4 ms·

That argument kind of ignores marketing. If I spend several million (probably billions cumulatively at this point) telling people that product X should be assoc

That argument kind of ignores marketing. If I spend several million (probably billions cumulatively at this point) telling people that product X should be associated with characteristic Y which is traditionally assigned more to one gender than another, then I'm likely to be modifying the market to an extent that you cannot truthfully say that market dynamics provide a reason for the disparity that will emerge.

crusso 13y ago
I'd be willing to bet that you don't have at least 2 non-twin children. They want what they want. They have desires to be boys, girls, rough, quiet, loud, masculine, feminine, etc. all without (and often in spite of) being influenced to the contrary. Advertising just showcases things that they already mostly want. It doesn't completely change their desires.
- chalst 13y ago
  You moved the goalposts there a little: why the "completely" in "It doesn't completely change their desires"? What children want is influenced by what their peers want, and what peer groups find desirable is influenced, among other things, by merchandising-related children's TV programming. When I was young, there was far less difference between boys toys and girls toys than there is now.
  - booyaa00 13y ago
    Woah there. Even when a child is 1 or 2, they start to exhibit the traits that show what they want. Way before they have any peer group, before they can be advertised at etc etc. Girls want to care for things, communicate, etc, and boys want to blow stuff up or build stuff. It's preprogrammed into our DNA.
    - AlexandrB 13y ago
      Whoa. Programmed into our DNA, that's a pretty extraordinary claim. Consider feral children: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_children#Reality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_children#Reality http://planetark.org/wen/53118 http://planetark.org/wen/53118 > "When carers leave the room, the girl jumps at the door and barks," the police said. An extreme example I admit, but if it's preprogrammed into out DNA shouldn't she be "caring for things" instead?
      - roel_v 13y ago
        No, because an anecdote does not data make.
      - booyaa00 13y ago
        It always amuses me how some people absolutely believe that being gay is 'preprogrammed into their DNA', but refuse to accept that there is any difference between the sexes. Wait until you've had a son and daughter, then come back and report what massive differences in behaviour there was right from birth.
    - aestra 13y ago
      Except that parents, caregivers, and strangers treat baby girls different than they treat baby boys. And they usually dress them differently (girls get girl clothes, boys get boy clothes). http://www.newsweek.com/why-parents-may-cause-gender-differences-kids-79501 http://www.newsweek.com/why-parents-may-cause-gender-differe...
- saraid216 13y ago
  I know a father who claims that his daughter does math specifically because she knows it makes him happy.
k_os 13y ago
Do you believe marketers have an agenda about indoctrinating girls to like pink? In the hopes that you are not a conspiracy theorist you must assume marketers haven't done any research about what girls innately like and are purely marketing products based on what you might call 'traditional' views. It's much easier to market sugar than it is to market broccoli so that's what most foods marketed today contain. I don't believe we like sugarry treats because of marketing. I believe marketers market flavours of sugar because sugar is what we're wired to like first and foremost.
- 6d0debc071 13y ago
  1918: "The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl." - Earnshaw's Infants' Department http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink#Gender http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink#Gender
- mdisraeli 13y ago
  http://www.wisegeek.com/have-pink-and-blue-always-been-considered-gender-specific-colors.htm http://www.wisegeek.com/have-pink-and-blue-always-been-consi... http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/When-Did-Girls-Start-Wearing-Pink.html http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/When-Did-Girls-St... - extract from this: 'For example, a June 1918 article from the trade publication Earnshaw's Infants' Department said, “The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.”'
  - k_os 13y ago
    Thanks, I didn't know that. I myself don't know if I dislike pink because i associate it with weakness or not. Do you have any articles about toy function being socially conditioned into genders? Girls toys mostly consist of 'nurturer' stereotypes. For example tea sets, doll houses or baby dolls with baby cribs.
- 13y ago
macspoofing 13y ago
And your argument just presouposes a certain causality. Do marketers market pink toys to girls because that's what they want girls to buy, or because that's what girls want to buy? It seems the latter is much easier, than the former, No? It's so stupid, because the arguments are always structured as, "society forces behaviour on girls and boys", when it seems pretty obvious it's more of a feedback loop. Tendencies trend in a gender, that "informs" society, which then reinforces them, and so on.
- Goladus 13y ago
  Exactly. This is not to say that marketing cannot be criticized for stereotyping, but it's far more likely due to exploitation of the natural differences in populations than the sort of raw prejudice so often implied.

