Why do so many girls renounce their femininity?

liah

I get that nobody wants to be defined by their gender, and that people should be able to choose whatever the hell they want in terms of clothing, media, how they choose to present themselves, etc. I'm completely behind that.

What I don't get is why so many girls show shame at doing things that are considered "girly."

E.g., this whole pink thread at the moment. For god's sake, a lot of girls like pink. Marketers know that. They're not forcing girls to choose pink. They're not forcing girls to do anything. They're not even forcing them to buy it. Believe it or not, girls are buying them because they like them. And just because they buy them doesn't mean you have to, too. But why such an uproar?! Because something is a colour that a lot of women buy? Are marketers supposed to just ignore that? It makes them money! I mean, come on. Be realistic. You're trying to make it into an issue about sexism or whatever exactly the point you're trying to make is, but you're ignoring the facts.

Women like pink stuff. Why view it so negatively? Because it's seen as feminine? Why is something that's seen as feminine automatically a bad thing? Seriously?

Same deal with other girly things like chick flicks and shoes. Girls like this stuff. I'm not one of them but I'm not judging those who do. But you see so many girls almost proudly saying "oh, well, I'm not into all that girly stuff.." as if they're better because of it. Who cares if they like girly stuff? Again, why is it a negative thing? Nobody's forcing it down their throats; marketers are only advertising it towards them because, guess what: that's who's buying it. No more, no less.

It's almost more sexist to go around complaining about things that are considered "girly" or "feminine." Christ almighty, people, we can be equal without becoming totally androgynous! We all have freedom of choice once we hit adulthood, we can't keep blaming society for all our problems. We're adults. We make those decisions. Plenty of women have chosen NOT to like those things, why is it so hard to believe plenty of other women have chosen to like them without it being some kind of pre-defined societal rule?

I don't get it. I really think it's making mountains out of molehills and feeding further into sexism rather than trying to remove it. There's bigger issues to focus on and if women really didn't actually like this stuff, the marketers would make no money and wouldn't bother with the specialized advertising.

It's kind of insulting to imply that we don't have enough intelligence to decide for ourselves whether we like something or not outside the constraints of societal rules. It's equally as insulting to blame society for our own inability to make our own decisions.

But, I'm open to having my mind changed if the right argument is applied. What do you think? Do you think this anger towards gender-based advertising is justified? Or do you, like me, think it's misdirected and is only a direct result of what women themselves have chosen?

metrovelvet

Pink is a nice colour. But it has taken on, through no fault of its own, huge symbolic power.

Some girls reject femininity because the world has told them it is second status. Some do it because they find it too constricting. Some are just not interested in it.

I honestly don't care about gender based advertising in terms of colour coding. I would find the advertising in the cosmetics industry far more insidiously sinister than marketing a pink iphone.

I find Dior using 13 year old models far more worrying. Or the language of fear and vulnerability used in anti ageing campaigns.

Nevyn

Because I never looked like a barbie doll and would never look like a barbie doll so what was the point in trying? Also 'good' girl/female behaviour was limiting and restricting and not what I was or aspired to be.

The role models of what is feminine as displayed to kids and teens growing up is very narrow and there are more types of femininity then that of the glossy magazines and the Katie Prices of this world but most of of were not exposed to them until we were older and eventually found a type of femininty which works for us, who we are, what our body types are and how we live our lives.

liah

Thaedydal wrote: »

Because I never looked like a barbie doll and would never look like a barbie doll so what was the point in trying? Also 'good' girl/female behaviour was limiting and restricting and not what I was or aspired to be.

The role models of what is feminine as displayed to kids and teens growing up is very narrow and there are more types of femininity then that of the glossy magazines and the Katie Prices of this world but most of of were not exposed to them until we were older and eventually found a type of femininty which works for us, who we are, what our body types are and how we live our lives.

Most men don't look like GI Joe dolls or superhero action figures, either. Doesn't mean they can't still enjoy the toy. I had a Barbie as a kid. I never played with it, I just didn't like it-- was too busy playing with horse figurines and plush dinosaurs. But who's to say some other kid wouldn't just plain like Barbies?

You're putting the cart before the horse. A parent can buy a kid whatever toys the parent chooses, doesn't mean the kid has to like it. And it definitely doesn't mean that the toy defines what the person aspires to be, either.

It's like movies-- watching a violent movie doesn't make you violent. Watching a funny movie doesn't make you funny. Or videogames. GTA doesn't make you run around killing hookers, or even mean you'd consider it in real life ever at any point. And yet a plastic doll with tits and blonde hair somehow manages to warp the minds of all these young girls? Come on.

Barbies are sold and marketed to girls because girls like playing with them. Whatever about equality, they just. Plain. Like them. That's it. No deeper agenda, no oppression, nada. Girls just like that stuff. Why is that so hard to accept?

Just because YOU didn't like all those things as a kid doesn't mean nobody else did and it certainly doesn't mean the ones who did are being played, oppressed, or whatever else.

Fair enough that society has some pretty messed up gender definitions but you're blaming the objects and not the mentality that's driving it.

All this anti-Barbie or anti-Pink or anti-Sex in the City or whatever else serves to do is make girls who legitimately enjoy that stuff feel like they're stupid for doing so and are only liking those things because someone else told them to and not of their own choosing. That's not right at all.

Again, I reiterate: if some girls aren't into "girly" things by their own choosing, why is it so hard to believe that an awful lot of girls actually are into "girly" things by their own choosing? Why should the ones who are into them be expected to feel shame? Why are the ones who aren't into them acting as if they're proud of it because they're "better than that?"

jokettle

I find it quite restrictive. I know we (almost) have equality in Western civilisation, we're allowed into 3rd level education and can enter pretty much any career field we like. But I remember my primary school books all having pictures of men as doctors and lawyers and women as teachers and nurses. I don't know if that's changed, but I really hope so.

That's a little off-topic, though; I mentioned in the pink thread about a shop assistant assuming I wanted a pink version of a product. I felt pigeon-holed, if that's a word. The more I thought about it, the more it made me feel as though I *am* being pre-defined by my gender.

Even little things like my Grandma nudging me at my cousin's wedding last year and saying "It'll be you soon!" even though I'd been talking to her earlier about my career plans and how I want to be financially independent before I even think about marriage and/or kids, something which will take me well into my 30's because of the nature of my work. It didn't matter because marriage and kids is what's expected of me, and not just by the older generation. My friends have had these conversations too.

Maybe I'm over-reacting, but the blatant divide between feminine things and masculine things really annoys me sometimes. I take your point, OP, that a lot of this is probably down to meeting consumer demand when it comes to children's toys etc, but this also brings up the eternal debate of nature vs nurture. Do girls like pink more because it's in their nature, or does their environment condition them towards liking it? Personally, I fall on the nurture side of the debate, but that's just my opinion. There are studies to back up both arguments.

liah

jokettle wrote: »

I find it quite restrictive. I know we (almost) have equality in Western civilisation, we're allowed into 3rd level education and can enter pretty much any career field we like. But I remember my primary school books all having pictures of men as doctors and lawyers and women as teachers and nurses. I don't know if that's changed, but I really hope so.

