Lead, including lead paint such as that used in glazes, became highly politicised in Britain during the first decades of the C20th. In essence, various Committees of Inquiry into the Lead Industries and Potteries in 1893 (2), 1898 and 1910 investigated the dangerous nature of lead use , particularly that used within glazes in the pottery industry, which tended to employ mainly women in this process. It was a common perception, according to Harrison: 60 that women were at a greater risk of lead poisoning than men. Accordingly women were either excluded from jobs involved lead or there were more restrictions placed upon their conditions of work, than applied to men.

This was an important area of dispute for feminists (and trade unionists) from the late C19th into the mid C20th, namely should legislation against dangerous trades be applied to all workers or only to women.

I don't know about the position in the US but if the toy had been painted in Britain it is likely that either men would have done this OR their would have been particular conditions under which women painting the toy would have worked.

This is not a particular area of expertise but those interested should read Barbara Harrison Not only the 'Dangerous Trades' Women's work and health in Britan 1880 -1914, Taylor & Francis, 1996 and also Fabian pamphlets on this as printed in ed Sally Alexander Women's Fabian Tracts, Routledge 1988.

I am personally interested in the historiographical processes involved in looking an an object and the way that this can lead into so many diverse areas.