple masterpiece of Polly Pocket looking LEGO figures that was marketed to young girls. (The ridiculousness of such a petition caused me to completely boycott Change.org but that's another story entirely.) The purpose behind the boycott was to bring to light the gender bias in marketing, quoting the LEGO CEO Vig Knudstorp as saying "We want to reach the other 50%." I never saw it as LEGO pigeon-holing girls as pink junkies. Parents have always been free to continue purchasing the Ninjago, Chima, and Star Wars building sets that flooded the market. But what LEGO did was give the public choices. Were there girls out there that never looked twice at a LEGO set because they didn't find them appealing? I'd put money on it. Did the Friends line draw them into the fold and give them something different? I'd say yes considering LEGO was able to expand the line to include Disney Princesses. Like Nerf with it's Rebelle line. Nothing says you have to buy them if your little girl likes Nerf guns but it gives the consumer a choice.

Is there a gender bias in marketing? Yes, without a doubt. It's in every Target and Wal-Mart...and not just in the toy aisles. It's in JC Penny's, Macy's, and Sears. Toys isn't the only industry that markets to genders. Clothing stores are divided by departments: Girl's, Boy's, Men's, Women's. Where's the Change.org petition to stop that? Hell, there are even stores that sell exclusively to gender. Mandee and Joyce Leslie spring to mind. Men's Wearhouse? It's right there in the goddamn name! But if someone opened a toy store that sells only "boy's toys"...? Sweet Christ, the internet would explode on itself!

The problem isn't that McDonald's is marketing toys to boys and girls individually; the problem is that there are people who still believe in a gender divide and cater to that. And by people I don't mean toy makers. I mean parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles. Is it right? That's not for me to decide. They're allowed to raise their children however they want, just as you're allowed to raise your's how you want. You don't want your kid playing with a sparkly Spider-Man notepad or Ben 10 nail polish? Don't buy it. Get them the Nerf Zombie Strike Hammershot. But don't shame a little girl for liking vibrant pinks and purple sparkles. And don't blame McDonald's for making toys that cater to that. After all, giving their track record, it's surprising that the "girl toy" for this promotion isn't Lalaloopsy or something.

Me? I'm just happy that a monolithic corporation like McDonald's is finally sending the message to little girls that it's OK to like super heroes. That's a step in the right direction.