That's a little off-topic, though; I mentioned in the pink thread about a shop assistant assuming I wanted a pink version of a product. I felt pigeon-holed, if that's a word. The more I thought about it, the more it made me feel as though I *am* being pre-defined by my gender.

Even little things like my Grandma nudging me at my cousin's wedding last year and saying "It'll be you soon!" even though I'd been talking to her earlier about my career plans and how I want to be financially independent before I even think about marriage and/or kids, something which will take me well into my 30's because of the nature of my work. It didn't matter because marriage and kids is what's expected of me, and not just by the older generation. My friends have had these conversations too.

Maybe I'm over-reacting, but the blatant divide between feminine things and masculine things really annoys me sometimes. I take your point, OP, that a lot of this is probably down to meeting consumer demand when it comes to children's toys etc, but this also brings up the eternal debate of nature vs nurture. Do girls like pink more because it's in their nature, or does their environment condition them towards liking it? Personally, I fall on the nurture side of the debate, but that's just my opinion. There are studies to back up both arguments.

But again, those arguments aren't against the products. They're against people who assume.

Correlation =/= causation; I think it's unfair to judge girls who are into girly things and make them feel shame for choosing what they like as being "manipulated," judge the people who put up the posters, or judge the person who assumed you wanted it in pink. But it's not the product's fault, it's not the colour's fault, and women themselves choose to have these things.

Maybe we should just accept the fact that this stuff is geared to girls because it's girls who like them, rather than we like the stuff because it's marketed to girls.

There's enough options available to everyone and no one is LITERALLY forcing you to choose something in pink just because you have a vagina. It's a bit melodramatic to pretend it's being shoved down our throats. It really isn't. We have responsibility for our own decisions, no one else does.

Nevyn

liah I was speaking for myself, not anyone else.

I don't really say things like 'I'm not into girly stuff' but I think those who do are just lashing back against years of being made to feel there's something wrong with them because they're not into 'girly' things. I know myself that I was made to feel for YEARS like I was some sort of misfit because I didn't like pink or barbies or glittery nail polish. I remember in primary school, I was playing with cars with some boys and the teacher kept asking me why I didn't want to play dolls with the other girls. When I was about 14, I went to a get together in jeans and a blue shirt (a nice, shimmery, fitted one). I thought I looked nice but every single one of the girls and adult women screwed up their faces and asked why I didn't want to wear a dress.

It's not that I think marketing pink stuff/dolls towards girls/women is WRONG, but I think it does result in situations like the above, with people then deciding that those who don't like that stuff are weird. In reality, I actually don't even know many women who are into pink and cuddly toys and things like that. It's as if the marketers take a small section of women and decide that's what all women would want.

Links234

liah wrote: »

Women like pink stuff. Why view it so negatively? Because it's seen as feminine? Why is something that's seen as feminine automatically a bad thing? Seriously?

Well, I would put it to you that femininity is more than a colour. I'd also say that pink is more a "babyish" colour, and when some women say they're not into girly stuff might be a statement of maturity instead of rejecting femininity? like they've outgrown all the hello kitty stuff?

I don't really like pink that much myself, but that doesn't say anything about my femininity.

liah

Felipe Hissing Marksman wrote: »

I don't really say things like 'I'm not into girly stuff' but I think those who do are just lashing back against years of being made to feel there's something wrong with them because they're not into 'girly' things. I know myself that I was made to feel for YEARS like I was some sort of misfit because I didn't like pink or barbies or glittery nail polish. I remember in primary school, I was playing with cars with some boys and the teacher kept asking me why I didn't want to play dolls with the other girls. When I was about 14, I went to a get together in jeans and a blue shirt (a nice, shimmery, fitted one). I thought I looked nice but every single one of the girls and adult women screwed up their faces and asked why I didn't want to wear a dress.

It's not that I think marketing pink stuff/dolls towards girls/women is WRONG, but I think it does result in situations like the above, with people then deciding that those who don't like that stuff are weird. In reality, I actually don't even know many women who are into pink and cuddly toys and things like that. It's as if the marketers take a small section of women and decide that's what all women would want.

Strangely, I don't think I was ever made to feel like that, even though I was very much a tomboy or many years. I didn't wear makeup til I was 21, didn't wear anything that wasn't black or dark and baggy til I was about 17 or 18. Worked at farms for the majority of my years, played videogames. Total boy stuff.

Nobody ever cared, tbh. Maybe there were moments when someone tried to give me frilly or pink things because I was a girl, but that's only because they didn't know me any better and it was a safe assumption. I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong or malicious about that. In all fairness the majority of girls in the western world do like girly stuff, whether we want to accept it or not. You can't really expect people like teachers or other people you're not familiar with to automatically know you're not one of the majority.

Yes, people's attitudes need to change, but again, I don't think that should come about by shaming the people who like girly stuff and criticizing validly gender-biased marketing. In fact, it's not even a gender issue at all, really. People's attitudes need to change in general towards accepting people as individuals rather than statistics. We face it, men face it, LGBT people face it, races face it, etc. We all deal with stereotypes and stereotyping is human behaviour, but rarely is it ever truly malicious.

It's just innocent ignorance, the majority of it. People want to take the safe bet. It's a generalization, but it doesn't mean there's no truth in it, and it's hard to blame people for assuming things about a girl they don't know very well based on the opinions of a majority of females, can you?

If these are people who know you well then that's an entirely different story and you may want to reconsider having them in their life if they truly believe ALL women should like certain things.

liah

liah wrote: »

Maybe we should just accept the fact that this stuff is geared to girls because it's girls who like them, rather than we like the stuff because it's marketed to girls.

Well, how do you know it's a fact? jokettle made a good point:

Do girls like pink more because it's in their nature, or does their environment condition them towards liking it? Personally, I fall on the nurture side of the debate, but that's just my opinion. There are studies to back up both arguments.

I would tend to fall on the nurture side. I'm not saying there isn't a demand for it but I do also think it's entirely possible the demand is based on external influences just as well as anything innate. I think it's an interesting subject to see how much is innate and how much isn't, purely out of interest.

There's enough options available to everyone and no one is LITERALLY forcing you to choose something in pink just because you have a vagina. It's a bit melodramatic to pretend it's being shoved down our throats. It really isn't. We have responsibility for our own decisions, no one else does.

We're adults, liah, not the children that these are often being marketed to.
I also think it's a bit rash to dismiss marketing as "well it's not literally forcing".

ztoical

Because most things that are viewed as "girly" might not be next week. The whole pink thing is a great example because up until shortly after world war 2 pink was a boys colour and blue was for girls. What defines a gender today might not be the same 10 years down the line so I couldn't be bother TBH....I like what I like, I certainly did not renounce my femininity or anything of the like. What one person feels makes them feminine might not be the same for someone else.

