What I've always found odd about the type of marketing mentioned in the article is that they often pitch it as solving some sort of gendered problem. It conjures images of those infomercials about...
What I've always found odd about the type of marketing mentioned in the article is that they often pitch it as solving some sort of gendered problem. It conjures images of those infomercials about direct to consumer products where you are watching someone smash an egg on the ground while making an omelet or otherwise flubbing basic life skills.
It's like ergonomic and color options are a uniquely sex based thing and not a matter of variation. Why not Bic Thin Grip for small hands? Guys have small hands. (Hello 47) Maybe small hands puts some people off. Bic Delicate Grip? I don't know. But plenty of people like color variety and for options, including pastel colors. I have some slim fit shirts that could be considered offensively pastel. Sometimes color variety is nice.
If Bic simply came out with a Bic Pastel or Bic Comfort Grip I doubt they would have gotten the same reaction.
I think it's a byproduct of what works, and is probably a self-reinforcing loop: we live in a very gendered culture so gendered marketing works; and since marketing is part of our culture...
I think it's a byproduct of what works, and is probably a self-reinforcing loop: we live in a very gendered culture so gendered marketing works; and since marketing is part of our culture (increasingly), it reinforces our gendered culture.
Otherwise, as you're saying, there's really no gendering inherent to the products themselves. And on colors/textures, I just consider "girlie"(a term I don't used for these reasons) to be an aesthetic separate from a genderization. One that is accessible to anyone.
Gendered marketing is so bizarre to me. I can get it to an extent, but so many products are absolutely unisex. Of the products shown in the article, I do think the phone and pillow fight kinda...
Gendered marketing is so bizarre to me. I can get it to an extent, but so many products are absolutely unisex. Of the products shown in the article, I do think the phone and pillow fight kinda make sense though. Pillow fights at girls' sleepover is a major cliche, while teenage girls would probably care more about having a phone and matching it to their room.
The "lab technician set for girls" could also get a pass from me since hey, it was at least encouraging girls to do science! That's actually pretty awesome for the time period! I wonder how many girls got into science because of it, since I can see some people buying it only because it had "for girls" on it.
Rolled my eyes at the razor and train though. The train is especially dumb to me since... Well, most people who like model trains want them to be like real trains. It's dumb how so many companies literally just make stuff pink with no other changes and say it's for women. And often with an upcharge, to boot. This article may be from 2012, but it still rings true.
My three year old daughter decided on her own without outside prompting that dolls are great and pink and purple are her favourite colours. We didn't push her towards anything specifically because...
My three year old daughter decided on her own without outside prompting that dolls are great and pink and purple are her favourite colours. We didn't push her towards anything specifically because I thought gendered toys were mostly nonsense too, but it turns out it actually works. The market responds to demand* and if that's a pink train, a pink train you'll get.
While that's a single data point (more like a couple, friends' daughters do the same thing, and my male nephew the opposite) it does mildly change my opinion on gendered toys. There's a place for them in the market without it having to be a problem. Problems come from parents that dictate what's appropriate for their child. If my daughter wants to play with cars with flames on the side, then yeah she can totally do that too. For now though, she enjoys dolls and pink dresses.
*Mostly, some markets dictate. I think phones are a place where the trend is dictated by the manufacturers too. Makes sense too, toys are quicker to respond to market demands than phones are.
The colour associations are interesting because they vary so much by time and place. The strict pink/blue association wasn't really a thing until the 1950s (reference). In Japan, red is associated...
The colour associations are interesting because they vary so much by time and place. The strict pink/blue association wasn't really a thing until the 1950s (reference). In Japan, red is associated with girls' school bags.
Nah, I get it for some kids toys. I was one of those little girls who loved pink, I remember even getting strawberry milkshakes just because they were pink before realizing one day I didn't like...
Nah, I get it for some kids toys. I was one of those little girls who loved pink, I remember even getting strawberry milkshakes just because they were pink before realizing one day I didn't like them. (Or, maybe it was a pink icee? Who knows, I just remember a beam of light and a heavenly choir when I had my first chocolate shake.)
I stand by my point for the train though. I don't think making it pink would make it suddenly more appealing to little girls who had no interest in model trains before. And obviously it didn't, since they took it off the market in two years.
My main point of irritation is adding a gender aspect when it's unneeded, in part because manufacturers usually do that by taking a product/toy and aiming it at girls and women by making it pink or pastel. Some toys and products do appeal more to one gender than the other, especially with kids, but the pink approach is just insulting because of how lazy it is. No thought put into it beyond "women will like it more if it's pink". Gets worse with products aimed at adults like the pens and razors, because they don't really try to make a masculine equivalent for men the way toy manufacturers do for boys.
I do wonder how much of kids' interest in specifically gendered toys is a result of marketing though. Even if the parents don't push it on their kids, the toys and packaging themselves (and honestly, a lot of kids-related media and culture) do emphasize gender a bit. It's pretty much impossible to avoid without isolating your kid. I know I liked pink in preschool just because I was a girl, and girls were supposed to like pink. (I was a very impressionable child, my next favorite color was purple because a book said that was the color associated with my star sign.) I don't think that's necessarily bad, but I still wonder what the common interests would be if certain things weren't so firmly entrenched as "for boys" and "for girls" in our culture.
