At Circus World, Mattel’s Rattlor, a Masters of the Universe character, glares at his potential purchasers. “Sounds fearsome battle rattle before attacking,” the package advertises. The action figure is an “evil snake man creature with the quick strike head.” Price: $3.98. LJN Toys, Ltd., on the other hand, offers Thundercats Berserkers Hammerhand, which comes complete with operating instructions: “Squeeze the powerful lever and scissors control to make Hammerhead Grab and Smash his opponent with his huge ‘iron fist.'” Price: $4.98.

Fifty-seven dollars will buy Mattel’s Bravestarr Space Cowboys, whose package pictures two futuristic figures blasting each other with lasers while an evil prisoner escapes the “planetary jail.” A window, boasts the package, “blows out.” A bank vault “blows open.”

Down the wide corridor and around the corner of Columbia, Missouri’s, new mall, a better dressed crowd examines the inventory of Walden Kids, an upscale toy store stocked with Fisher-Price and Brio and socially enlightened reading material on Squanto, Marie Curie, and Malcolm X. Foreign language cassettes, birdhouse building sets, Lionel trains, and “stellar exploration sets” round out the offerings. “Help Save Us” tags around the necks of stuffed whales, koalas, and pandas advise softhearted buyers that “a percentage of this sale is being donated to World Wildlife Fund.” The lion costs $79.95.

Any war toys? Painted soldiers?

“No,” replied the clerk crisply. “Everything here is technically genderless.”

The major groups opposing war toys generally have other issues as their main foci. The War Resisters League, an international organization, works to promote the unilateral disarmament of the United States and Great Britain, according to Rick Gaumer, a staffer with the group’s New England chapter. He says the organization does not call on the Soviet Union to disarm because of its “complex political problems” and because that country was not the first to develop nuclear technology. When Coleco introduced the Rambo doll, downplaying its violent attributes and emphasizing it as a “hero and justiceseeking individual,” WRL was having none of it. The group put out a pamphlet in a plastic bag called a “Rambo Doll Body Bag” urging people to write to Coleco to protest its manufacture. The pamphlet’s headline reads, Rambo America’s Hero Wants You Dead.

The National Coalition on Television Violence, another major force against war toys, has a slightly different emphasis, but still sometimes addresses its mailing list with “Dear Peace Activist.” Concerned about the amount of violence on all television shows, the group became especially alarmed about the violent Saturday morning cartoons sponsored by toy companies. But NCTV has other concerns about these shows, not the least of which is the clear distinction between good and evil, as well as their alleged sexism. Transformers and G.I. Joe (“the bad guys wear red uniforms”) drew particular scorn, and NCTV didn’t care for the roles allotted to women. “One good soldier and one evil soldier are females, the rest are males,” pouts NCTV.

The group’s interests continue to expand to include sexism, alcohol and drug glorification, and firearms in the home. In fairness, NCTV has criticized Gloria Steinem and Geraldine Ferraro for their enjoyment of pro wrestling. Currently, NCTV is battling the Christian Broadcasting Network for airing violent shows.

NCTV approaches the world with a grim literalness and a progressive agenda. The organization regularly rates movies and television shows not only for their violent themes but for their enlightened social attitude. Disney’s Lady and the Tramp was considered relatively harmless (“violence includes biting, fighting, chasing, shooting”) but not commendable, either. The Nutcracker movie received the same treatment (“violence includes a battle between soldiers and mice using swords, bayonets, and cannons”). Recommended for their “pro-social material” were Kiss of the Spiderwoman and Desert Hearts. Both had homosexual themes.

Also active in this cause are family and women’s disarmament organizations, most notably the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, which tends to profess neutrality in matters of peace and war but always seems to side with U.S. enemies. The group’s other activities are somewhat baffling, however. In their November 1985 newsletter they expressed concern over the manufacture of a doll for boys called a Nukie: “The Nukie is a stuffed velvet doll in the shape of a missile, manufactured in the U.S. At $20, less than a cabbage patch doll, it is a bargain, for it comes with an ownership card saying the owner is a ‘certified nuclear power’ with a ‘sphere of influence—the right to set up puppet dictatorships and all the rights and powers of a thermonuclear war!'” Despite such a specific description, no one has ever seen a Nukie. Rick Gaumer said his people tried to track down the toy but could find neither a manufacturer nor the toy itself Gaumer believes the toy did exist. Toy industry spokeswoman Jody Levin has never heard of it. Still, the rumor became moderately widespread, appearing as fact on the op-ed pages of some local papers. (WILPF also helped organize “operation dismantle” and threatened civil disobedience if the toy appeared in Canada.)

The four major objections to war toys were printed in a flier entitled “War Is No Toy” and circulated by Toronto’s War Toys Boycott Campaign, Parenting for Peace and Justice, and other like-minded groups.