The main issue I have with alot of so called girly products are people buy them because they are girly and for no other reason. If you like chick flick films that's fine but at least be able to tell me why other then cus I'm a girl. Same goes for books, I've worked in book stores and talked to people coming in to buy the latest rubbish for berties young one or worse yet Jordan's bloody bio book and I have yet had someone be able to tell me why any of these books are worth reading other then they "are for girls" I've friends who wear everything pink because "it's so girly" but what if I turned round tomorrow and said yellow is the girls colour now, they would go replace all of the pink stuff with yellow. Like pink cus it's a warm colour that evokes spring and health, have some reason other then it's a girls colour.

liah

Links234 wrote: »

Well, I would put it to you that femininity is more than a colour. I'd also say that pink is more a "babyish" colour, and when some women say they're not into girly stuff might be a statement of maturity instead of rejecting femininity? like they've outgrown all the hello kitty stuff?

I don't really like pink that much myself, but that doesn't say anything about my femininity.

Of course it is. I think you missed my point a bit but I was ranting so I probably wasn't clear to begin with!

I didn't mean to imply femininity is defined by colour. I was using the commonly defined idea of "feminine" to ask why so many women are ashamed to be seen as publicly or outwardly "feminine."

I agree with you that it does seem to be something people grow out of, for the record.

I also agree with Thaedydal, for the record, that femininity isn't defined to any one thing. I very much believe that. I have a way different version of femininity than a lot of people. But I was using it in the colloquial sense, just what most people see as "girly" so I wouldn't have to specify so much.

rainbow kirby

liah wrote: »

Why is something that's seen as feminine automatically a bad thing? Seriously?

It's not automatically a bad thing. It just doesn't reflect who I am, at all.

liah wrote: »

Christ almighty, people, we can be equal without becoming totally androgynous!

What's wrong with embracing the greyer areas of the gender spectrum? :pac:

liah

bluewolf wrote: »

We're adults, liah, not the children that these are often being marketed to.
I also think it's a bit rash to dismiss marketing as "well it's not literally forcing".

People see marketing for all kinds of things and lifestyles but don't immediately rush out to adhere to them unless they're particularly insecure, and that's a problem with them, not necessarily their environment.

I don't know, maybe it's just me but saying that media defines most of it isn't fair and is an insult to the intelligence of many women and implies they can't think themselves out of the "rules." Which is why I see the hate towards "girly" stuff just as sexist as people who think girls should be defined by it.

liah

rainbow kirby wrote: »

It's not automatically a bad thing. It just doesn't reflect who I am, at all.


What's wrong with embracing the greyer areas of the gender spectrum? :pac:

Nothing! I spent an awful lot of my life there. I'm just saying there's nothing wrong with embracing things that may be seen as gender-specific, either.

Hrududu

I don't really say things like 'I'm not into girly stuff' but I think those who do are just lashing back against years of being made to feel there's something wrong with them because they're not into 'girly' things.

I think thats exactly what it is.

jokettle

Hrududu wrote: »

I think thats exactly what it is.

That quote stood out a lot for me as well; being made to feel as though there's something not quite right because I didn't love my barbies or want to hold a newborn baby or dream about my wedding is quite a hurtful thing to experience.

Nevyn

liah I am glad you had such an upbringing but a lot of people didn't, I was forced to wear dresses and colours I didn't like and have ringlets put in my hair. Many of us were brought up in sex segregated schools and had ladylike manners drilled into us, and many of use were told when we we asked for certain toys that we could not have them as they were boys toys.

This still goes on today, my daughter had a lot of pink and purple but she knows she has choice, there are days she won't were any, but she has gone out to play wearing pink and with her hair down and with a dress on to be told she cant' take part in certain games on the road, she came in changed into combats and a tshirt, had her hair put up in a pony tail and bet the lads playing football on the road.

Also overt femininity is now linked with hyper sexualisation and women then get treated as a sexual object rather then a person. A lot us have felt that difference depending on what we wear and how people react to us.

ztoical

liah wrote: »

I don't know, maybe it's just me but saying that media defines most of it isn't fair and is an insult to the intelligence of many women and implies they can't think themselves out of the "rules." Which is why I see the hate towards "girly" stuff just as sexist as people who think girls should be defined by it.

Of course it's the media that defines it, they define everything. Why do we even associate certain colours and actions with a gender if not told by the media? Why don't bush people in the amazon or Africa display any such division? The media define pretty much everything in our current culture. Walk down the supermarket aisle and look at any product and you can bet the company paid a marketing and advertising firm millions to design everything from the shape of the bottle, the font choice and size and placement, and paid the supermarket for the shelf placement, nothing is left to chance. The amount of psychology that goes into branding is staggering. McDonalds aimed and marketed so well at kids from colour choice, mascot, layout and design, red and orange used for seats why? cus they are colours that hurt your eyes if you look to long and it makes you get in eat your food and leave allowing for more turn over and higher profits, now with the backlash over kids and health you notice all the McDonalds branding changing, moving over to shades of green in store to get older adults to sit down and stay longer and maybe buy more.

I currently work for one of the largest tv production companies in the uk that make alot of those make over shows and trust me the producers of those shows don't value womans or anyone elses intelligence either those appearing on the show or those watching at home. It's all marketed in a slick and very focused fashion to suck in even the most cynical of viewers.

ztoical

jokettle wrote: »

That quote stood out a lot for me as well; being made to feel as though there's something not quite right because I didn't love my barbies or want to hold a newborn baby or dream about my wedding is quite a hurtful thing to experience.

+ 1 What makes one person feel like a woman might be different for another. I live in jeans and t-shirts, don't own a single pair of high heels or an once of make-up and hate babies but I certainly don't think I feel any less female then any other woman out there.

liah

Thaedydal wrote: »

liah I am glad you had such an upbringing but a lot of people didn't, I was forced to wear dresses and colours I didn't like and have ringlets put in my hair. Many of us were brought up in sex segregated schools and had ladylike manners drilled into us, and many of use were told when we we asked for certain toys that we could not have them as they were boys toys.

This still goes on today, my daughter had a lot of pink and purple but she knows she has choice, there are days she won't were any, but she has gone out to play wearing pink and with her hair down and with a dress on to be told she cant' take part in certain games on the road, she came in changed into combats and a tshirt, had her hair put up in a pony tail and bet the lads playing football on the road.

Also overt femininity is now linked with hyper sexualisation and women then get treated as a sexual object rather then a person. A lot us have felt that difference depending on what we wear and how people react to us.

Fair enough. I wasn't raised in Ireland and gender-segregated schools are very rare in the areas I grew up. I grew up in public schools in I suppose in a more forward-thinking country, though I really don't like that term-- we just had a lot less pressure on gender and stereotypes in general. My mother was good in the sense that she did give me the freedom to wear what I liked, though she was never really happy about it she mostly accepted it.

I do recall teasing and things in school for not dressing like the other girls but it was more out of their nasty personalities and their desire to latch onto something, anything, in an effort to bring a person down rather than an actual real issue with how I visually presented myself.

