Despite being raised by liberal parents, my father didn’t want me to have a G.I. Joe doll because, although it is marketed as an “action figure,” Joe was a doll and boys don’t play with dolls.

Little did my parents know that my hundreds of toy soldiers, cowboys, police men and firemen were all gay and involved in such complex relationships that “Queer as Folk” seems tame by comparison.

Well, as gay kids we had to be creative because there were no toys geared towards gay children, and the same is true today. When anyone dares to take a toy or an action figure and change its gender or sexual orientation as marketed, the toy manufacturers go crazy.

In the latest case, an artist used Mattel’s Barbie and placed her in different costumes so she was depicted, as among other characters, as “S&M Barbie” and “Lesbian Barbie.”

Mattel Toys sued the artist for trademark and copyright infringement. The artist won the suit after a court ruled that the First Amendment protected his art.

Barbie, of course, has her own problems, as Mattel noted that sales of the popular doll have dropped considerably in the last few years. And, in case you didn’t see the headlines, she’s broken up with Ken and is sporting a new boyfriend, Blaine.

About 10 years ago, Mattel denied Ken had gone gay, so worried that “Hollywood Ken” might be perceived as “gay”.

Companies and organizations have taken all legal measures to ensure that their identities are not associated with anything gay. Years ago, the holders of the term “Olympics” sued to prevent the organizers of the Gay Games from using the term “Gay Olympics.” Yet, they have no objections to the use of Special Olympics.

At some level, this is all due to the right wing and efforts to launch boycotts on anything perceived to be “gay.” For example, Traditional Values Coalition is calling for a boycott of Shrek II because one of the characters is transgender.

While we may laugh about this, the reality is that the absence of toys geared for GLBT children are important in terms of developing the self-esteem of GLBT kids.

In Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court’s landmark case ending school segregation, the court cited a study showing how black children embraced white dolls but ignored black dolls. The study concluded that society sends a not-so-subtle message that black kids don’t count.

Obviously, Brown didn’t turn on the absence of a black Barbie, but the lack of any positive black toys certainly contributed to the lack of self-esteem among black children. This is a problem for GLBT kids and the children of GLBT parents. Gay children never see a gay Ken who lives with G.I. Joe and whose best friend is lesbian Barbie with a butch sister named Skipper.

Toy manufacturers argue that kids can create their own fantasies and story lines with regard to their dolls.

Toy marketers want a toy to be in with both kids and parents. In recent studies, toy marketers have come under scrutiny for their methods and their messages.

In Consuming Kids: The Hostile Takeover of Childhood, Susan E. Linn, an instructor in psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, says that “advertising agencies do more research on children than does anyone else. They hire consumer psychologists and retail anthropologists.”

Linn notes that toy marketers know what messages to send to children through advertising. For example, that “persistent nagging” –“Buy me Barbie Dreamhouse” – does little to make parents buy the toy.

Rather, “importance nagging” is more effective – “I need the Barbie Dreamhouse so that Barbie and Ken can live together and have children and have their own family.”

“Advertisers design campaigns to encourage the latter,” Linn says.

Toy marketers have largely been exempt from civil rights suits. In researching all the thousands of suits against toy makers and their marketing efforts, all the suits have dealt with safety issues related to the toy. But the mental or psychological damage from some toys can be far more dangerous.

While toy makers have not been sued for mental harm, this has not been the case with other manufacturers, such as companies that manufacture homes. In ads for homes, developers feature white people living in the homes, while white kids play in the yards.

The message for non-whites is fairly simple: These homes are for white people.

Courts have concluded that such ads are discriminatory and violate civil rights laws.

Should toy campaigns be treated any differently? It took a long time to see “Dr. Barbie.” Maybe “Two Dads Barbie” and “Gay Ken” are not far behind.