And there's often a pink tax! Women are usually willing to pay more for beauty products for example, so manufacturers will make pink products cost a bit more just because they can.
in part because manufacturers usually do that by taking a product/toy and aiming it at girls and women by making it pink or pastel.
And there's often a pink tax! Women are usually willing to pay more for beauty products for example, so manufacturers will make pink products cost a bit more just because they can.
What I've always found odd about the type of marketing mentioned in the article is that they often pitch it as solving some sort of gendered problem. It conjures images of those infomercials about direct to consumer products where you are watching someone smash an egg on the ground while making an omelet or otherwise flubbing basic life skills.
It's like ergonomic and color options are a uniquely sex based thing and not a matter of variation. Why not Bic Thin Grip for small hands? Guys have small hands. (Hello 47) Maybe small hands puts some people off. Bic Delicate Grip? I don't know. But plenty of people like color variety and for options, including pastel colors. I have some slim fit shirts that could be considered offensively pastel. Sometimes color variety is nice.
If Bic simply came out with a Bic Pastel or Bic Comfort Grip I doubt they would have gotten the same reaction.
I think it's a byproduct of what works, and is probably a self-reinforcing loop: we live in a very gendered culture so gendered marketing works; and since marketing is part of our culture (increasingly), it reinforces our gendered culture.
Otherwise, as you're saying, there's really no gendering inherent to the products themselves. And on colors/textures, I just consider "girlie"(a term I don't used for these reasons) to be an aesthetic separate from a genderization. One that is accessible to anyone.
Gendered marketing is so bizarre to me. I can get it to an extent, but so many products are absolutely unisex. Of the products shown in the article, I do think the phone and pillow fight kinda make sense though. Pillow fights at girls' sleepover is a major cliche, while teenage girls would probably care more about having a phone and matching it to their room.
The "lab technician set for girls" could also get a pass from me since hey, it was at least encouraging girls to do science! That's actually pretty awesome for the time period! I wonder how many girls got into science because of it, since I can see some people buying it only because it had "for girls" on it.
Rolled my eyes at the razor and train though. The train is especially dumb to me since... Well, most people who like model trains want them to be like real trains. It's dumb how so many companies literally just make stuff pink with no other changes and say it's for women. And often with an upcharge, to boot. This article may be from 2012, but it still rings true.
My three year old daughter decided on her own without outside prompting that dolls are great and pink and purple are her favourite colours. We didn't push her towards anything specifically because I thought gendered toys were mostly nonsense too, but it turns out it actually works. The market responds to demand* and if that's a pink train, a pink train you'll get.
While that's a single data point (more like a couple, friends' daughters do the same thing, and my male nephew the opposite) it does mildly change my opinion on gendered toys. There's a place for them in the market without it having to be a problem. Problems come from parents that dictate what's appropriate for their child. If my daughter wants to play with cars with flames on the side, then yeah she can totally do that too. For now though, she enjoys dolls and pink dresses.
*Mostly, some markets dictate. I think phones are a place where the trend is dictated by the manufacturers too. Makes sense too, toys are quicker to respond to market demands than phones are.
The colour associations are interesting because they vary so much by time and place. The strict pink/blue association wasn't really a thing until the 1950s (reference). In Japan, red is associated with girls' school bags.
Nah, I get it for some kids toys. I was one of those little girls who loved pink, I remember even getting strawberry milkshakes just because they were pink before realizing one day I didn't like them. (Or, maybe it was a pink icee? Who knows, I just remember a beam of light and a heavenly choir when I had my first chocolate shake.)
I stand by my point for the train though. I don't think making it pink would make it suddenly more appealing to little girls who had no interest in model trains before. And obviously it didn't, since they took it off the market in two years.
My main point of irritation is adding a gender aspect when it's unneeded, in part because manufacturers usually do that by taking a product/toy and aiming it at girls and women by making it pink or pastel. Some toys and products do appeal more to one gender than the other, especially with kids, but the pink approach is just insulting because of how lazy it is. No thought put into it beyond "women will like it more if it's pink". Gets worse with products aimed at adults like the pens and razors, because they don't really try to make a masculine equivalent for men the way toy manufacturers do for boys.
I do wonder how much of kids' interest in specifically gendered toys is a result of marketing though. Even if the parents don't push it on their kids, the toys and packaging themselves (and honestly, a lot of kids-related media and culture) do emphasize gender a bit. It's pretty much impossible to avoid without isolating your kid. I know I liked pink in preschool just because I was a girl, and girls were supposed to like pink. (I was a very impressionable child, my next favorite color was purple because a book said that was the color associated with my star sign.) I don't think that's necessarily bad, but I still wonder what the common interests would be if certain things weren't so firmly entrenched as "for boys" and "for girls" in our culture.
And there's often a pink tax! Women are usually willing to pay more for beauty products for example, so manufacturers will make pink products cost a bit more just because they can.
I didn’t read tfa so forgive me if it addresses this, but pink as a “girl” color did not come about until the 1930’s.
smithsonian