Perhaps as a person with a different background than your average Irish woman I won't be able to fully see it from your perspective, and I understand that. But I'm a mind over matter/forgive and forget person and still have an awful lot of trouble believing that, upon adulthood, women can't just realize for themselves that it was all bs, realize the past is in the past, and become whatever they want-- and don't make their kids feel the way they did if they choose to have them.

Agree on the hypersexuality thing, it's something I'm uncomfortable with and I have been trying to work out how I really feel on the subject over the last few days; trying to rationalize it and remove the emotional bias, which is hard to do. But that's a bit different to the subject I'm talking about at the moment.

liah

ztoical wrote: »

Of course it's the media that defines it, they define everything. Why do we even associate certain colours and actions with a gender if not told by the media? Why don't bush people in the amazon or Africa display any such division? The media define pretty much everything in our current culture. Walk down the supermarket aisle and look at any product and you can bet the company paid a marketing and advertising firm millions to design everything from the shape of the bottle, the font choice and size and placement, and paid the supermarket for the shelf placement, nothing is left to chance. The amount of psychology that goes into branding is staggering. McDonalds aimed and marketed so well at kids from colour choice, mascot, layout and design, red and orange used for seats why? cus they are colours that hurt your eyes if you look to long and it makes you get in eat your food and leave allowing for more turn over and higher profits, now with the backlash over kids and health you notice all the McDonalds branding changing, moving over to shades of green in store to get older adults to sit down and stay longer and maybe buy more.

And yet plenty of people are wholly unaffected by the above and have managed to see through the bs. Are you implying that women aren't intelligent enough to do so? I seriously doubt it.

Media is a scapegoat for people who are unwilling to honestly examine their own actions and feelings. The problem is the individuals being unable to separate themselves from these images rather than the actual images themselves.

EDIT: sorry for the many posts in a row, I respond as I read rather than read all then respond. :x I should really reconsider that approach.

Links234

liah wrote: »

I'm just saying there's nothing wrong with embracing things that may be seen as gender-specific, either.

I agree with you there, definitely.

I think there's a tendency to view femininity as 'false' and someone who might be very feminine in their expression are often seen as somewhat suspect, and you can see this in the LGBT community as well where someone like Alan Carr (for example) who's quite feminine in his expression is often seen as putting on an act, or where lesbian women who dress feminine are often dismissed as being 'fake' or 'lipstick' lesbians, that in both cases their gender expression is seen to be false rather than simply expression themselves for who they are. I mention this not to drag the topic in an LGBT direction, just pointing out a good example of suspicion of gender expression from a more personal reference point. so much of masculinity feels false to me, you know?

But definitely I agree with you that people should be free in their gender expression, however typical or atypical that might be.

liah

liah wrote: »

Strangely, I don't think I was ever made to feel like that, even though I was very much a tomboy or many years. I didn't wear makeup til I was 21, didn't wear anything that wasn't black or dark and baggy til I was about 17 or 18. Worked at farms for the majority of my years, played videogames. Total boy stuff.

Nobody ever cared, tbh. Maybe there were moments when someone tried to give me frilly or pink things because I was a girl, but that's only because they didn't know me any better and it was a safe assumption. I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong or malicious about that. In all fairness the majority of girls in the western world do like girly stuff, whether we want to accept it or not. You can't really expect people like teachers or other people you're not familiar with to automatically know you're not one of the majority.

Yes, people's attitudes need to change, but again, I don't think that should come about by shaming the people who like girly stuff and criticizing validly gender-biased marketing. In fact, it's not even a gender issue at all, really. People's attitudes need to change in general towards accepting people as individuals rather than statistics. We face it, men face it, LGBT people face it, races face it, etc. We all deal with stereotypes and stereotyping is human behaviour, but rarely is it ever truly malicious.

It's just innocent ignorance, the majority of it. People want to take the safe bet. It's a generalization, but it doesn't mean there's no truth in it, and it's hard to blame people for assuming things about a girl they don't know very well based on the opinions of a majority of females, can you?

If these are people who know you well then that's an entirely different story and you may want to reconsider having them in their life if they truly believe ALL women should like certain things.

You're Canadian, though, aren't you? Having many Canadian friends, I've come to realise that they don't see how incredibly open and tolerant Canada is compared to other places. I have friends who are gay/lesbian and never had a bad word said to them growing up. That just isn't the case over here. I grew up in a place where the gender stereotypes were still alive and kicking. I got called a lesbian on several occasions simply because I preferred to wear trousers to parties and didn't like wearing make-up. I really did feel like a freak as a teenager just because I wasn't into French manicures and mascara and hair straighteners. That might seem crazy to you, but it's not uncommon at all. I totally understand why many women are against this 'girly' marketing - because so many people do buy into it.

Nevyn

The thing is that many of these things carry over from school.
They are part of soceity and how women are judged and mostly by other women but also by men. Those of us who do not fit in that mode of femininity get snubbed, sneer at and looked down on, in work, college and even by the parents assoication.

We are judged and considered lacking as we are less feminine and get asked why we don't make an effort. Just because I don't get up to straighten my hair every morning and put on make up, do my nails and put on an 'outfit' to drop the kids to school or help with on site school activies does not make me less feminine or womanly but this is still what a lot of face.

There is a double standard for it also in terms of those who seem to spend too much time, money and care on thier appearance are seen as superfical and shallow and at times dim.

I personally don't all the effort and time that goes into the effortless beauty look and
that someone would spend 20 to 40 mins in the morning putting on make up. It's not how I spend my time, it's no were near my list of prioties but if someone else is doing it for themselves for good reasons and they have the time and money to spend good luck to them, I have learned to to just see it the same as having a hobby.

liah

Felipe Hissing Marksman wrote: »

You're Canadian, though, aren't you? Having many Canadian friends, I've come to realise that they don't see how incredibly open and tolerant Canada is compared to other places. I have friends who are gay/lesbian and never had a bad word said to them growing up. That just isn't the case over here. I grew up in a place where the gender stereotypes were still alive and kicking. I got called a lesbian on several occasions simply because I preferred to wear trousers to parties and didn't like wearing make-up. I really did feel like a freak as a teenager just because I wasn't into French manicures and mascara and hair straighteners. That might seem crazy to you, but it's not uncommon at all. I totally understand why many women are against this 'girly' marketing - because so many people do buy into it.

Interestingly, Canadian media is the exact same media as the American stuff that's on most Irish TV and UK TV. We get the same products as any other English-speaking country.

If it really were the media's fault rather than an excuse used by hateful or ignorant people, then wouldn't Canadians be the exact same way?

Lia_lia

I had no idea people were forced into wearing dresses/having ringlets etc when they were little girls. Odd.

When I was a kid I lived in dungarees and converse sneakers. I still played with dolls and stuff though.