War toys promote war, they are also “sexist,” “racist,” and “classist” [sic]. War toys teach children that war is a normal way of settling disputes.

In an attempt to answer the charge of sexism, Mattel introduced She-Ra, an “action female,” and her arch-rival, Catra, in 1985 to satisfy a small but growing demand. Linda Sojacy, writing in her September 1985 Working Woman, cited the percentage of action toys and collectibles purchased by girls as 4 percent of the $290 million total retail purchases in 1980, compared to 10 percent of the $500 million spent in 1983. Still, anti-war toys activists remain unsatisfied on the issue. Ms. magazine’s Emily Sweet, in her December 1985 article, “Toys for Free Children, The Fourteenth Annual Guide to the Best New Toys,” sets out the kind of fun modern children should experience through toys: “nonsexist, multiracial, and peaceful fun and learning.” Classism is apparently acceptable, since her list included a $195.00 set of blocks.

The first International Days Against War Toys, conceived as a time of leafletting, petition signing, and demonstrating, took place November 29 and 30, 1985. Conceived by the Alliance for Non-Violent Action in Toronto, the idea was publicized in the United States by the War Resisters League, New England Chapter, in Norwich, Connecticut. Support came from around the country and the usual suspects, including the National Coalition on Television Violence and various local chapters of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Pledge of Resistance, Women’s Action for Nuclear Disarmament, and from various Quaker, Catholic, and other religious groups. Canada’s Pax Christi and Voice of Women, European Nuclear Disarmament, and Australia’s People for Nuclear Disarmament lent their names and gave the days their claim to international fame.

A second International Days of Protest Against War Toys was held November 28 and 29, 1986, receiving some national publicity but little other tribute. The third took place November 27 and 28, 1987. February 13 and 14, 1987, brought more war toys protests, focusing primarily on the toy industry’s Toy Fair and Valentine’s Day shoppers in New York and celebrities in California. Educators for Social Responsibility, Mobilization for Survival, and the New England War Resisters League promoted the event, which was to culminate in the melting of war toys in a “peace bonfire.” Melted war toys are to be used eventually in the construction of a “statue for peace.”

Naturally, opponents and manufacturers of war toys disagree on the reasons that such playthings remain popular. The anti-war-toys forces blame the violent culture generally and Ronald Reagan particularly for glorifying war and violence. For example, plagued by G.I. Joe’s low sales figures in America’s period of self-loathing, Hasbro discontinued the figure in 1978. Manufacture resumed in 1982. The December 1983 Multinational Monitor lamented the return of G.I. Joe and saw a direct link between the toy and American imperialism in Grenada. The outlook is worth noting: “For the second time in history, American troops have invaded and occupied a socialist country. But unlike the first attempt in 1951, when a U.S. invasion of North Korea was repulsed by Chinese forces, this time the U.S. looks like it’s going to stay.” When U.S. Armed Forces ran bombing raids against Libya, NCTV issued a press release deploring it.

Toy industry spokeswoman Levin does not dispute that the popularity of war toys may be a by-product of a conservative government, but she asserts that children have always pretended violence, and for some valid reasons. “Scary things are happening in the world,” she said in a September conversation. Children and adults have both reawakened to the necessity of weapons as guards against terrorist acts. More generally, she continues, “Kids want a sense of control.” Indeed, Fred Rogers, host of Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood, wrote in 1985 that, though parents need not indulge play they dislike, playing with toy guns may have benefits: “When you’re small and young and being told what to do all the time, it can be a good feeling to be in charge for a change. In fact, this is something that children need to play out.” Playing while fortified with such pretend weapons enables children to feel assertive in a world over which they have no control.

Studies investigating the damage that playing with such toys may have on children have proved inconclusive. NCTV News reports that 40 studies show that children’s aggression level increases after playing with war toys. Some of these studies are unpublished, however, and others report that an observer would not necessarily notice the slightly increased aggression level. The Maclean’s article quoted a McGill University psychologist who conceded that children become more aggressive when playing with such toys, but that the jury is still out on the issue of whether the effects of such play are long lasting. The University of Pennsylvania’s Brian Sutton-Smith insists that children can easily separate fantasy from reality in the world of combat. Experiments conducted at England’s Sussex University turn the tables on the critics of war toys. Nursery school children were divided into two groups: a “progressive” group given only nonviolent toys to play with in a relatively unsupervised area and a supervised group given toy guns. The “progressive group” subjected each other to far more violent acts than did the unsupervised group. The researchers suggest that refusing to allow children to play with war toys may confuse them into thinking that “saying ‘bang, bang, you’re dead’ is worse than actually hitting another infant with a brick.”

Perhaps the answer is peace through strength.