What possessed Ben Radford to “debunk” a four-year-old is beyond me. What possessed him to do so outisde his expertise without reading up on any of the decades of research into the development and enforcement of gender roles in young children, relying instead on arguments from his personal incredulity, is a question for the ages. What possessed him to double-down on some of his absurd claims after Rebecca Watson exposed their vacuity is–you know what? I don’t care. It simply pisses me off. As a skeptic.
One of Bradford’s original arguments was that maybe aisles of toys aimed at girls were pink because dolls were pink and little girls like playing with dolls. Rebecca pointed out that dolls are not, in fact, pink. As an aside, she noted that this argument was also exclusionary, since not all dolls have pink skin.
Any guesses on which part Radford treated as the argument?
Rebecca apparently believes that most dolls do not have “pink, or roughly Caucasian skin-tones.” To Rebecca, the claim that most dolls have “pink, or roughly Caucasian skin-tones” is a “ridiculous fantasy story.” What’s her evidence for this? Did she do any research? Nope, she zoomed in on a screen capture of Riley taken with a cell phone and concluded that few if any of the dolls are pinkish. (Watch the first ten seconds of the video and see how the background colors change every few seconds; this is pretty much the definition of a flawed experiment, as she’ll get different tones depending on when she freezes the picture.)
Who’s right, me or Rebecca? I could cite studies about the dearth of minority skin tones in children’s dolls, but there’s a much easier way to do it. Decide for yourself: the next time you’re in a toy store, craft store, or anywhere else where dolls are sold, look at the skin tones on the majority of the dolls. Are they roughly pink tones, or are they another color? Or do a simple Google image search for “dolls” and see what skin color most of them show up as; according to Rebecca, it will be anything but pink.
Yes, the part where Rebecca took the Photoshop eyedropper to the causcasian dolls and painted the backdrop of the picture that decidedly-not-pink color is completely left out. And no, Ben, it doesn’t matter whether the color in that frame was very good. What matters is that painting the toys the same color as the dolls’ skin changed the color drastically. Even (roughly) caucasian-skinned dolls are. not. pink. They’re a kind of peachy tan that contrasts distinctly with the prescribed color for girls’ toy packaging.
Perhaps if we do this in reverse, Radford will get it. Ben, here is a doll:
Here is a doll with girly pink skin:
See the difference yet? If you don’t, even with this ugly markup, you may be color blind. That’s nothing to be ashamed of, of course. It’s simply a disability. It does, however, make you unqualified to level any criticism about color.
If you do see the difference, and you’re still making some argument about doll flesh tones explaining why pink is used to market to girls, it’s time to ask yourself why you’re investing that much of your ego and credibility in a crap argument. It’s also time to ask why you’re clutching to that wrong-headed argument when advice on promoting and modeling critical thinking strongly emphasizes the importance of admitting when you’re wrong.
Hopefully Radford will get back to us once he’s had some time to think this out rather than just react to being criticized.