When I was three years old I had to be a flowergirl for my aunts wedding..went absolutely mad because I had to wear a dress! I wanted to wear my dungarees and wellies! And no I was not from a farm..this is when I was living in the centre of London! So my Granny made a bloody dress for my doll that matched my flowergirl dress so I would feel more comfortable wearing the dress :rolleyes:

Also on the whole matter about pink and all that, I couldn't really care less.

jokettle

liah wrote: »

Interestingly, Canadian media is the exact same media as the American stuff that's on most Irish TV and UK TV. We get the same products as any other English-speaking country.

If it really were the media's fault rather than an excuse used by hateful or ignorant people, then wouldn't Canadians be the exact same way?

I'm in a rush so I'll try to come back and word this better later!

We also had to put up with an awful lot of influence from the church, who imo views women as second class citizens whose jobs are to look after the husband and raise the kids. There's a huge amount of pigeon holing right there from a young age; keep in mind most of us were educated in religious schools, sometimes by nuns and brothers.

Ok, I really have to go now! More coherent post later

Nevyn

While canada has some of the same tv and products the culture is very different then the USA.

I can get you looking in thinking we are all mad but, you just don't have the same cultural references.

liah

liah wrote: »

Interestingly, Canadian media is the exact same media as the American stuff that's on most Irish TV and UK TV. We get the same products as any other English-speaking country.

If it really were the media's fault rather than an excuse used by hateful or ignorant people, then wouldn't Canadians be the exact same way?

It's not JUST media. It's the effects of advertising/media on a society which already has tons of old fashioned thinking and stereotypes. A TV ad for a pink phone isn't going to have the same effect on a Canadian teenager who goes to a mixed sex, non-uniform, non-religious school as it will on an Irish teenager going to an all-girls Catholic school with obligatory skirts, where teachers use words like 'tomboy' as an insult.

gbee

I was a boy at secondary school and I got a wide bodied chopper bike for the preceding Christmas, I loved it, I drove it so hard I was spending most weekends putting new bearing and brakes in it.

I painted it 'Hippy Pink' and thought I was 'cool' ~ on the advice from my friends, real friends, not facebook ~~~~ I was told to change the colour, but I like pink I said ... I was laughed at so in the end I capitulated.

After next weekend I came to school on the same bike resprayed in navy blue with 'Police' signs on it and the ESSO logo ~ boy was I cool or what then, I was the hero of the school.

That was back in last stone age, circa 1968!!! :eek:

Nevyn

I've been trying to get dunagrees for my daughter, even pink ones.
They would be so much better for her then someone the skin tight leggings and low cut tops which pass for preteen clothes atm.

ztoical

liah wrote: »

And yet plenty of people are wholly unaffected by the above and have managed to see through the bs. Are you implying that women aren't intelligent enough to do so? I seriously doubt it.

Media is a scapegoat for people who are unwilling to honestly examine their own actions and feelings. The problem is the individuals being unable to separate themselves from these images rather than the actual images themselves.

I'm not saying woman, I'm saying all people. No not everyone is affected by advertising and the media but a very high % of the population is and people are very naive as to how much of a role it plays in our own personal make up. Woman don't breastfeed because marketing ads make it seem like your a bad mother for doing so. It's a huge issue in Africa were women won't breastfeed but buy formula and have no way of cleaning the bottles and their babies get sick but the ads tell them to bottle fed by showing the big happy white mother and her healthy white baby. Many in the west, we're think we've become so use to mass advertising and marketing and slight arrogant in our belief that we know what they are up and are to smart to fall for it, look at examples like this in developing countries and think that doesn't happen here anymore because we are too smart to fall for it. It's not a case of me thinking women or people in general aren't smart enough, it's the fact that we're too bloody smart towards it.

Cut yourself off from everything for a week and see the difference it makes. Shows like Big Brother in it's first season was actual a good example of taking people away from the consent access to information or even in later seasons when you'd a girl refusing to drink the unbranded bottled water so condition was she by marketing. Mad Man, even though it is a drama series, is a very good account of the world of the late 1950's/early 1960's when marketing really started to take a hold, when this idea of gender was really enforced and the notion of marketing certain products to certain sections of the population.

seenitall

liah wrote: »

And yet plenty of people are wholly unaffected by the above and have managed to see through the bs. Are you implying that women aren't intelligent enough to do so? I seriously doubt it.

Media is a scapegoat for people who are unwilling to honestly examine their own actions and feelings. The problem is the individuals being unable to separate themselves from these images rather than the actual images themselves.

EDIT: sorry for the many posts in a row, I respond as I read rather than read all then respond. :x I should really reconsider that approach.

I think that you are giving an average person more credit than they deserve in the intelligence and analytical thinking stakes. By this, I don't mean just women, but since you are talking about specifically women, there it is. I think most people go through their lives pretty unaware on a higher level, really. They get up, get kids to school, get themselves to work, cultivate relationships, earn money, consume whatever products are marketed to them and watch some tv in the evening for more marketing consummation. That's about it. They are way too busy freezing the dinner leftovers or putting out kid's uniforms or coveting a new must-have fashion accesory or technical gadget to be thinking about the psychological implications of the colour pink or the nature vs. nurture debate. Besides which, they don't give a damn.

There are some people who are unaffected by marketing, or to a lesser degree anyway. Those are thinking people. They are in a great minority.

Black Swan

liah wrote: »

Women like pink stuff. Why view it so negatively? Because it's seen as feminine?

I have pink knickers from Victoria's Secret, and I've had no complaints when wearing them.

ztoical

liah wrote: »

Interestingly, Canadian media is the exact same media as the American stuff that's on most Irish TV and UK TV. We get the same products as any other English-speaking country.

It's not exactly the same, I've lived in both Ireland, the US and Canada and there are small but very important differences in the way products are marketed. The products might look the same but alot of times they aren't [most american products are pretty much all high fructose corn syrup which you won't find nearly as much of outside of the US] Advertising standards and laws are very different between the US and EU and the cultures are different. No were has the same tabloid newspaper system as the UK it's why shows like Big Brother are main news material in the UK while Big Brother in the US is barely a blip on the reality tv show radar.

liah

jokettle wrote: »

I'm in a rush so I'll try to come back and word this better later!

We also had to put up with an awful lot of influence from the church, who imo views women as second class citizens whose jobs are to look after the husband and raise the kids. There's a huge amount of pigeon holing right there from a young age; keep in mind most of us were educated in religious schools, sometimes by nuns and brothers.

Ok, I really have to go now! More coherent post later

Thaedydal wrote: »

While canada has some of the same tv and products the culture is very different then the USA.

I can get you looking in thinking we are all mad but, you just don't have the same cultural references.

Felipe Hissing Marksman wrote: »

It's not JUST media. It's the effects of advertising/media on a society which already has tons of old fashioned thinking and stereotypes. A TV ad for a pink phone isn't going to have the same effect on a Canadian teenager who goes to a mixed sex, non-uniform, non-religious school as it will on an Irish teenager going to an all-girls Catholic school with obligatory skirts, where teachers use words like 'tomboy' as an insult.

Well, this is what I mean-- there's a much deeper problem than marketing and media. Media is a correlation but not a causation and I think it's unfair to blame it as such.