crusso 13y ago

I'd be willing to bet that you don't have at least 2 non-twin children. They want what they want. They have desires to be boys, girls, rough, quiet, loud, masculine, feminine, etc. all without (and often in spite of) being influenced to the contrary. Advertising just showcases things that they already mostly want. It doesn't completely change their desires.

chalst 13y ago
You moved the goalposts there a little: why the "completely" in "It doesn't completely change their desires"? What children want is influenced by what their peers want, and what peer groups find desirable is influenced, among other things, by merchandising-related children's TV programming. When I was young, there was far less difference between boys toys and girls toys than there is now.
- booyaa00 13y ago
  Woah there. Even when a child is 1 or 2, they start to exhibit the traits that show what they want. Way before they have any peer group, before they can be advertised at etc etc. Girls want to care for things, communicate, etc, and boys want to blow stuff up or build stuff. It's preprogrammed into our DNA.
  - AlexandrB 13y ago
    Whoa. Programmed into our DNA, that's a pretty extraordinary claim. Consider feral children: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_children#Reality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_children#Reality http://planetark.org/wen/53118 http://planetark.org/wen/53118 > "When carers leave the room, the girl jumps at the door and barks," the police said. An extreme example I admit, but if it's preprogrammed into out DNA shouldn't she be "caring for things" instead?
    - roel_v 13y ago
      No, because an anecdote does not data make.
    - booyaa00 13y ago
      It always amuses me how some people absolutely believe that being gay is 'preprogrammed into their DNA', but refuse to accept that there is any difference between the sexes. Wait until you've had a son and daughter, then come back and report what massive differences in behaviour there was right from birth.
  - aestra 13y ago
    Except that parents, caregivers, and strangers treat baby girls different than they treat baby boys. And they usually dress them differently (girls get girl clothes, boys get boy clothes). http://www.newsweek.com/why-parents-may-cause-gender-differences-kids-79501 http://www.newsweek.com/why-parents-may-cause-gender-differe...
saraid216 13y ago
I know a father who claims that his daughter does math specifically because she knows it makes him happy.

k_os 13y ago

Do you believe marketers have an agenda about indoctrinating girls to like pink? In the hopes that you are not a conspiracy theorist you must assume marketers haven't done any research about what girls innately like and are purely marketing products based on what you might call 'traditional' views. It's much easier to market sugar than it is to market broccoli so that's what most foods marketed today contain. I don't believe we like sugarry treats because of marketing. I believe marketers market flavours of sugar because sugar is what we're wired to like first and foremost.

6d0debc071 13y ago
1918: "The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl." - Earnshaw's Infants' Department http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink#Gender http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink#Gender
mdisraeli 13y ago
http://www.wisegeek.com/have-pink-and-blue-always-been-considered-gender-specific-colors.htm http://www.wisegeek.com/have-pink-and-blue-always-been-consi... http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/When-Did-Girls-Start-Wearing-Pink.html http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/When-Did-Girls-St... - extract from this: 'For example, a June 1918 article from the trade publication Earnshaw's Infants' Department said, “The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.”'
- k_os 13y ago
  Thanks, I didn't know that. I myself don't know if I dislike pink because i associate it with weakness or not. Do you have any articles about toy function being socially conditioned into genders? Girls toys mostly consist of 'nurturer' stereotypes. For example tea sets, doll houses or baby dolls with baby cribs.
13y ago

macspoofing 13y ago

And your argument just presouposes a certain causality. Do marketers market pink toys to girls because that's what they want girls to buy, or because that's what girls want to buy? It seems the latter is much easier, than the former, No? It's so stupid, because the arguments are always structured as, "society forces behaviour on girls and boys", when it seems pretty obvious it's more of a feedback loop. Tendencies trend in a gender, that "informs" society, which then reinforces them, and so on.

Goladus 13y ago
Exactly. This is not to say that marketing cannot be criticized for stereotyping, but it's far more likely due to exploitation of the natural differences in populations than the sort of raw prejudice so often implied.