It sounds like your beef is with the ignorant people who make the decisions for the country rather than the media. So why get mad about the media when it's influence really isn't that great? If Canada has the same media and products as Ireland and has such a different perspective, isn't it fair to assume that the causation is something else that isn't present?

Your comments about the church definitely seem to ring true and seem to be a much better assumption for causation than media. Canada is incredibly secular and multicultural, whereas the church's influence on Ireland limits those things severely. Media enables the attitude, perhaps-- gives it a channel through which to run-- but certainly doesn't cause it.

ztoical wrote: »

I'm not saying woman, I'm saying all people. No not everyone is affected by advertising and the media but a very high % of the population is and people are very naive as to how much of a role it plays in our own personal make up. Woman don't breastfeed because marketing ads make it seem like your a bad mother for doing so. It's a huge issue in Africa were women won't breastfeed but buy formula and have no way of cleaning the bottles and their babies get sick but the ads tell them to bottle fed by showing the big happy white mother and her healthy white baby. Many in the west, we're think we've become so use to mass advertising and marketing and slight arrogant in our belief that we know what they are up and are to smart to fall for it, look at examples like this in developing countries and think that doesn't happen here anymore because we are too smart to fall for it. It's not a case of me thinking women or people in general aren't smart enough, it's the fact that we're too bloody smart towards it.

Cut yourself off from everything for a week and see the difference it makes. Shows like Big Brother in it's first season was actual a good example of taking people away from the consent access to information or even in later seasons when you'd a girl refusing to drink the unbranded bottled water so condition was she by marketing. Mad Man, even though it is a drama series, is a very good account of the world of the late 1950's/early 1960's when marketing really started to take a hold, when this idea of gender was really enforced and the notion of marketing certain products to certain sections of the population.

But those are problems with the individuals rather than the media itself. If they didn't have the media to satiate their insecurities (or whatever else drives the behaviour) they would most certainly latch onto something else. There's enough people in the world who don't follow the standard way of living to make that much fair enough to assume.

I haven't seen Mad Men, but you mentioned it was set in the 50's/60's and say marketing took a hold around then-- interestingly women's rights have increased dramatically since then and up until then (within a span of, say, 20-30 years) hadn't changed that much.

If it was media's fault, rather than the wrong people using the media, shouldn't we by all rights still be oppressed?

Feeona

jokettle wrote: »

That quote stood out a lot for me as well; being made to feel as though there's something not quite right because I didn't love my barbies or want to hold a newborn baby or dream about my wedding is quite a hurtful thing to experience.

I was very lucky in that my mother was the sort of woman who didn't diet and didn't wear make up. As a child, I never heard her say 'I'm feeling bloated/flabby today, so I can't have dessert after dinner'. She'd go mental if we didn't clear our plates (this was during the 'black babies era!). Climbed trees when I was small, hated dolls-didn't see the point in them. Never planned my wedding in my head-the first time I heard of that phenomenon was when Ross was marrying Emily in friends (I was like WTF?). I have never felt the pressure to conform to the typical female ideal (as often seen in the media) of high heels, make up, fake tan, long nails, getting married and having two children by the age of thirty. If things have been said to me re getting married, dieting, playing with dolls etc, I actually don't remember, or I just brushed the comment aside.


I put it all down to my mother. Big up to Ma! : ) : )

Nevyn

Because media is in our faces in our daily lives and those people are usually not,
esp when you have children. I try and rear mine to be critical thinkers but it's not easy.

ztoical

liah wrote: »

If it was media's fault, rather than the wrong people using the media, shouldn't we by all rights still be oppressed?

Where did I say it was the medias fault? I said it was a result of advertising and marketing that people felt certain colours/products were seen as "girly" and if tomorrow the media decided pink was no longer a "girls colour" they could change that view if they wished. I didn't say they were to blame and people get off free from their choices. It's like junk food vs health food. Junk food companies have massive budgets to spend on marketing and advertising, most fruit and vegg companies don't. We all know the junk food is bad and fruit and vegg is good but we all still eat too much junk food. I don't blame the media for my eating of junk food, I am aware I want to eat certain junk food over others as a result of marketing but it's still 100% but choice to eat the junk food.

You ask why so many girls renounce their femininity and my point is what makes something feminine if not the marketing guy who decided this product was for girls and not boys.

Feeona

Thaedydal wrote: »

Because media is in our faces in our daily lives and those people are usually not,
esp when you have children. I try and rear mine to be critical thinkers but it's not easy.

I'm sure you're doing a top job! You think you're fighting against a huge onslaught, but what your children hear and see at home has the most important influence on their outlook

liah

ztoical wrote: »

Where did I say it was the medias fault? I said it was a result of advertising and marketing that people felt certain colours/products were seen as "girly" and if tomorrow the media decided pink was no longer a "girls colour" they could change that view if they wished. I didn't say they were to blame and people get off free from their choices. It's like junk food vs health food. Junk food companies have massive budgets to spend on marketing and advertising, most fruit and vegg companies don't. We all know the junk food is bad and fruit and vegg is good but we all still eat too much junk food. You ask why so many girls renounce their femininity and my point is what makes something feminine if not the marketing guy who decided this product was for girls and not boys.

But that's not really what my argument's about; I'm not arguing about who defined colours or whatever based on gender, as I think it's a bit of a chicken/egg situation. I'm more interested in the reasons why it's looked upon so negatively.

I just don't understand why we're so quick to shirk personal descision-making responsibility in lieu of being seen as helpless bints who can't choose for themselves or know what they really want. And I don't see why so many "non-girly" girls see "girly" girls as something to feel superior to.

We eat junk food because it's fast and it tastes good. I think we'd eat it almost as much even without the advertising, if I'm honest, just simply out of sheer convenience. The same with any product that gets large-- it gets the money to spend on advertising because people like it, the money doesn't come out of nowhere. Chicken, egg.

Either, we bought a lot of the product so they made a lot of money, realized they made a lot of money from us, and then targeted us, or, they happened to have a lot of money laying around to spend on advertising, advertised the crap out of it, and duped us into thinking it was a good product.

The products had to get established somehow. My view is that it was more likely the former than the latter, and if so, then why are we angry? We're getting what we like. I think we just don't like the idea that some stereotypes have truth to them. Just because the stereotypes are there doesn't mean anyone's forcing you to follow them and it doesn't necessarily mean they're negative, either.

pickarooney

I think many posts here show a fundamental misunderstanding of the very definition of 'media' as a conduit through which ideas are passed from X to Y, X being governments, religions, corporations - the usual big players who have been distributing their messages from on high since the year dot. In the modern era, the traditional one-way media of television, radio and newspapers are rapidly being made redundant by bidirectional/multilateral media, chiefly the internet.

This gives rise to a completely free (for the most part) rein for people to seek out information for themselves, rather than have it dictated to them... and a lot of people aren't able to cope with that.

A great many people feel safer being told what to do and will go out of their way to latch onto some ideal, any ideal in order to avoid having to make decisions for themselves and live with the consequences. A lot of people want to be told what to buy, what to wear, what to like and are only too glad for marketeers to tell them to wear pink. It's of absolutely no consequence to a company if the colour du jour is pink, yellow or sky-muggledy-grey; what's important is that the supply and demand for pink things match up, which it will, as long as supply pushes demand pushes supply.

ppink

And I don't see why so many "non-girly" girls see "girly" girls as something to feel superior to.

I feel as a non-girl it is actually the other way around. I know with certain friends they look down on me because I am not wearing glam clothes, my hair is not always perfect, I dont wear makeup.
I know a couple of "girlies" who eyball me up and down and scoff at me. Ones who are members of a gym and go regularly but dont exercise there, it is just a posing place. Ones who love to horseride but are appaled at having to clean out a stable:rolleyes:

Nevyn

liah wrote: »

But that's not really what my argument's about; I'm not arguing about who defined colours or whatever based on gender, as I think it's a bit of a chicken/egg situation. I'm more interested in the reasons why it's looked upon so negatively.

I just don't understand why we're so quick to shirk personal descision-making responsibility in lieu of being seen as helpless bints who can't choose for themselves or know what they really want.

Because a lot of women do.
Marketing and advertising have billions of money spent on them because they do effect the average Jane enough so that she buy the products.

Pink branding has become the lazy way for women to shop and for big business to market to those types of women.

Those of use who are not the type of women who fit into such main stream molds get pissed off when it is assumed we are that type or when it's held up as to be what women should aspire to.

If a woman is aware and has used critical thinking and chooses pink products fair enough, but many don't other wise advertising in that way would stop.

liah wrote: »

And I don't see why so many "non-girly" girls see "girly" girls as something to feel superior to.

Cos we know the type of vapid nonthinking women sterotype which is being aimed at us and we are not that type.

To begin with the majority of women who are on the internet in this country until very recently are those who broke away from the idea that pcs were nerdy and boy/man things only. And given the histroy of the site most of the women are not the pink/girlie type and have had to struggle against it and push to be accepted at women who think for themselves.

liah wrote: »

We eat junk food because it's fast and it tastes good. I think we'd eat it almost as much even without the advertising, if I'm honest, just simply out of sheer convenience. The same with any product that gets large-- it gets the money to spend on advertising because people like it, the money doesn't come out of nowhere. Chicken, egg.

Re pink phones, there was a lot of marketing to get more women to use them and aimed at the less tech savy women so it's seen as a way to include those type of women by making a cute pink phone. Those type of women can use it, it looks cute it fits in thier bag thats all they want to know about it, fair enough but then when people assume that all women are that way,
which marketing does, which trickles down to sales people then it pissed off women who do have the tech knowledge and want to know whats the os, the chip and the specs.

liah wrote: »

Either, we bought a lot of the product so they made a lot of money, realized they made a lot of money from us, and then targeted us, or, they happened to have a lot of money laying around to spend on advertising, advertised the crap out of it, and duped us into thinking it was a good product.

More the latter then the former when it comes to pink tech, they advertised the crap out of it knowing most women who want a pink what ever or would be more included by the product cos it was pink won't know or care about the specs.

I have looked at the pink tech specs esp when that type of branding was starting to be used here and time and time again the products were inferior a dumbed down verison.

liah wrote: »

The products had to get established somehow. My view is that it was more likely the former than the latter, and if so, then why are we angry? We're getting what we like. I think we just don't like the idea that some stereotypes have truth to them. Just because the stereotypes are there doesn't mean anyone's forcing you to follow them and it doesn't necessarily mean they're negative, either.

Stereotypes can be negative and hurtful, esp when you have to fight against them time and time again just to try and be yourself.

Ectoplasm

liah wrote: »

And I don't see why so many "non-girly" girls see "girly" girls as something to feel superior to.

I'm not so sure that this is always true. I have a friend who would fall into the non-girly category. When she says she's not a girly girl, she is just stating the truth, not being superior to those who are.

What really concerns me is when it IS true and the reasons why. I think when it is being said, it is quite often to do with the other labels that are given to 'girly' things. "Chick flicks" and "Chick lit" are two terms that do my head in. Yes they appeal to women, possibly more than men. So what happens? A cutesy sounding name is applied to them which relegates them to the realm of fluff. I personally think that is insidious. I already know I'm explaining this badly....:o

liah wrote: »

We eat junk food because it's fast and it tastes good. I think we'd eat it almost as much even without the advertising, if I'm honest, just simply out of sheer convenience. The same with any product that gets large-- it gets the money to spend on advertising because people like it, the money doesn't come out of nowhere. Chicken, egg.

Either, we bought a lot of the product so they made a lot of money, realized they made a lot of money from us, and then targeted us, or, they happened to have a lot of money laying around to spend on advertising, advertised the crap out of it, and duped us into thinking it was a good product.

The products had to get established somehow. My view is that it was more likely the former than the latter, and if so, then why are we angry? We're getting what we like. I think we just don't like the idea that some stereotypes have truth to them. Just because the stereotypes are there doesn't mean anyone's forcing you to follow them and it doesn't necessarily mean they're negative, either.

I disagree and I think you underestimate the effect of marketing and advertising in general. Do you know kids as young as 3 can recognise brands and logos? And that they make 'value' judgements about those brands? Yes, there is some element of chicken & egg, but if these companies had NEVER spent money on advertising and marketing, we wouldn't be aware of them, no matter how good/bad/indifferent their products are.

The success of advertising and marketing is down to the fact that nobody lives their lives in a hyper aware critical mode. Ads are short and snappy so they sneak in when you aren't paying attention. Of course when you stop and think you notice it's mostly BS, but it is EVERYWHERE, and hard to completely cut yourself off.

ztoical

liah wrote: »

We eat junk food because it's fast and it tastes good. I think we'd eat it almost as much even without the advertising, if I'm honest, just simply out of sheer convenience.

If that were the case who does a company like Coke, the largest name brand product, spend the more on marketing then any other company? Surely as a product that's so well established that can cut back and have a higher profit margin. Look at films like Super Size Me or books like Fast Food nation were they really tackle the way the food industry uses marketing. I think your seriously underestimating the impact that media, marketing and advertising has on our current culture.

liah wrote: »

The products had to get established somehow. My view is that it was more likely the former than the latter, and if so, then why are we angry? We're getting what we like. I think we just don't like the idea that some stereotypes have truth to them. Just because the stereotypes are there doesn't mean anyone's forcing you to follow them and it doesn't necessarily mean they're negative, either.

What sterotype? That pink is a girls colour? It's a girls colour because your told it's a girls colour, there's nothing in our history or culture that makes it a girls colour other then someone telling you it is. About two years ago there was a massive blow on this forum over the whole girly products thing were someone had purchased in an external hard drive and was so happy that they could get it in pink. Woohoo, but then several people pointed out that she could have got a better hard drive for less money but this one wasn't in pink so no, they went with a poorer quality product and paid more for it just because it was pink.

Buying something because you like it is fine but have a reason other then it's for girls. Go read the Chick flick thread on the film forum, really good discussion on chick flicks and why the majority are utter sh!t yet woman flock to them in massive droves. I will look down on women for doing that because while it keeps me and several friends employed it's annoying as all hell that production companies won't move away from the horrible cookie cutter chick flick film formula and produce good films. I will go see anything in the cinema and there are several really crap films that I will say I enjoy with no shame but I can tell you exactly what I enjoyed about them. The majority of people I speak to who go to chick flick cookie cutter rubbish like say Bride Wars [personal hatred for this one] can't tell the difference between it and the other 20 exactly the same pieces of rubbish films they've watched and then refuse to go watch anything else. I don't just aim this at so called girly girls - anyone who only goes to one type of film, nothing wrong with that but the view of not being open to go see anything else is sad and annoying. I'm a girl I can't watch violent/horror/slasher films, I'm a boy I can't watch romantic/foreign films - this is why I go to the cinema by myself cus if I went with friends I'd never get to see anything.....I think I may have wander off into a different rant there

liah

ppink wrote: »

And I don't see why so many "non-girly" girls see "girly" girls as something to feel superior to.

I feel as a non-girl it is actually the other way around. I know with certain friends they look down on me because I am not wearing glam clothes, my hair is not always perfect, I dont wear makeup.
I know a couple of "girlies" who eyball me up and down and scoff at me. Ones who are members of a gym and go regularly but dont exercise there, it is just a posing place. Ones who love to horseride but are appaled at having to clean out a stable:rolleyes:

Oh I hated those last ones when I used to go riding. I'd be right in there in the muck and the sweat with hay in my hair at the barn for the whole day and the little brats would come in to their horse already tacked up, go ride, and then throw their still-tacked-up horse back in the barn for someone else to take care of. Infuriating stuff! :mad:

But those girls aren't nasty because they're "girly," they're nasty because they're nasty and nasty people will pick anything to demean a person just to feel superior. You could dress the same as them and I'm sure they'd still find something to hate you for.

It's a people problem, not a media problem.

ppink

liah wrote: »

Oh I hated those last ones when I used to go riding. I'd be right in there in the muck and the sweat with hay in my hair at the barn for the whole day and the little brats would come in to their horse already tacked up, go ride, and then throw their still-tacked-up horse back in the barn for someone else to take care of. Infuriating stuff! :mad:

But those girls aren't nasty because they're "girly," they're nasty because they're nasty and nasty people will pick anything to demean a person just to feel superior. You could dress the same as them and I'm sure they'd still find something to hate you for.

It's a people problem, not a media problem.

I spent ages helping a friends teenager with a horse she had just got. We washed her, practised plaiting, showed her how to tack up etc etc etc. Was helping her muck out when I turned around and no sign of teenager:eek:. I was mucking out a stable of a horse that was not mine and no sign of the owner. bless her she was tired and had to go lie down:rolleyes:.
I felt like that little girlie was just laughing at me from the couch as she was flicking channels on tv!!!
I do wonder about a lot of the girls these days in that "mummy" has brought them up to be little princesses and they will not put themselves out for anybody.

liah

Thaedydal wrote: »

Because a lot of women do.
Marketing and advertising have billions of money spent on them because they do effect the average Jane enough so that she buy the products.

Pink branding has become the lazy way for women to shop and for big business to market to those types of women.

Why is that a bad thing? Each party is getting what they want, and those who don't want it don't buy into it.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Those of use who are not the type of women who fit into such main stream molds get pissed off when it is assumed we are that type or when it's held up as to be what women should aspire to.

This is the part I don't get. Where has anyone said, in the last, I don't know, 20 years, that a product is ONLY for girls because it's pink, and ALL women should buy into it?

IMO, those products are targeted at the kind of women who buy those kinds of products. Or at least that's how I choose to see it. Any advertising has a target market. Girly girls are their market. You're not in that market, so don't buy the product. I really doubt people submit the ads thinking that literally all girls are supposed to like it.

And so what if some women aspire to be like that? It's their own choice, isn't it? Why is it something to be ashamed of? Different strokes et al.

Thaedydal wrote: »

If a woman is aware and has used critical thinking and chooses pink products fair enough, but many don't other wise advertising in that way would stop.




Cos we know the type of vapid nonthinking women sterotype which is being aimed at us and we are not that type.

And maybe they're happy enough not using critical thinking and are happy enough being led by the media. If they were truly bothered by it, don't you think they would have recognized it as an issue by now and changed it?

Even if it is "conditioning," I haven't met anyone who's unhappy because they're girly and buy into the girly image. Unhappy from other things, yes, but not the products marketed towards them.

Thaedydal wrote: »

To begin with the majority of women who are on the internet in this country until very recently are those who broke away from the idea that pcs were nerdy and boy/man things only. And given the histroy of the site most of the women are not the pink/girlie type and have had to struggle against it and push to be accepted at women who think for themselves.

I do agree that women definitely still have to do a lot of pushing to be accepted and show that we are more than fully capable of thinking for ourselves and making our own decisions. But I don't think this is the avenue in which to do it, as it alienates girly girls who like that kind of stuff, truly like it, and implies they have lower intelligence. If we want people to take us seriously we need to stop belittling each other and become confident within ourselves as a gender. And that means accepting that some girls are going to be girly, and working with it, instead of against it.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Re pink phones, there was a lot of marketing to get more women to use them and aimed at the less tech savy women so it's seen as a way to include those type of women by making a cute pink phone. Those type of women can use it, it looks cute it fits in thier bag thats all they want to know about it, fair enough but then when people assume that all women are that way,
which marketing does, which trickles down to sales people then it pissed off women who do have the tech knowledge and want to know whats the os, the chip and the specs.

And again, they know their target audience-- a lot of women just aren't into tech. If having tech in pink means more women get exposed and used to technology, then all the better. And for women who don't want pink and are knowledgeable about computers, there's plenty out there for them, too. They're targeting a market, not all women.

Thaedydal wrote: »

More the latter then the former when it comes to pink tech, they advertised the crap out of it knowing most women who want a pink what ever or would be more included by the product cos it was pink won't know or care about the specs.

I have looked at the pink tech specs esp when that type of branding was starting to be used here and time and time again the products were inferior a dumbed down verison.

Again, if it gets more women exposed to technology, then all the better. They know their target and have appealed to it. Standard business practice.

I do agree that you have a point with the specs being dumbed down, I noticed this once myself, but it's certainly not something I've seen commonly, but it's present. Was the company not called on it?

EDIT: Re: your stereotypes edit, yes, some are genuinely hurtful. But I think stereotypes like "girls like pink" are mostly harmless, it's hardly like it's saying "all women are retarded," (except, obviously, in the case aforementioned re: specs) just that they like a certain colour. It's a matter of pick your battles in my mind.

I'd gladly argue against sexism in regards to internet culture, religion, etc, but media over a colour? Meh.. bigger issues.